Recumbent or Bicycle

You could argue that both apply. As a recumbent is human powered and under the law it is classed a vehicle. Although I think in general fully faired recumbents/velomobiles are classed as HPV's.

Andy

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by andhar
You could argue that both apply. As a recumbent is human powered and under the law it is classed a vehicle. Although I think in general fully faired recumbents/velomobiles are classed as HPV's.

Andy

On the other forum the statement was made: I was just recently told that recumbents are not a real bike. Does anyone else think this is true? my answer was according to UCI rules a recumbent is not a bicycle but a HPV.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ric
On the other forum the statement was made: I was just recently told that recumbents are not a real bike. Does anyone else think this is true? my answer was according to UCI rules a recumbent is not a bicycle but a HPV.

Recumbent bikes fit the Webster's definition of a bicycle.

In 1933 a French recumbent ridden by Francis Faure, previously a midfield cyclist in Europan competition, came onto the scene in European racing circles. Faure and the recumbent were so dominant that it was obvious the recumbent would have obsoleted the existing DF bikes. Therefore UCI came up with a definition of a bicycle that was deliberately intended to exclude recumbents.

To be a bicycle:

1The bottom bracket had to be between 24 and 30 centimetres above the ground.

2The front of the saddle could only be 12 centimetres behind the bottom bracket.

3The distance from the bottom bracket to the axle of the front wheel had to be between 58 and 75 centimetres.

They recognized that it was indeed a human powered vehicle, but legislated it out of international bicycle competition.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ric
On the other forum the statement was made: I was just recently told that recumbents are not a real bike. Does anyone else think this is true? my answer was according to UCI rules a recumbent is not a bicycle but a HPV.

"Bi" means two. Any HPV (human powered vehicle) with two wheels which does not fly would be considered a bicycle. "Tri" means three. A 3 wheeled HPV is not a bicycle, but a tricycle. A quad of course is 4.

UCI may ban certain bicycles from competition, but they are bicycles nonetheless. They wouldn't allow a 4 kg bicycle for example, even though it may be as strong as the other bicycles. It's still a bike though.

If you want to look at some truly remarkable vehicles, look at the human powered flying machines. To qualify, they must be able to take off and land only by human power--no gliders allowed because they are pulled by some type of power before liftoff. You will notice the record for human powered flight, in which they pedal a recumbent looking vehicle with wings, is more than 5 km. I see that they evolved from the classic upright riding position to the current recumbent style. That's when they really started to fly long distances. Aerodynamics is even more important for flight.

1The bottom bracket had to be between 24 and 30 centimetres above the ground.

2The front of the saddle could only be 12 centimetres behind the bottom bracket.

3The distance from the bottom bracket to the axle of the front wheel had to be between 58 and 75 centimetres.

Do you know of a bike produced utilising the maximum constraints set by the UCI,'I'm assuming that attempts have been made', a long saddle could effectively put the bottom bracket some way forward of your actual seating position, interested.

Bernie

ric said:

Just wondering what people here think. Is a recumbent a bicycle or an HPV😕

Look at this one...looks like both were made together 😄 http://www.ransbikes.com/ITRFusionEvolution.htm

Tom