Recumbant cycle

Peter Clinch said:

John Openshaw said:

Yeah, heres what I've found... Very quick downhill and on the flat, very slow uphill.

A lot of that depends on the actual design. On mine (an HPVelotechnik Streetmachine GT) I'm slower
up a hill than on my old upright tourer or MTB, but that isn't necessarily slow in an absolute
sense. On a local CTC ride 12 of us took on a nasty hill up from Balmerino. 3 people got off and
walked, I left 9th and arrived 3rd, 1st and 2nd had good head starts on me. Afterwards the ride
organiser said she'd been asked by a couple of folks on that trip if 'bents were really easier to
ride up hills! Also note that slow is not quite the same thing as "difficult": you generally just
spin low gears and trundle up.

I had my first experience of recumbents over the holiday period out in Sacramento - 4 hours on a
BikeE and 30 mins with a Sun EZ1 - both LWB ASS. One thing I noticed was the fact that I seemed to
be shifting a lot more than normal, and would immediatley 'slow up' on ascending. From experience, I
obviously cannot verify the reality of 'bent legs' or not, but apart from 'slowing right up, and
shifting right down', I did get the feeling that, providing I had the gears, I could keep this up
for some time.

Personally, this slowing up wouldn't really worry me, I just see it as a trade off. Providing I
'could' I wouldn't worry too much about how long it took. On the flip side, on flater terrain, the
feeling of being able really 'take in' your surroundings was quite wonderful.

But I was fortunate - I had the luxury of a beautiful bike trail. Not sure how I'd feel about riding
in some of the traffic over here. I could see me being a strictly 'night-rider'!

gb [test riding]

Quoted message said:

Quick on the flat and downhill will also depend on the design. Something like the HPVel Spirit
isn't, to be honest, but OTOH it isn't *meant* to be (it's meant to be an easy to ride, practical
and comfortable urban utility bike, and AFAICT it succeeds). But any 'bent which is remotely
performance oriented is better than an equivalent upright into the wind and should be a real
screamer down hills.

Quoted message said:

Harder to fit on your roof-rack/in the car and a lot of
trains will not take them.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Comparatively comfortable (I get pins and
needles in arms/shoulders after a while on a 'normal bike'😉 and its nice to be looking up and
around.

"comparatively" is about an order of magnitude IME. For short trips most bikes are comfortable
*enough* and if it's short it doesn't matter that much. But with several hours, why would you take
a less rather than more comfortable option, if you had it?

Quoted message said:

Not good for going out pootling with
friends/wife as you can't turn your head around to chat as easily!

Mileage varies: I use mine for exactly this and it's never been a problem. More radical designs
like lowracers might not be quite so sociable, mind.

Quoted message said:

You also get a lot of people staring

And asking questions. You'll get a lot of people laughing at you, and a lot of people thinking
you're the coolest thing on wheels. They are very ostentatious, and I wouldn't recommend them to
anyone who is genuinely uncomfortable standing well out from the crowd.

Quoted message said:

I dont want to promote anyone in particular, but I visited a recumbent chappy at a place near Ely
and for a small fee you get to ride various bents and trikes. Trikes really were fantastic fun!

Sounds like D-Tek. The other Usual Suspects are Kinetics in Glasgow, Futurecycles in Surrey, London
Recumbents and Bikefix in London.

As suggested by the first paragraph there are recumbents and recumbents, with a much wider set of
designs than typically found in the upright world. If you're trying 'bents out make sure the ones
you look at are relevant to your intended use. Mine is designed as a tourer, it wouldn't make any
sort of race bike, for example (compare to something like a Super Galaxy upright tourer, where if
you take the 'guards and racks off and pop on a different set of back cogs and tyres you'd have
something not too far off a performance machine).

Pete.

Simonb said:

Danny Colyer said:

$350 <--Huh?! $800 <--Uh??!!

$imon

Quite. I really hope that is some keyboard setting wibble or 7 bit/b bit bafflement. But I
suspect it isn't.

OTOH, I hear that $350 just aint worth the same these days.

Not Responding said:

Simonb said:

Danny Colyer said:

$350 <--Huh?! $800 <--Uh??!!

$imon

Quite. I really hope that is some keyboard setting wibble or 7 bit/b bit bafflement. But I suspect
it isn't.

OTOH, I hear that $350 just aint worth the same these days.

I was very tempted to bring home brand new Sun EZ1 from the LBS in Sacramento over the
holidays....for $477. That's about £320 ish?

That's a reasonable bike for ya buck. Brilliant value.

And a new Rans V-2 is about $1300. ransbikes.comV2.htmOpen ↗

Or if you want a SWB check out ActionBent....the reviews are extremely favourable........so is the
price - $665 actionbent.comhun.htmlOpen ↗

Find that kind of value here?....not yet, that's for sure.

gb

In "]news:[email hidden],
Danny Colyer <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

As suggested by the first paragraph there are recumbents and recumbents, with a much wider set of
designs than typically found in the upright world.

Someone should probably post the recumbent FAQ. I think I'll do it: ihpva.orgFAQOpen ↗

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Q. How much do they cost?

A. Recumbents start at around $350 and can go as high as you want to pay. Because of their low
production volumes, a recumbent tends to be more expensive than a mass-produced upright bike.
So when comparing prices, bear in mind you're buying a custom or very low production bike.
Expect to pay $800 or more for a high quality bike. This price range will give you very good
components, a good frame and less weight.

???

Are they selling recumbents in Wal*Mart in the states or something? $350 is under £200 at current
exchange rates. If I'd have known you could get something high quality for £500, then I may have
jumped at the opportunity.

Of course in this area, just cycling round as an adult (not in (manual) work clothes) is weird
enough, and I get shouted at enough by kids (something along the lines of "there's a white hot bit
of metal on the front of your bike". "Yes, it's called a light"😉 anyway. That said, I cycled past 3
girls riding on the pavement the other day, and distinctly heard one say, "Ooh, that's a good idea,
me mum said we should get some lights". So it's not all bad. Anyway, I don't feel like sticking out
any more, so a recumbents out. That and the fact I already got my £500 bike

A

I quoted and simonb reacted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

$350 <--Huh?! $800 <--Uh??!!

prompting [Not Responding] to respond::

Quoted message said:

Quite. I really hope that is some keyboard setting wibble or 7 bit/b bit bafflement. But I suspect
it isn't.

OTOH, I hear that $350 just aint worth the same these days.

Obviously the FAQ was written by a Merkin. I cut and pasted it from the IHPVA website, basically a
Merkin institution.

FWIW, I don't think the FAQ's changed at all since I first read it 9 years ago. OTOH I don't believe
recumbent prices have changed much in that time, although you now get more for your money. (I can't
help feeling that there's something wrong with the logic in that sentence).

Come to think of it, maybe prices *have* come down a bit. In 1995 my shortlist included a Kingcycle
(GBP1500), a Longstaff Street Glider (GBP1350) and a Vision R40 (GBP995)[1]. In 2000 (when I was
finally able to afford that kind of money) the basic price of the Street Machine (which I suppose is
roughly equivalent to a Street Glider with full suspension added) was GBP1100, though I paid GBP1600
including extras.

[1] Would you believe I still have a Future Cycles price list dated April 1995 on file?

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Ambrose Nankivell wondered:

Quoted message said:

Are they selling recumbents in Wal*Mart in the states or something? $350 is under £200 at current
exchange rates.

I searched around a bit and found mention of 2 recumbents retailing for $350 during the 90's.

One was a ReBike. The bike was described as "a boat anchor" and the manufacturer is no longer
in business.

The other was the Easyracers EZ-1: easyracers.comez 1 lite.htmOpen ↗

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Garry Broad said:

But I was fortunate - I had the luxury of a beautiful bike trail. Not sure how I'd feel about
riding in some of the traffic over here. I could see me being a strictly 'night-rider'!

Some people feel that about bikes in general, and then you get out and do it and it isn't as bad as
you'd thought. Took me about a month before I was *as* happy in traffic as I was on my old upright.
Sounds a long time, but that's catching up to almost 30 years upright experience, and it took less
than that before I was quite happy in traffic. I can't remember thinking "wish I was on an upright
here!" when negotiating traffic. I've often wished I was on the 'bent when I was negotiating big
headwinds! Dundee traffic is relatively benign, but Dave L. commutes in the Smoke every day on a
Speedmachine, which is hardly optimised for visibility and low speed control in traffic compared to
some models.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

davebee said:

I have just come accross these from browsing through the web. Although they might look a bit daft
they look awesome fun to ride and much quicker and easier than a normal bike. Has anybody else got
any experience of riding these umm contraptions?

Proponents of recumbents do tend to say that they're less of a drag and that seat is a great deal
more comfortable than on an upright. They may be right, but right now I quite like being able to see
over the roofs of the traffic queue in front of me.

velorution.blogspot.comlittle%20wheels.jpgOpen ↗ -- Wouldn't catch me on one of these things.
Well okay, maybe. Oh, go on then.

--
Andrew Chadwick You never hear a Cricket crowd chanting "who's the [censored] in the hat?"

Andrew Chadwick said:

Proponents of recumbents do tend to say that they're less of a drag and that seat is a great deal
more comfortable than on an upright. They may be right, but right now I quite like being able to
see over the roofs of the traffic queue in front of me.

So people often say. But aside from being able to count the cars in front more accurately this isn't
actually as a lot of people seem to imagine IME. Do you find you're completely at a loss with what
to do next if there's a truck in front of you that you can't see over?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Andrew Chadwick said:

[...] right now I quite like being able to see over the roofs of the traffic queue in
front of me.

So people often say. But aside from being able to count the cars in front more accurately this
isn't actually as a lot of people seem to imagine IME. Do you find you're completely at a loss
with what to do next if there's a truck in front of you that you can't see over?

Not at all, though it does affect my behaviour slightly: I'm more careful around them, and I give
them more room.

Hmm. Perhaps I've just described a kind of clear view compensation around normal auto traffic: I can
concentrate my attention two or three cars ahead, so perhaps I ride closer to the car in front than
I would otherwise. (Actually, the controlling factor should be whether the driver of the vehicle in
front can see you easily, not whether you can see past, and that's how I try to judge.)

--
Andrew Chadwick You never hear a Cricket crowd chanting "who's the [censored] in the hat?"

Andrew Chadwick said:

Hmm. Perhaps I've just described a kind of clear view compensation around normal auto traffic: I
can concentrate my attention two or three cars ahead, so perhaps I ride closer to the car in front
than I would otherwise. (Actually, the controlling factor should be whether the driver of the
vehicle in front can see you easily, not whether you can see past, and that's how I try to judge.)

I certainly don't think the extra information does you any harm, but cycling both recumbent and
uprights through identical traffic conditions a fair bit (depending on the nature of the errand at
hand I'll be on the Brompton, 'bent or 8 Freight) I haven't noticed any obvious change in my
behaviour on the 'bent, nor wishing I'd brought one of the uprights instead.

Better visibility is a good thing, true. But OTOH so is better braking. You choose, you lose... IME
most of the things people seem to rule out 'bents for are things those of us riding them thought
might be a problem but which in practice turned out not to be. Only way to be sure is try one: they
certainly aren't The Best Solution for everyone and everything.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Dundee traffic is relatively benign, but Dave L. commutes in the Smoke every day on a
Speedmachine, which is hardly optimised for visibility and low speed control in traffic compared
to some models.

Well, he would be if he could persude the thing to go back together. There is something Not Right
about the forks, in that the lower "headset" bearing appears not to want to seat itself fully in the
head tube. Bah!

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

davebee said:

I have just come accross these from browsing through the web. Although they might look a bit daft
they look awesome fun to ride and much quicker and easier than a normal bike. Has anybody else got
any experience of riding these umm contraptions?

I've been riding a trike since Christmas, and have done about 250 miles so far.

Speed wise, fun and fast downhill. You get faster going uphill and cruising as you get stronger. I
find the recumbent is building up the outside of my legs more, and when I go back onto the upright,
I feel it more on the insides and behind. I must remember to keep switching bikes, as riding
recumbent too much I can lose strength on the upright.

With lots of low gears available, you can pick the gear to suit you, and climb however slowly you
feel comfortable. It helps you get started and makes it possible to cover reasonable distances
without having to be really fit first.

They are great fun. From personal experience, cars do tend to notice you, and do give reasonable
clearance. If people didn't keep trying to tell me otherwise, I'd say it was quite visible on the
road. I think some people would rather I didn't ride it. (One person did tell me I shouldn't be
riding it because it was too visible, and distracting to other road users, rather than the usual too
invisible).

Some notes on optional extras:

The fairing is good at keeping you warmer in bad weather, but at night when wet or dirty bounces a
lot of light back - not so good for spotting potholes at speed. I don't know which to choose if
cycling back in the dark and wet - warmer legs with the fairing, or travel faster with enough light
to spot potholes well enough ahead? I may have to try playing with positioning of the lights, try
the mudguard or mirror mount points perhaps.

You can feel the road bumps on it, though a lot depends on tyre pressure. I don't have suspension,
but can see the advantage. I wanted reasonable load carrying capacity, which needs a solid rear
triangle. If I ride on to karate straight from work, I'll need the capacity for the two sets of
clothing, work shoes, lunch, any books, .... We also plan to use the trikes for camping in spring,
summer, autumn, ...

One of the reasons I chose the Narrow Track, as opposed to the Extra-Narrow-Track, was worry about
fitting myself into it. In practice, I now have my steering controls set 19" apart, and Lindsay's
ultra-narrow is set to 20". I've taken mine down to 19" to avoid spray from the wheels. Moving them
back may have achieved the same. The ultra-narrow Pioneer has smaller wheels and a higher frame so
the controls are above the mudgaurds and don't suffer this problem.

Also, unexpectedly, I can fit through the A-Frame cycle gates better. The widest parts are the
mirror mounts, and mine are lower down than Lindsay's, 19" apart not 20", and angled back at 45
degrees, so I fit easily, but Lindsay's super-narrow is a tight squeeze. Its all in the adjustment,
and the ICE trikes adjust a lot. (We both prefer our own to each others. They're both very good.
Lindsay has more rack space, but a more upright machine, ultra-narrow feels quite sleek too. I
prefer the feel of mine, though lower down takes a little initial adjustment).

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

Richard Corfield said:

(One person did tell me I shouldn't be riding it because it was too visible, and distracting to
other road users, rather than the usual too invisible).

I remember reading years ago of an incident where an elderly motorist became so engrossed in
watching the pumping action of the legs of a passing recumbent cyclist that he drove into the back
of the car in front.

I've never been accused of being too visible when on my Street Machine (nor have I been accused of
inadequate visibility). My wife has complemented me on my visibility when I've happened to be on the
same road as she was driving on, but that was to do with my lights rather than my bike (she said she
saw me and thought: "That's a well lit cyclist" before she realised who it was).

OTOH a colleague who often passes me on the way to work has commented several times that he loves
seeing the look on the faces of other motorists when I'm riding my 36" unicycle.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Danny Colyer said:

OTOH a colleague who often passes me on the way to work has commented several times that he loves
seeing the look on the faces of other motorists when I'm riding my 36" unicycle.

A friend used to cycle to lectures on his smaller unicycle. I remember watching whle building sites
turning to look. 36" must be quite big though.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

Richard Corfield said:

A friend used to cycle to lectures on his smaller unicycle. I remember watching whle building
sites turning to look. 36" must be quite big though.

It's about three feet, I think.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Richard Corfield said:

Quoted message said:

A friend used to cycle to lectures on his smaller unicycle. I remember watching whle building
sites turning to look. 36" must be quite big though.

to which Ian Smith responded:

Quoted message said:

It's about three feet, I think.

Damn, you beat me to the sarky comment.

Anyway Richard, it's about this big:
url:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/unicycling/gallery/020531co ker.jpg

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Richard Corfield said:

A friend used to cycle to lectures on his smaller unicycle. I remember watching whle building
sites turning to look. 36" must be quite big though.

It's about three feet, I think.

But does he practise in the yard?

--
Dave...

Dave Kahn said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Richard Corfield said:

A friend used to cycle to lectures on his smaller unicycle. I remember watching whle building
sites turning to look. 36" must be quite big though.

It's about three feet, I think.

But does he practise in the yard?

I expect so, but doesn't use even a twenty-second of a chain.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's about three feet, I think.

But does he practise in the yard?

I expect so, but doesn't use even a twenty-second of a chain.

And he still looks as if he's perching on a pole. And he can't keep it up furlong, either.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗