I think the post below completely misses the point of the discussion. Nobody says that recumbents are not comfortable and efficient and fun. The point is that for whatever reason, UCI or habit, they have not succeeded in getting much market share despite these efficiencies. And that is worth examining in the light of this discussion.
Here's one reason perhaps - you can easily carry an upright up and down stairs if you live in a flat. Anything longer than 1.7m (normal bicycle length) is not going to fit easily around a stair landing. As someone who lives in a flat and has to carry a bicycle up and down stairs every day the shortness means it's not too much of a struggle to get around the landing. Much as I am intrigued by the speed and efficiency arguments around recumbents, I would not want to try carrying one up the narrow stairs in our building. The Rapto for example appears to be at least 2m long overall (http://www.raptobike.nl/bikes/mid-racer/mid-racer-28-inch.html) and that's simply not going to fit around the corner. Wearing my architect hat I would guess that 1.7m is roughly the width of most stairwells.
Cheers,
Matthew.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis
Sent: 20 November 2012 01:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Nineteenth Century Bicycle Evolution[Scanned-Clean]
On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 14:00 +0000, Richard Ballantine wrote:
> Horsefeathers.
Quite right, Mr Ballantine, I agree :-). Years and years ago you
inspired me to want a recumbent with a chapter in your book entitled
something like Zzzzwwaaaaaaammmooooooooooo! I think I bought your book
in 1992 and had a first go on a long-wheelbased recumbent at Southampton
Cycling Extravaganza (those were the days...)
I finally bought my first recumbent, from Bikefix in London, in 2006 and
wondered why on earth I hadn't done so earlier. They say you'll never go
back to riding an upwrong full time after buying a recumbent...well I'm
on my second recumbent now. The Challenge Hurricane SL was rather slow
(small wheels, big potholes, rough roads) and disgraceful on hills, but
my Rapto glides along as if I am riding on silk... it's great!
On a more serious note... I agree and disagree with John's points. I'm
no scientist, so I can only answer from experience (and perhaps a little
unfitness, though I thought I was rather fit until I went riding with
Stuart and Dave from Bikefix, who left me trailing as they shot up hills
like rats up drainpipes).
>
> a) inefficient use of human physiology;
Do you mean you can't 'honk' up hills? Well, that's true, and I'm always
last away from the lights... but...
>
> b) poor hill climbing;
... I think, WRT hills only, this has more to do with gearing than the
inability to 'honk'. Instead of 'honking' you can push against the seat.
But better gearing (on my bike) would enable me to go up hills very well
indeed. My small-wheeled bike had very little inertia, so if I stopped
pedalling I pretty-much just stopped moving, which meant effort all the
way up. My Raptobike has big wheels and plenty of inertia so it rolls
halfway up the next hill before I have to start pedalling. It's true
that recumbents *are* slower on hills than upwrongs, but on the flat and
downhills, recumbents are faster. Which is why I bombed past all the
racing bikes on the Dunwich Dynamo, very often exceeding 35mph on the
flat and much faster on some delicious long gentle downhills, until the
sharp little hills started and then the Bromptonauts (racing Brompton
riders) I flew past half an hour before simply raced past me...
But don't believe me on this--I'm lazy and unfit. You do need a certain
amount of fitness to do hilly rides, and as I say, my bike could be
improved a lot with better gearing. My good friend Trevor--who is pretty
fit but certainly not a racing-snake, has fairly recently completed an
800km round-trip to the south of France and back on his Rat. He rode
there through the rolling countryside and ultimately up and over the
Massif Central--taking the route across a line of valleys. Dave McCraw,
an ultra-distance cyclist in Scotland, which is not renowned for its
flatness, has done single rides of hundreds of kilometres and often
climbed thousands of feet. And the afore-mentioned Dave and Stuart make
damn sure they include some pretty challenging little hills in the lumpy
bit of Essex. They both take on hills that would leave plenty of racing
upwrongers panting and begging for mercy.
The thing about Trevor, though, is that after he bought his Rat, his
cycling just transformed. I guess he just likes riding the thing so much
that he wants to do so all day long, day in day out. He's done several
rides from London to Somerset and his ride to the south of France, in
the space of about two years. He'd never have done that much riding
before!
Another key thing about recumbents is that they are... comfortable! One
of the reasons I wanted one for long is that my bony nether-regions
really didn't like upwrong saddles. Awgh, after 100 miles it's painful!
On a recumbent, riding the Dynamo (120 miles including a few unintended
diversions) was lovely--apart from the knees towards the end, due to the
aforementioned gearing. Other cyclists were saying "I wish I had one of
those!!". I arrived in luxurious comfort, parked my bike and took the
padded seat with me to go and lie on the beach. Advantage no.101 of
recumbents: you can use the Ventisit seat-pad to make pebbly beaches
more comfortable!
>
> c) poor and inflexible load carrying;
Nawgh, that's just not true. You can't carry much on a racing upwrong,
and you can't carry much on a flat-out performance recumbent. But then
you wouldn't want to. My Raptobike is an entry-level performance
recumbent (with some very good reviews, e.g. Dave McCraw), souped up
with bigger wheels than stock. It does a nice speed, and it carries two
standard Ortlieb panniers on the luggage rack, and can of course take
one of Nick Lobnitz' lovely Carry-Freedom trailers. I moved house using
my recumbent. Doubtless it was an amusing sight for passers-by, but then
I always was an attention seeker. The next bike will be a lovely
Challenge SL, one with a big drive-wheel at the back. I am sure that
Dave was doing 40mph on his on the home stretch from Essex; I was doing
an exhausted 27mph and he was streaking off ahead.
> d) (and as a consequence) poor weight distribution when loaded;
It's true that you have to lower the centre of gravity. Load the pannier
racks too high and you wobble a bit and you have to forget signalling,
etc. But it's not too bad and anyway, that's what trailers are for. I've
carried some serious loads with no adverse consequence.
>
> c) and the aerodynamic efficiencies claimed are mostly a consequence
> of the reduction of frontal area, which is in fact a geometric effect,
> rather than down to aerodynamic efficiency (though there is some
> efficiency gains if a streamline body is used).
My recumbent is unfaired--but I sort of think that a large part of the
point of a recumbent is that you *can* fair it effectively. It's just
easier to do so. Even a tailbox makes a difference as you behave like a
water-droplet. I guess that's why the "Rat" is so brilliant--the
ultimate recumbent in my opinion because it's made by the ultimate
cycling engineer, Mike Burrows.
I can't comment on recumbent trikes, of course--I've never had one. All
I can say is you probably can't judge bikes by your experience with
trikes. But I swear by my recumbent bike, 'cos it's just great :-).
ZZZZZZZZZWaaaaaaaaaaammooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
Richard.
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
|
