Risto Varanka said:Maybe recumbents aren't too well researched yet - we lack the solid empirical data to base
discussions on. Or then it's the complexity of the issue, one study can't cover all the aspects.
Or then, scientific research is not very helpful when deciding whether to ride recumbents. (How do
you research whether riding trikes is fun, for example?)
Recumbents are bicycles. They share most of the same componentry: brakes, shifters, pedals, cranks,
chain-driven sprockets, wheels, fork (in the case of all but tadpole trikes), and they are driven by
human power. Most of the technical discussions occurring in this forum are as applicable to
recumbents as to upright bicycles. Recumbents vary most significantly in the seat, handlebar, and
frame. They also lend themselves more naturally to the addition of fairings.
What is less well-known about them are the ergonomic factors, the human-machine interface. We hear
about proper fit on an upright bike. What about proper fit on a recumbent? With so many different
seating options, can one establish rules of proper fit? While there are researchers and builders of
recumbents who have a store of knowledge specific to the designs they have studied and/or built,
this information is not common knowledge within the bicycle industry.
Some say the upright bike is at an evolutionary dead-end, that improvements are incremental at best.
While this may be true, the recumbent market currently offers many different designs, none of which
have established market dominance.
Are we seeing a short-lived renaissance of a disproven technology or a coming of age of a concept
born ahead of its time?
I don't believe recumbents will replace upright bicycles, yet I don't believe recumbents will
diminish into obscurity as they did in the '30's but rather gradually increase in popularity as
their distribution becomes more widespread and as improved economies of scale make the higher
performance designs more affordable. But, I also believe that the ultimate size of the recumbent
market will grow inversely with the number of distinct designs (seating configurations and
aerodynamic profiles) that gain widest acceptance.
Jobst Brandt said:Why are recumbents so rare in contrast to standard bicycles? [...] The reasons have been presented
often and just as often have been rejected by recumbent advocates who say they are invalid.
The logic I hear often is that one doesn't see recumbents on the road (rare as hen's teeth),
therefore people must not be buying them (little or no market), therefore they're no good for
general bicycling.
But, is the market a wise judge? By appealing to the market for guidance in choosing one kind of
bicycle over another we might observe that in new bicycles and in many on the road the lugged steel
frame and fork and box section rim with 36 spokes has been replaced by the carbon fiber frame and
fork and low spoke count wheels with deep profile rims. Without discussing the technical merits of
either, shall we then conclude that these new designs are better than the older designs?
Recumbents have a long if little known history. From the late 1930's until the late 1970's recumbent
design was in a state of arrested development. Only in the last fifteen years have efforts been made
to address some of the more obvious shortcomings: weight and cost. Aging baby-boomers may give the
recumbent market a boost in the next several years, bringing economies of scale to production of
recumbents and to some of their more specialized componentry.
While I have ridden recumbents for the last several years often in preference to an upright bicycle
for transportation and recreational riding on both paved and unpaved roads, I still prefer an
upright bicycle in some situations: short in-town trips, trips that involve common carrier
transport, and trips that require frequently carrying the bicycle over or around obstacles.
Jobst Brandt continues:
Quoted message said:The research has been made by many bicyclists who discovered they preferred not to ride or buy a
recumbent.
Certainly there are many who tried a recumbent and found it did not please them. But, there are also
many who are curious about recumbents but who don't know where to find one to test ride or to
purchase. How many bike stores that sell high-end road bikes also sell high-end recumbents? For most
customers the choice is made before they even see a recumbent. There is no convenient point of
purchase and no local support infrastructure. Mail order is a possibility, but then the customer is
on his own or must prevail upon the local bike shop for servicing.
We don't see many strong cyclists on recumbents perhaps because those who are talented in youth find
their support network in a local racing club where deviation from the UCI standard bicycle is
frowned-upon if not proscribed. Some former bike racers have dabbled in recumbents, adding a
recumbent to their stable, but by the time this happens, they are usually past the peak of their
youthful fitness, and their new avocation goes mostly unnoticed.
Many new recumbent cyclists don't make it past the initial learning curve: training the muscles to
work differently and learning to balance and steer with confidence. I suspect cyclists who have
significant prior experience on an upright bicycle discover a steep learning curve as many of the
accustomed bike-handling skills must to some extent be re-learned. Most new recumbent cyclists
require several months to acquire these skills to a high degree of proficiency, far longer than a
typical test ride in a bike store parking lot, and often longer than an experienced upright cyclist
is willing to endure. Moreover, to maintain proper conditioning on a recumbent, as on an upright,
requires that it be ridden frequently.
But, I believe most of the reasons people stop riding recumbent or not start in the first place are
social. The recumbent looks different, a black sheep in the fold. Some people just don't like the
look of 'em, or they feel uncomfortable sticking out in public, bystanders staring with mouths
agape, the questions, the occasional mockery, and that's reason enough.
Recumbents, even high-end models start with a weight penalty compared to similarly priced road bikes
(e.g. chain, seat, handlebars). To make up for that many recumbent designs place the rider in a more
aerodynamic position or employ a fairing. The result is a bike that results in speeds generally
slower than an upright bike where speeds fall below those for which aerodynamics are significant
(~8-12 mph) and faster otherwise. This leads to a rubber-band or leap-frogging effect when riding
with a group of upright cyclists of similar ability, which is ultimately unsatisfying if the reason
for cycling is primarily social.
Aerodynamic recumbents offer a poor wind shadow for drafting making social group riding or
pacelining difficult with other upright cyclists. Even between various models of recumbents
performance varies significantly. Socially, recumbents work best when riding in groups of other
similar recumbents or when riding alone.
In spite of these disadvantages, I enjoy my seat time on a recumbent more than my saddle time on an
upright bike. Riding the roads I used to ride on my upright bike becomes a new experience on a
recumbent. With a fairing installed, the increased speed on level to downhill paved roads is a
thrill, well worth the effort of carrying the extra few pounds up the hill. I also like the
protection from the elements that a fairing provides--no more sunburn. And, while I still enjoy
riding in the hills, riding in flatter areas is now much more enjoyable than it ever was on an
upright bike. A recumbent is a viable alternative to the cyclist who is aware of its disadvantages,
who is willing to get through the learning curve, who has an independent and open mind, and who is
looking for a new and different human-powered experience.
--
Bill Bushnell
