Re: New wide platform spd pedals

Am 01.09.2024 um 03:08 schrieb Frank Krygowski:

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.

I reject your root cause analysis here.  The main reason for the different handling is due to the fact that on the recumbent, most of the body mass is fixed to the bike (it's extremely hard to ride a recumbent "no hands"), so on the recumbent like on the motorbike you need to balance by steering movements more than by weight shifts.

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.

I object here.  The real reason for the sentiment of "slow uphills" is that the aerodynamic advantage vanishes in a puff: in the flat, I'm 10% faster on the recumbent than on the drops of the gravel bike, and uphill I'm approximately the same speed (maybe 0.5% slower due to the extra 2-3kg bike weight).

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.

Yes, drivers are less used to seeing recumbents, plus recumbents can easily "hidden" by parked cars etc.  So I'm forced to ride on the road in the primary position to be seen where with other bikes using the secondary position or a traffic-separated bike facility is safe enough.
On one "yield to the right" jungction on my way home from work, I can see over the hedge whether it's free or not on the gravel bike but I can only see high vehicles on the recumbent, so I have to slow down more to ensure there's no sports car coming.

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.

Several German-made recumbents have space for two large panniers behind the seat and two small panniers below the seat, similar to two large panniers on the back and two small panniers on the low-riders on a road bike.

Most riders seem to feel that recumbents are more comfortable than upright bikes. That's an advantage.

Definitely.  On the gravel bike, my bum or the soft tissue between my legs starts hurting after one hour and I can't ride longer than 2 hours (this is due to not having ridden any long rides on upright bikes in the last 25 years).  Also, I have vague memories of hurting wrists after 60+ mile rides.
On the recumbent, an "un-relaxed" body posture (e.g. handle bars too far away or not straight) can cause cramps in the upper arms; some people suffer from cramps in the bum then the bike is not set up correctly.
After a 100-mile trip when I was young or a 60-mile trip now, only my muscles ache but nothing else.

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.

This strongly depends on the recumbent's design: handle bars high is a lot more aerodynamic than under-seat handle bars.  The higher the pedals are compared to the bum the more you place the upper body behind rather than above that "pedal turbulence" (but putting the feet high can have impacts on circulation.
Switching from the gravel bike to the new recumbent in 2022 immediately increased my average speed by 10% without change in the effort (a few years on I'm back to the old speed with pulse 110 where I had 130 on the gravel bike).

A partial nose fairing may help that.

Definitely.  A parital nose fairing also helped me do regular 60-mile trips in Minnesotan winter around 10F: stay our of the wind and the body keeps warm.

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.

It's the opposite for me.  I could do my 8 mile commute on the gravel bike but the new recumbent made it a lot more pleasurable.
I might be tempted by an "SUV-style" E-bike once I accept that my waning power is not good enough for steep forestry roads.