Unhappy bentriders ?

09-25-2003, 09:57 AM

I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is
expensive and I'm not sure I will really like it in the long term. I've
read a lot of stuff explaining all the advantages of the bent thing.

As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I
will find them on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
stopped using it ? If so, why ?

Thanks for the advice

Jacques

09-25-2003, 10:27 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is
> expensive and I'm not sure I will really like it in the long term. I've
> read a lot of stuff explaining all the advantages of the bent thing.
>
> As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I
> will find them on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
> Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> stopped using it ? If so, why ?
>
> Thanks for the advice

I've never ridden one, but one thing which I think might bother me a
bit is the lower height-of-eye, making it more difficult to see over
or through other vehicles. I've found that if a vehicle is too
tall for me to see over on my DF bike, I can usually see
through its windows, so I'm not completely blocked. I doubt most
bents would be high enough to do that.

Whether that would be enough to turn me off of a 'bent completely, I
wouldn't know without trying it.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

09-25-2003, 10:53 AM

"jacques" <jamnospam@bluewin.ch> wrote in
news

an.2003.09.25.17.57.53.690563@bluewin.ch:
> Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> stopped using it ? If so, why ?

I have a recumbent that I use only occassionally. I use my upright road
bike most of the time. Some reasons, in no particular order, why I don't
like the recumbent:

1. Low seat position makes you less visible in heavy traffic
2. You can't turn around to look at traffic behind you. Most recumbent
riders rely heavily on mirrors (often multiple mirrors), but looking back
on an upright bike gives you a much better view. This is a big problem
when you're trying to merge/turn left through multiple lanes of high speed
traffic.
3. Acceleration is poor. This can be a big problem when you're trying to
cross a busy street at a 2-way stop (you have a stop sign and cross traffic
doesn't). This is especially a problem on uphills.
4. The longer wheelbase makes recumbents difficult to maneuver through the
various types of barriers on bike paths. I often have to pick the bike up
and carry it over the barriers.
5. Fixed seating position and long wheelbase make recumbents more
difficult to maneuver in traffic. You can't use "body english" to make
quick turns.
6. The acceleration profile of a recumbent is different from upright
bikes. On group rides, I always get dropped at stoplights and hills and
have to work hard to catch up. You can't really draft an upright bike
either.
7. Any claims that recumbents are *always* faster than upright bikes is
BS. Recumbents are faster when fully faired, but fully faired upright
bikes are really fast, too. Unfaired recumbents are no faster than
unfaired upright bikes at recreational speeds. You may gain an aero
advantage at 30mph, but I don't hit that very often.

Recumbents are great if you're going on long rides on low traffic rural
roads. The big seat is really comfortable on century rides. If you ride
in a big city or in the suburbs during rush hour, recumbents can be pretty
exciting.

That's just my personal experience. I'm sure others have different
experiences.

09-25-2003, 11:52 AM

"jacques" <jamnospam@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news

an.2003.09.25.17.57.53.690563@bluewin.ch...
> ...Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> stopped using it ? If so, why ?
>
> Jacques

Jacques -

I ride a recumbent and like it, but recognize that there is too much
pro-recumbent hype
in the recumbent news groups.

Here are some drawbacks that I have noticed, but weren't noted by Mr. Kerber
or George.

+ Weight. Recumbents weigh more than an upright bicycle of equivalent
cost or quality.
The extra weight is primarily in the seat, chain, and steering. I
don't know what the
typical recumbent weight 'penalty' is, but it is probably on the order
of 5 pounds (2 kg.).

+ Recumbent butt. Some riders never have a problem with this, but some
riders cannot
ride certain models for more than 20 minutes without getting an ache in
the sit region.
I am one of the latter. I found a recumbent style that I like, but
other styles don't work
for me.

+ Numb toes and feet. This is fairly common among recumbent cyclists.
Many recumbent
owners claim that various remedies (wiggling toes, wider shoes,
sandals, orthodics,
different style of seat, etc.) solve the problem for them, but some
riders continue to have
this problem.

+ Sore knees. This seems to be more of a problem with recumbents than
with upright styles,
especially in the first 2-3 weeks. Part of the reason for this is the
inability to stand up when
the steepness/fitness quotient exceeds the bicycle's lowest gearing.
As a result, recumbent
cyclists try to always spin and are much more likely to install shorter
cranks than are cyclists
in general.

+ Quality of design and manufacture. These days, most recumbents no
longer look like they were
made in your neighbor's garage with a welder, but the quality of design
and manufacture is
still far behind that of upright bicycles. There are reasonably
widespread problems in the
recumbent world, such as slipping seat clamps or idler wheels that only
last a few hundred miles,
that really do not have analogous issues in the upright world.

+ Low-speed stability. Most recumbents don't handle well at very low
speeds. Depending
upon the model and style, the minimum 'steerable' speed may be 3-4 mph.

Speed/aerodynamics is a complex topic. Many recumbent models truly are not
fast. Many others
are about as aero as an upright bicycle wtih an aero bar. A few (low
riders) are truly faster than
upright bicycles.

The way I look at it, recumbents and upright bicycles have approximately the
same number/severity
of strengths and weaknesses. For folks who simply cannot get comfortable on
an upright bicycle,
whether due to injury, body structure, or other reason, a recumbent may make
sense.

My advice is to try many different recumbents styles and put as many miles
on them as possible before
you buy. If you read the recumbent chat groups, you will notice that many
recumbent cyclists
buy new models practically as often as most of us change underwear. Think
about it.

Good luck.

09-25-2003, 12:27 PM

jacques <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is
> expensive and I'm not sure I will really like it in the long term. I've
> read a lot of stuff explaining all the advantages of the bent thing.

> As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I
> will find them on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
> Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> stopped using it ? If so, why ?

Try doing a Google Groups search on "recumbents" and read the first
article in the list.

You don't mention why you're thinking of trying a recumbent, what model
recumbent you're thinking of, where you live, or what kind of riding you
plan to do. My general suggestion is to do your research, which you seem
to be doing, and then try as many different models (long, short, high,
low, faired, unfaired) as possible before making a decision. You'll like
some better than others, but they're all going to feel different.

--
Bill Bushnell

09-25-2003, 04:30 PM

"David Kerber" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].net...
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> > I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it
is
> > expensive and I'm not sure I will really like it in the long term. I've
> > read a lot of stuff explaining all the advantages of the bent thing.
> >
> > As a skeptical person I would like to have the cons too. I don't think I
> > will find them on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
> > Is there somebody here who has owned a recumbent, not liked it, and
> > stopped using it ? If so, why ?

Very good question. I've owned 4 recumbents so far. They're the most fun
you can have on two wheels, IMO. There are some down sides, however:

- Lowered stance means reduced visibility (so get an orange flag...)
- Some 'bent's are hard to pick up and carry
- Harder to transport, in some cases, than upright bikes (varies a lot)
- Non-standard tires are hard to find (so buy some spares)
- They're pretty expensive (but so are good upright bikes)
- Can't hop curbs on a 'bent
- Can't stand to climb or sprint (but you can sprint)
- LWB 'bents have a large turning radius (SWB's can turn on a dime)
- Not welcome in roadie pelotons (due to "buzz saw" up front)
- Slower when climbing hills (but only slightly)

That's a pretty good outline of the possible criticisms of recumbent bikes.
Recumbents vary wildly in their handling, transportability, price,
performance, height, etc. They're not all alike (as uprights tend to be).
Thus, it's hard to make blanket statements about them. However, I think most
of the above statements are largely true for most 'bents, to varying
degrees. There are exceptions to every rule, naturally.

That said, I'm very glad to own and ride a recumbent (two, actually). I've
owned 5 of them, including the world's fastest production bike, an M5 Low
Racer (holds half a dozen world speed and distance records). My RANS Rocket
is one of my favorite bikes, and always puts a smile on my face. In fact, I
liked the Rocket so much that I sold the M5 Low Racer, which was a beast to
ride (but fun, and fast). The next recumbent I buy will probably have
underseat steering, which I prefer.

> I've never ridden one, but one thing which I think might bother me a
> bit is the lower height-of-eye, making it more difficult to see over
> or through other vehicles. I've found that if a vehicle is too
> tall for me to see over on my DF bike, I can usually see
> through its windows, so I'm not completely blocked. I doubt most
> bents would be high enough to do that.

You'd be correct. It is an issue that I notice while riding 'bents,
especially low racers and trikes.

> Whether that would be enough to turn me off of a 'bent completely, I
> wouldn't know without trying it.

You should ride one, just to see what you think. I can almost guarantee that
the ride will put a smile on your face, if nothing else. I ride 'bents
mostly because they're a hoot, and because they're comfy. Oh, and they're
pretty fast too.

-=B=-

09-25-2003, 05:35 PM

Bill Bushnell wrote:
> jacques <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> > I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because
> > it is expensive and I'm not sure I will really like it in the long
> > term. I've read a lot of stuff explaining all the advantages of the
> > bent thing.

Another thing to think about - recumbents generally require some kind of
specialized carrier for your car - they don't fit on the standard roof
rack or hitch mount.

--
Check out my bike blog!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-25-2003, 09:08 PM

"jacques" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> I may consider buying a bent in the next months. I hesitate because it is
> expensive and I'm not sure I will really like it in the long term. I've
> read a lot of stuff explaining all the advantages of the bent thing.

All I can tell you is, be sure to test ride before laying down your
money.

I have not owned a 'bent, but I have spent long enough with two
different 'bents to get to know them. The ones I tried were dreadful,
with quirky and unpredictable handling characteristics that never
allowed me to relax and enjoy the ride. I ride chopper bikes often,
and these recumbents were worse handling than most choppers.
Fortunately for you, I don't think either kind I tried is still being
manufactured (one was an Infinity LWB and the other was a BikeE).

Remember that there is good handling, and there is handling "you can
get used to". They are not the same.

Chalo Colina

09-26-2003, 05:13 AM

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:30:58 -0500, "B. Sanders" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>That said, I'm very glad to own and ride a recumbent (two, actually). I've
>owned 5 of them, including the world's fastest production bike, an M5 Low
>Racer (holds half a dozen world speed and distance records). My RANS Rocket
>is one of my favorite bikes, and always puts a smile on my face. In fact, I
>liked the Rocket so much that I sold the M5 Low Racer, which was a beast to
>ride (but fun, and fast). The next recumbent I buy will probably have
>underseat steering, which I prefer.

I was in a shop yesterday and looked at the Rans Rocket. I was kinda
put off by the 20" rear wheel, but I feel like it's just an visual
thing with me. Are there any practical advantages to the matched 20"
setup over the traditional bent wheel setup of a larger rear/smaller
front? The only thing I could come up with is that the 20" rear wheel
would be a little tougher, as I'm no lightweight.

Why do you prefer USS?

Thanks,

__________________
-= ®atzofratzo =-

®emove The fleA to reply

09-26-2003, 06:31 AM

> Are there any practical advantages to the matched 20"

You only have to carry one size spare tube.
B

(remove clothes to reply)