Re: recumbants mostly

On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 15:26:50 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 10:37:45 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
 

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 8/31/2024 4:07 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 08:30:45 -0700, NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

Roger Merriman wrote:

Stranely enough, since I have stopped seeking higher speeds, my
cadence has speeded up a bit, but alas, my legs do not acommodate high
cadence for very long. I've gone from the low sixties to the low
seventies
 

Doesn?t sound particularly mashy cadence either low 60?s

 
Is there a difference between riding a recumbent and riding a
traditional diamond frame?
 
Smith

 
big difference. Try one out. You'll see.
 

 
I?d assume much like traditional diamond framed bikes they differ
themselves, I?ve only used myself big heavy recumbent tandem bikes.
 
Do see the semi framed two wheels ones as is a racetrack and recumbent club
near work!

 
I've done test rides on maybe 6 or 7 various models of recumbents. I've
also had about 6 friends who, for varying amounts of time, rode
recumbents. And for a while, I owned a low recumbent tricycle that was
given to me by a friend. My impressions:
 
I found two wheel recumbents more difficult to balance than normal
bikes. I think the main reason is lower polar moment of inertia with
respect to the ground. (That's for the engineers reading this.) A
recumbent bike tends to tip faster, just as a 6" ruler balanced on end
tips much faster than a yardstick balanced on end. (Extending that idea:
I've done test rides on at least two Ordinaries, or high wheel or "penny
farthing" bikes. They were amazingly easy to balance at almost zero speed.)
 
Long wheelbase recumbents have another balance detriment, which is
slower lateral reactions due to the long wheelbase. But short wheelbase
recumbents may react quicker laterally than a standard upright bike.
 
I didn't do any serious hill climbing on any recumbent, but all the
friends who rode them claimed they were much slower uphill. I'm not
positive of the reason, besides the typical weight disadvantage. Since
one's back is against the seat, it seems one should be able to generate
more leg force than on an upright bike, where one's own weight is pretty
much the limit. I suspect the inability to get one's entire body into
the action is a partial explanation, but I don't know for sure.
 

That is what folks who use them say, possibly different muscle groups, I
can see that one wouldn?t be able to do the equivalent of standing up and
using your body weight but sitting be that saddle or seat I?m unconvinced
be a disadvantage bar weight, though trikes can if geared low enough avoid
the balance point.
 
Related to that, is recumbents don?t generally do off road. Though again
related are adaptive mountain bikes and some of the bike parks have trails
that can be used, ie generally less pinch points and so on, I believe
Whistler is class leading in this?
 

I think recumbents are at a disadvantage in traffic. A low bike is much
less conspicuous. Many recumbents sport tall "safety flags" for that
reason, but I can't say how much those might help. The low position also
reduces one's view of surrounding traffic and upcoming hazards.
 

Doesn?t seem to be the case talking to others, as essentially folks go WTF
is that!

 
I'm sure I see more ahead and to the side than those I see staring
down at their front wheel. I also have a better view of the sky,
although seeing behind is not so good. I have two mirrors for that.
 

More stuff like trikes can?t use cycles infrastructure always, ie can be
too wide or so on with older cycle lanes particularly if they have added
wands, or filters with bollard or stuff like anti motorbike A frames and so
on, ie fine on flagship stuff like yes the London embankment and similar,
but hit and miss elsewhere, which is is essentially danger danger as you?d
say on the local councils side, ie they worry that some anti social kid
would use a motorbike so they prevent legitimate users, often the barriers
stop wheelchairs/mobility scooters and similar and make bikes with child
seats a royal pain as well!
 
To be fair these are being removed but plenty still about.
 

With a recumbent, hauling loads can be more of a problem, mostly because
typical panniers, bags, etc. are not designed for them. This doesn't
need to be the case (one student of mine rode, in competition, a
recumbent that won the IHPVA "Practical Vehicle" contest one year) but
as with almost anything, custom or low production bags will be much more
expensive than standard issue bags.

 
They tend to be on the whole performance focused and are small companies ie
don?t have the size or breadth of the upright bike market.
 
Ie a recumbent absolutely could be made to fit panniers I?m sure, it?s if
the market is for one?

 
Most riders seem to feel that recumbents are more comfortable than
upright bikes. That's an advantage.
 
Aerodynamics seem to be a bit better on a recumbent, but not greatly
better. The friend who rode a recumbent most recently would coast the
same speed I would when I was on my aero bars or in a full tuck. Of
course, I'd have to come out of the tuck to pedal, when he would just
resume pedaling. But some have claimed that the churning of the
out-front cranks and legs imposes extra drag. A partial nose fairing may
help that.
 
I'm told a recumbent is typically much tougher to transport than a
normal bike. (So is our tandem, BTW.) A couple of my recumbent friends
bought vans specifically to haul those bikes.

 
To be fair this is also the case with modern MTB which are frankly huge, my
gravel bike wheels off will go in an even a small car boot, MTB not a
chance!
 

 
I think a very significant point is that all my mentions of friends
riding recumbents are past tense. I don't know anyone who rides a
recumbent today. Every one of them eventually decided the disadvantages
exceeded the advantages.
 
 

Depends on one?s situation the folks I know tend to be disabled in some
way, and a trike in particular enables stuff.
 
They are fairly rare to be seen though is a club that I see occasionally
near work as they have race circuit, but yes definitely fairly niche mind
you saw a Moulton other day, I do occasionally see one around Kingston.
 
Which leads me to the though it?s less about the technical more about
markets and so on.
 
Yes a recumbent gravel bike or Moulton, will have technical challenges, the
Moulton is likely to be more adaptable it?s small wheels would let it down
eventually and rim brakes aren?t going to hold on if one pushes on, but
would do better than the Recumbent which I can see working well on gravel
roads but once into more variable and more technical terrain is going to be
limited, mainly inability to shift one?s weight around.
 
<https://azub.eu/ride-gravel-in-comfort-and-style-on-the-azub-max-700/>
 
<https://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/models/XTB.html>
 
Roger Merriman

 
https://www.nextstopwhere.com/2017/08/10/touring-on-a-recumbent-bicycle-everything-you-need-to-know/
 

Seem to be standard panniers, so yes I’m not sure that Franks argument that
they are worse or rather non standard.

I have a big basket that slides on and off my Topeak rack which
normally carries a Topeak trunk bag. I could use the Topeak trunk bag
that has built in paniers, or I could sling a regular panier over the
rack under the trunk bag. I have a pair of bags that fit behind the
seat, out of the wind stream. I've seen trikes with big bags hanging
off the back of a triike's  seat. I have no doubt I can carry more
"stuff" on my Catrike than anybody can on a standard diamond frame
with panniers.  Of course, I have no reason to do so.

Clearly some recumbents will be not suitable but then same goes for
uprights, not all road bikes will take a pannier rack, I have new edition
to my fleet a road bike for faster commuting and wind avoidance as the old
bomb proof commuterised MTB is a total wind catcher.
>
But did need to choose a road bike with care so it had mounts for a rack as
not all do. Can fit get luggage that fits ie huge saddle bags and stuff
that mounts to the QR/though axels but it’s non standard and a faff.
>
This said that link is rather rosey opinion piece, if one is sweating
properly will need more than cotton underwear, not padded Lycra shorts but
perhaps un padded tights or similar to stop chafing.

I use chafe guard for the same reason runners use it. It's probably
more common with male runners.

The race folks seem to wear what a roadie would.
>
Breathing unless someone is going for best time and attempting to hold, an
aero flat back which unless you train for will restrict your lungs, but
most tourers have fairly upright posture and it’s a non issue.

One of the first things I noticed with a recumbent was how much better
I could breath.

One has to be careful with “it’s said that they are slower uphill” this
said the ones I do encounter do seem to conform to the stereotypes ie bit
quicker on the flat but bit slower up. I’m unconvinced that the one can use
your back more, the fast recumbent folks seem to have similar build to
roadies ie light weight but fit, vs say DH MTB or Track sprint folks who
are more beefy!

When it cools down a bit I will take on the hilly section of the
Suncoast Trail north of Hwy 50 again. There's 12 miles of short
5-6-7-8 percent grades that really enjoy riding up and back once or
twice a year. Last time was last October. I should do it more often
even though it requires a 40 mile drive both ways. Climbing hills on
the Catrike isn't nearly as big a problem as some people try to make
it out to be...  even for a 200 pound 80 year old on 45 pounds of bike
and gear. ...and the downhills on the Catrike. Easy 40 MPH and that's
without cranking.

The speeds they claim loaded are pedestrian really, I took the bike via
train to my folks recently, yes it’s a old MTB so big fat tires and sorted
panniers/bar bags in terms of weight placement, but it’s rock solid, and
perfectly happy descending at those speeds and above, particularly though
corners which it just rails.
>
And with all that weight the idea of lifting the rear wheel? Even with
disks it’s very unlikely at worse the rear will start scrubbing but on a
road even at speed it will comfortably stop with just the rear.
>
Roger Merriman
>
>