View Single Post
Old 09-29-05, 10:59 AM
  #21  
BlazingPedals
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Posts: 12,474

Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, Catrike Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1511 Post(s)
Liked 733 Times in 454 Posts
I got my first recumbent at age 42. It was a RANS V-Rex, it was about as fast as my old Trek 1000, and it was super-comfy to ride. In fact, I still have it and enjoy riding it. After playing with fairings to make it faster, I took the jump and got a lowracer. Holy **** was it faster! On my first club ride I spotted the racers 30 yards on a sign sprint and whomped them all. It was so bad that when I flew by the breakaway group, they all stopped pedaling and gaped. My best solo century has gone from 6:20 to 4:20. I was never great on hills and I'm still not, but I'm not the last one to the top either. And downhills are something else. I'm now 50 and my best century this year, with bad roads and several stop lights, was 4:38 (no drafting.)

If you don't have any issues with uprights, there's not much reason to get a recumbent. There's a learning curve as well as a training curve to deal with. But if you have ANY comfort issues with an upright and are willing to give up SOME hill climbing speed, then as lowracer1 says, switch now, don't wait until you're old! I got my first one with the intention of riding both it and the Trek, but after a month or so it became apparent that the Trek was no longer a valued member of the family. The guy who bought it is patiently waiting for me to sell my V-Rex but that ain't gonna happen!
BlazingPedals is offline