Steve wrote:
> I was so impressed with my first test drive of a recumbent bicycle
> that I was in disbelief that the world has been dominated by uprights
> for the better part of a century when an alternative, better design
> has existed.
First, the degree to which it's "better" depends what you want from it.
To many, a bike is a general purpose device and while the diamond
frame upright might not /excel/ at very much, it does do a lot of things
reasonably well in a single package.
For the most part though, people are generally conservative and will
resist change. It's often in a bit of a circular argument: obviously a
normal bike is better than that weird thing, that's why everyone rides
normal bikes!
Often, the resistance to change is quite sensible: faced with spending >
$1,000 on your first Really Good Bike, do you buy something which you
are 100% certain will be better than your current mount (the design is
broadly the same, but the implementation is much better), or do you risk
an unknown which /might/ be considerably better, but might be > $1,000
down the drain.
Also the case that facing something different, people will naturally
tend to rationalise why what they already do is right and better. I am
often told it must be dangerous being so low. I point out my head is
the same height on my 'bent as it is in my (standard sub-compact) car,
so that's a bit of a non-issue, but they will insist that it /must/ be
dangerous, and you can't confuse them with facts when their minds are
made up.
> Why is it in all that time that some big business or marketing firm
> hasn't tried to push recumbent bikes on the public? 2 minutes on
> one will convince most people it is a better product.
Back to the first point, define "better". I ride a'bent for distance
touring as I personally find it's better for that, but around town I use
an upright Brompton folder. Not as comfy as the 'bent, but a damn site
more convenient and it's only for a few minues and is comfy /enough/, so
the other conveniences win out. For local freight jobs I use a Burrows
8 Freight, where again it's the case that lower but adequate comfort is
less of an issue than how much stuff I can easily cart around (the
builder, Mike Burrows, makes recumbents as well, but figured upright
suited this job more, and I think I agree).
> The only bad thing about them is the price.
More to it than that. As well as the price, the degree to which they
are an unknown is /very/ bad: will this do what I want? ...maybe. Will
this upright do what I want? Experience says yes.
Also there are other bad things: weight, storage space, ease of
manhandling (I used to stay in a 2nd floor flat with a narrow, cornered
stair leading up to it and no external storage, and I would *not* have
had my current bike if I was still living there), degree of
standardisation of general accessories (for example, lights often clamp
onto handlebars with "standard" mounts, but try that with underseat
steering...).
> Sure, there are a lot of designs to choose from, but the guys at the
> bike shop I went to were able to narrow things down to two designs for
> me as a begginer to try. A bike company could do the same thing.
>
> I firmly believe that an affordable recumbent bicycle would get many
> regular who would not take up biking to do so.
Part of the problem is that people think of 'bents as a distinct class
of bike in the same way they think of tourers, racers, mountain bikes
etc., but that's really unhelpful. My touring 'bent should, IMHO, be
primarily thought of as a touring bike, not a recumbent bike, and it
should be compared to other tours, not necessarily recumbents. It would
be no use to someone wanting a sports machine, but other recumbent
designs would be.
Because of the way they're thought of, many cyclists don't really
realise what 'bents are /for/... "I have a tourer for touring, a racer
for fast days out, a folder for around town, a cargo bike for freight, I
don't see what I'd *do* with a recumbent". The point is it isn't an end
in itself, but a certain class of recumbent may be a better alternative
than their existing upright implementation.
In a related way, I don't think a "beginner recumbent" is a helpful
concept. No experienced cyclist would think of getting a "beginner
upright", and it's likely only experienced cyclists will fork out for a
'bent. Getting a "beginner" model, whatever that may be, is quite
possibly just going to convince that 'bents are a comfortable curiosity.
If you want to go touring, get a touring model, if you want fast, get
a fast model, don't worry about "beginner" as if you can ride a bike it
shouldn't take long to get past your newbiness.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
