Re: New wide platform spd pedals

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--
- Frank Krygowski