recumbent bicycles - would you?

jman0war

I had to loose the road bike due to a long standing problem with migraines (most likely the result of posture).

Was considering getting a MTB but the cons are:
- they are heavy, therefore will be more difficult to traverse great distances
- they get stolen a lot (i know cause i used to have one and it was stolen)
- if intended for off-roading, i'd need motorised transport to get there first.

So the other option is a Recumbent bicycle.
(Oh i shud mention that this is to be used for weekend excursions only, i already have a decent commuter bike)
But i've never tried a recumbent before.
Cons are:
- They are expensive
- They look awful
- Don't know if i'd still suffer migraines or not.
- I'd be worried about safety from other road users (motorists) due to recumbent's low profile
- Scumbags may throw stones or other projectiles more often. (does this need explaining?)

TinyExplosions

recumbent bicycles - would you?

No.

Lumen

MTBs are not necessarily heavy. Most MTBs are heavier than most road bikes, but there is significant overlap.

In any case, it's the rider that matters.

The question you need to ask yourself is: will you be comfortable wearing a helmet mirror?

jman0war

Fair enough but it would be diffiicult (and probably really expensive) to get a MTB lighter than an ordinary cheapish Road Bike (like a low end Trek or Lapierre).

And, recumbents are generally faster than road bikes.

ROK ON

Migraines. Are you sure.
Just that I get migraines and have a lot of medical testing done into the causes of them.
Get yourself checked out by a neurologist for the migraines and get a bike fit for comfort issues on the bike.

Morgan

jman0war wrote: »

i already have a decent commuter bike

Do you get migraines on the commuter bike? If not, then why not get a road-bike with a more upright posture (or whatever is most comfortable)?

I had a recumbent for a while (HP Velotechnik Streetmachine) - fun for a while but heavy, awkward and inconvenient for regular use. Fast though. Draw far too much attention for my liking too.

Lumen

jman0war wrote: »

And, recumbents are generally faster than road bikes.

On a clear flat road yes.

But I wouldn't like to race a courier through town on one.

Gavin

Morgan wrote: »

Draw far too much attention for my liking too.

Surely that's not possible ?

Morgan

Gavin wrote: »

Surely that's not possible ?

OK then, the WRONG KIND of attention...

tomasrojo

I did have a good think about getting a Windcheetah years ago, when I was getting good money (by my standards) as a junior developer during the dotcom mania. Everyone else was getting new vehicles, so I thought I might get something unusual.



Never got it in the end. You need a garage, for a start. And I reckoned it would be vandalised all the time if I locked it anywhere. I think it would have been good fun though.

blorg

I would have a recumbent already if they weren't so expensive.

More



than

jman0war

Morgan wrote: »

Do you get migraines on the commuter bike? If not, then why not get a road-bike with a more upright posture (or whatever is most comfortable)

No, but then again i haven't been on any lengthy cycles with it.
Road Bike is already gone so i'm not going to buy a new one just to do more testing.
You'll notice that actually wasn't one of my options in the OP.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

I would have a recumbent already if they weren't so expensive Planet-X sold them.

Fixed.

Chips Lovell

jman0war wrote: »

- Scumbags may throw stones or other projectiles more often. (does this need explaining?)

I don't know, people throw stuff at you no matter what you're riding. I had a beer bottle thrown at me on Friday night (they missed) and aidan.offbeat had a handful of coins thrown at him on Thursday night.

jman0war

This one actually looks like fun.
(Not manufactured anymore)

Lumen

From a little over 8kg...

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

From a little over 8kg...

Awwww. Look at the cute little aero front wheel!

jman0war

I don't like that whole Feet-higher-than-your-Head thing a lot of Recumbents seem to have goin on.

Morgan

jman0war wrote: »

No, but then again i haven't been on any lengthy cycles with it.
Road Bike is already gone so i'm not going to buy a new one just to do more testing.
You'll notice that actually wasn't one of my options in the OP.

True, but you'll be testing anyway since you don't know if a mtb or recumbent will affect your migraine issue.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

Fixed.

If Planet X sold them they wouldn't be so expensive, so, yes, I would have one.

el tonto wrote: »

I don't know, people throw stuff at you no matter what you're riding. I had a beer bottle thrown at me on Friday night (they missed) and aidan.offbeat had a handful of coins thrown at him on Thursday night.

Cycling out with him we had a length of pipe thrown at us javelin-style. Aiming for the spokes. I've had a stake go into my spokes before and it wasn't nice, hit the fork and straight over the bars.

blorg

jman0war wrote: »

I had to loose the road bike due to a long standing problem with migraines (most likely the result of posture).

Is this a medical diagnosis from a competent doctor?

jman0war

blorg wrote: »

Is this a medical diagnosis from a competent doctor?

Is there such a thing in this country?
(i had started a thread on it a few years ago on this forum)

72hundred

jman0war wrote: »

Is there such a thing in this country?
(i had started a thread on it a few years ago on this forum)

Get get really really sick so you can tell us.

blorg

jman0war wrote: »

Is there such a thing in this country?
(i had started a thread on it a few years ago on this forum)

My point is unless a medical professional told you I would be slow to believe that your migraines are coming from your position on the bike in the first place. A recumbent would be a large investment to test this hypothesis if it is just one you came up with yourself.

If you have a leg length around 33.75" I'd consider a racy recumbent... otherwise maybe not.

el tel

I'd love to give a recumbent a try for a couple of miles but wouldn't be too bothered about owning one. I barely get out on my regular bike as it is without another costly clothes-horse in the garage

jman0war

blorg wrote: »

My point is unless a medical professional told you I would be slow to believe that your migraines are coming from your position on the bike in the first place. A recumbent would be a large investment to test this hypothesis if it is just one you came up with yourself.

If you have a leg length around 33.75" I'd consider a racy recumbent... otherwise maybe not.

Well then the answer is Yes. "A medical professional" told me it's most likely posture on the road bike. Whether that person is competant or not is another story. After getting the usual fob-off from a couple GP's I went to an Osteopathic one.

Lumen

jman0war wrote: »

Well then the answer is Yes. "A medical professional" told me it's most likely posture on the road bike. Whether that person is competant or not is another story. After getting the usual fob-off from a couple GP's I went to an Osteopathic one.

Right, but that's only one opinion. Whilst road bike posture may bring on the pain, avoiding cycling the road bike need not be the answer.

I had back pain before cycling. I have back pain with cycling. As my back gets stronger I can cycle more without pain and I don't suffer from the non-cycling pain any more.

You can't expect a weak back to take the stress of cycling without specifically training it.

My suggestion (from many years of back pain including over a decade in which I didn't cycle at all) is to see a physio who knows something about cycling and is competent to advice you on fixing your back problems with exercise, but more importantly: commit yourself to a structural fitness regime which will give you better quality of life and a wider variety of cycling opportunities.

jman0war

These ones look cool:
http://www.biocycle.info/default.asp?clang=2
EU supplier too.

But, they look like leisurely cycling rather than Wicklow mnts huh?

doozerie

If your bike posture is the problem then have you tried altering it? Some of the "rules" about bike fit are nothing more than guidelines at best so if your bike was set up according to some of the traditional rules it might actually have been far from ideal (or not, but certainly worth reconsidering at least). Some useful reading resources from a post I made on another thread this morning:

doozerie wrote:

When focusing on bike fit/position, amongst the wealth of information available (some of it contradictory), the following is worth a read: Gary Klein on bike fit. Even if you disagree with his views he raises some interesting questions about traditional bike fit that are worth giving some thought to.

Some other interesting sources of info:

* Sheldon Brown on bike sizing
* Keith Bontrager on "The Myth of KOPS"

As for recumbents, I'd certainly happily ride one. They are comfortable (well, the one I tried briefly was anyway), quick, and fun too I'd expect. Was once passed by somone riding one while climbing up to Sallygap - he seemed to come out of nowhere and his speed made my friend and I look like we were going backwards, so they can go up hills pretty quickly too.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

so they can go up hills pretty quickly too.

That is really more to do with the rider; they are slower up hills (as you can't get your weight over the pedals.) Faster downhill and on the flat all being equal.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

That is really more to do with the rider; they are slower up hills (as you can't get your weight over the pedals.) Faster downhill and on the flat all being equal.

You may not be able to get your weight over the pedals, but if the seat has a back as many (all?) of them do then you do get the benefit of having that to push against. I only ever had a brief spin on a recumbent but found that you can generate a lot of power when you have something to push against - from my unscientific test I reckoned I could generate more power that way than I could by relying on my weight on a conventional bike.

The guy I saw that time on the recumbent must have climbed a lot faster than me as I didn't even see him until he passed us by, despite looking back down the climb at various points. And I wasn't climbing slowly at the time.

jman0war

yeah i think what doozerie makes a lot of sense.

If you've got a platform (seat) at your back you can get a lot of leverage into a push.
More than your body weight alone can muster, and probably more than bw+grabbing the handlebars.
Think of that yoke at the gym, sitting leg press machine?

blorg

I haven't ridden one. However most testimonals from people who have both say there is a slight penalty uphill but that they are substantially faster downhill and on the flat.

No way is a recumbent going to make you fly up a hill. That is down to the rider.

Downhill and on the flat the machine will make a big difference.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

No way is a recumbent going to make you fly up a hill. That is down to the rider.

No bike without an engine fitted will fly up a hill, or along the flat for that matter, it's always down to the rider regardless of bike. I have no doubt that the rider I saw was strong and fit but I would be very surprised if he did that particular climb faster on a conventional road bike.

gamgsam

I'd love to! They look like great fun!

FergusF

I've a fair collection of bikes including 2 folders (Dahon MU XL sport + Brompton), a Fuji touring, an 80's(?) Zeus road bike converted to fixed gear, a Kona Smoke - I enjoy riding all of them for different purposes.

I have always been fascinated by 'alternative' bikes and finally took the plunge last year and bought an ICE B1 recumbent (see http://www.futurecycles.co.uk/ice-b1-recumbent-bike.html for description + pics). So far have done over 1200km, including a 400km tour along the north coast of Spain. It took a bit of getting used to, especially hill starts and climbing. But once I got the hang of the different techniques needed I find it just as easy to ride as an upright bike. The only situation where I don't really enjoy it is in heavy city traffic, I miss being able to stand up and look over cars so don't use it much in town.

The bike does draw a lot of attention, fortunately in my case it's been all positive so far. Though some people seem to assume I have some kind of disability...

The pros: a lot more comfortable than an upright especially on long trips; much faster on the flat / downhill and into headwinds; great fun to ride; very stable with a touring load; folds so it fits in the car boot.

Cons: Expensive; slower on the hills at first; poorer visibility in traffic

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

No bike without an engine fitted will fly up a hill, or along the flat for that matter, it's always down to the rider regardless of bike. I have no doubt that the rider I saw was strong and fit but I would be very surprised if he did that particular climb faster on a conventional road bike.

The thing is that the aerodynamic advantage of a recumbent is so significant that it DOES make a significant difference on the flat. To take just one example, the UCI hour record is 49.70km while the IHPVA hour record (fully faired recumbent) is 90.598km. That is a big difference, and it is not down to the rider.

Power measurements bear this out, you need much less power to go a certain flat speed on a recumbent compared to a road bike. To the extent that I would certainly smash the current UCI hour record myself riding a faired recumbent, and I am not even good at time trials.

Uphill you just don't see this advantage.

Fergus seems to concur, it is much faster downhill/flat but a bit slower going up.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Fergus seems to concur, it is much faster downhill/flat but a bit slower going up.

I don't really see why it should be any slower going up a sustained climb than seated on a road bike. You can presumably get perfectly efficient position.

FWIW since I started training on the turbo I don't need to get out of the saddle on climbs any more, even when really suffering. I fear I have pre-recumbentized myself.

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

The thing is that the aerodynamic advantage of a recumbent is so significant that it DOES make a significant difference on the flat. To take just one example, the UCI hour record is 49.70km while the IHPVA hour record (fully faired recumbent) is 90.598km. That is a big difference, and it is not down to the rider.

Power measurements bear this out, you need much less power to go a certain flat speed on a recumbent compared to a road bike. To the extent that I would certainly smash the current UCI hour record myself riding a faired recumbent, and I am not even good at time trials.

Uphill you just don't see this advantage.

Fergus seems to concur, it is much faster downhill/flat but a bit slower going up.

I don't dispute the aerodynamic advantages of the recumbent on the flat. They are, simply, fast bikes and one of the reasons that I'd like to try one. A recumbent won't transform a weak rider into a strong rider though, it'll just allow you to get better speed out for the same level of effort (compared to a conventional road bike). That's what I meant when I said that no bike will fly along the flat - to achieve any level of decent performance on any bike requires a decent cyclist to push it, despite some of the ludicrous marketing of some bike manufacturers that seems to suggest that their bike would turn the likes of George Hook into Fabian Cancellara simply by parking his arse on the saddle.

When it comes to climbing though you referred to the recumbent suffering from the rider not being able to apply their body weight to the pedals whereas I referred to the advantage that the recumbent offers of being able to apply greater force to the pedals due to pushing against the saddle. Which is the greater advantage when it comes to climbing? Personally, I think the latter, but not having tried a recumbent on a climb I can only speculate. I'm sure the nature of the climb plays a part (long versus short, steep versus gradual, etc.), but again I can only speculate here.

Basically, we are both speculating. It'd be better for someone with experience of recumbents to comment on how they have found them for climbing. As regards FergusF's post, he mentions that it is "slower on the hills at first" so I'd be interested to hear his views on what it is like on the hills after using it for a while as perhaps he is implying that it being slower applies only while adjusting to using a recumbent?

doozerie

The photos may look like something from the 70's, but this looks like a very desirable recumbent: Lightning P-38.

Their video clips are impressive too, although the back-to-back tandem recumbent is an innovation too far for me.

FergusF

doozerie wrote: »

It'd be better for someone with experience of recumbents to comment on how they have found them for climbing. As regards FergusF's post, he mentions that it is "slower on the hills at first" so I'd be interested to hear his views on what it is like on the hills after using it for a while as perhaps he is implying that it being slower applies only while adjusting to using a recumbent?

That's what I meant, it seemed much slower uphill than an upright bike when I first rode it but after some training it seems about equal. I am not sure if this is a subjective impression or not, as I have never done any timed tests.

A recumbent definitely uses the leg muscles in a different way which takes some adjusting / conditioning. After my first few hilly rides the front of my thighs were aching. But now I don't get any aches or pains and have tackled some good long / steep climbs (plenty of hills here in N Spain).

Someone mentioned earlier the 'leg press' effect of having a seat with a back that you can push against, this is definitely noticeable and you can put a fair bit of power into the pedals. To avoid possibly damaging your knees, the manufacturers and recumbent websites recommend spinning in a low gear instead of 'mashing'. I think this makes climbing slower than on an upright, e.g. on short steep hills that I tend to 'storm' on the fixie I tend to relax and spin slowly up on the recumbent.

The seemingly slower climbing may also be down to the fact that you cannot stand up to vary your position. On long climbs on an upright you can stand up and thus get help from your arm and back muscles and rest the legs a bit before sitting down again - on a recumbent your stuck in the one position so you need to pace yourself more.

jman0war

Jeez maybe we've got a market for a Rent-A-Recumbent service.

Pay by the hour, or by the KM?

Lumen

jman0war wrote: »

Jeez maybe we've got a market for a Rent-A-Recumbent service.

Pay by the hour...?

I hope the seat is washable.

niceonetom

jman0war wrote: »

Jeez maybe we've got a market for a Rent-A-Recumbent service.

Pay by the hour, or by the KM?

I demand this be called Rent-A-'Bent.

tomasrojo

Cycling the recumbent way


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/apr/30/cycling-recumbent-trike-vortex

Andrew33

Lumen wrote: »

From a little over 8kg...

Looks like the bastwerd offspring of an olympic indoor bike and a Raleigh Chopper.
I think recumbents are cool and aren't they meant to be the most efficient cycle?

zynaps

Why not go half a step further and get a velomobile? They have an even better aerodynamic profile. That said, they would probably be even more susceptible to hateful-anonymous-scanger-damage. Would love a foldup recumbent with a foldup shell though... :rolleyes: