Recumbent - Do you think the Giant recumbents are good?

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/au/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2005&model=9888



they look awesome.. Thinking of getting one, are they good?

good for what? what kind of riding, how fast do you want it to be?

Looks like an old-person bike. Are you an old person? Get a faster recumbent, you'll have plenty of time to be slow when you're old.

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/au/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2005&model=9888



they look awesome.. Thinking of getting one, are they good?
We had a couple. Though we even did some minor single track riding, we regarded them as urban riders. They are comfortable. They are HEAVY. They are VERY adjustable. If you're committed, I recommend the cheaper of the two models as it has a broader gear range (besides saving money). An upgrade to higher pressure tires is also a good idea.

Chip

If you want a cool bike from Giant, buy this one:

See, now THAT's cool.

Giant is very emphatic about calling the Revive a "semi-recumbent." I tend to agree. Although it has a seatback, the seat to bb angle is more vertical than horizontal, rendering the seatback nearly non-functional. and of course the seat adjustment is a vertical adjustment. Best use for the bike would be leisurely rides around the trailer park, campground, bike path, etc, perhaps up to a few miles. IMHO the design would have an advantage over both full recumbents and traditional uprights in low speed or stop-and-go conditions. I would not consider it a serious choice for an enthusiast who plans on doing club rides and/or tours. So, depending on the intended use, it could be a very good choice or a very bad one.

I have one, and I love it. Yes, it is heavy, but I don't really care. It is comfortable, the most comfortable bike I have ever ridden. I like that there is a 20" wheel on the front, unlike bike e and Cannondale, who use 16". My husband rode a bike e, and he says your feet slip off when you are not actually pedaling. With the Revive, you are in a very natural position, and it is easy to get on and off. When you come to a stop, unlike with a traditional bike, you just sit there, completely comfortable. To the person who thinkst it looks like an old person's bike: I almost didn't get it because I thought it looked goofy, but my husband convinced me. I ride it pretty much every day. I pass other cyclists all the time on it. The seat back does work, and you can use it to push harder on the pedals. I wanted a commuter bike for work, because the single speed cruiser I rode was just killing me. It had no suspension, and I was getting to rattled. I upgraded the suspension on mine; I don't weigh enough for the coil that was on it. I have a Fox Float on there now, and it is very plush. I also put on knobby tires, because I wanted a little more grab. Bottom line: You're not going to keep up with road bikes on long trips. You are going to smile when you ride all around town, because you are so comfortable, and having so much fun.

I did a review of this bike so you can search the forum. I'm thinking of renting one this weekend because it was a very comfortable bike. If the bike was 25 pounds, I would have purchased it right away. I don't know why Giant is able to make 16 pound road bikes but made one of the most heaviest bents in production. I still think the bike is undergeared and there is no way you can take on hills with this bike unless you have Lance Amstrong legs.

The seat back does work and the learning curve is non existant. In fact, this bike does not have the "Push off" with one leg so common with bents which makes it real easy to learn. I think this bike is even easier than the Bike E and only a Trike with three wheels would be easier.

This may sound crazy but I thought this bike was just as fast as the Burley Canto which has a 26' inch wheel in the back. I really believe Giant has a good product here but they got to find some way to drop the weight and increase the gears.

So is the seat back the only reason these qualify as "semi-recumbents" and the Rans Fusion line doesn't?

Just curious... I don't care too much about labels; I'm just confused.

So is the seat back the only reason these qualify as "semi-recumbents" and the Rans Fusion line doesn't?

Just curious... I don't care too much about labels; I'm just confused.

I consider one of the requirements of a recumbent is that it have a functional seat back. By that I mean the seat back is a load bearing assembly, and normal riding position involves leaning part of your body weight on it. As far as labels, Giant is the one who is claiming it is a 'semi' recumbent. And all of the salesmen I have talked to about it are very quick to stress that. The ride experience is certainly way different from that of a 'typical' recumbent, but perhaps it would be fair to lump it into the CLWB genre. The seat reminds me of the old ReBikes. My only guess is that Giant doesn't want to be known as a recumbent manufacturer because of a negative connotation that might be associated with bents. They could call the Revive a 'City Bike," but that label has already been taken by some MTB derivative.


The RANS is sometimes referred to as a semi; but other mfgs make bikes with similar geometry, and call them cruisers or lowriders, without reference to recumbents. I think it has to do with RANS already being a recumbent mfg. I suppose the Fusion has the feet forward position (how much forward is required to qualify?) so: feet forward but no seat back = half recumbent = semi recumbent? To me it still looks more like an upright than a recumbent.

To me it still looks more like an upright than a recumbent.
It definitely is, but it seems more like a "real" recumbent to me than the Giant.

The Giant seatback, especially given where the crank is, just doesn't look like it would be normal part of the power transfer. I've never ridden one, so I can't say with authority; it does look like you could dig in and push back against it occasionally, but you wouldn't want to ride that way for very long.

The Fusion actually has pretty much the same leg position as many of RANS' actual recumbents, it's just angled to an upright position (comparisons are with a RANS Stratus XP).
[edit: the Fusion in the photo is set for a taller person than the Stratus XP, but you can still see how they compare]

So no, I don't think it's really a recumbent, but it seems -- to me -- to have more in common with them than a bike like the Giant.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, but I'm new to all of this and trying to sort out why things are called what they're called.

[edit 2: on second thought, it's probably easier to see with the recument tilted - new pic added, and apologies offered for being so odd about this all...]

In the end, it doesn't really matter, but I'm new to all of this and trying to sort out why things are called what they're called.
You and all of us too! This proliferation of in-between designs is probably a good sign, even though it can be confusing.

Regarding the Fusion having the same seat-pedal relationship as a Strat, except "it's just angled to an upright position." Bingo. But that's the problem - the Giant looks more like a recumbent, whatever that means, even though it's probably more upright. I could list things that IMHO define a recumbent, but there's no industry-recognized list of features.

I'm not real sure I'd call it a recumbent, but I wouldn't call it an upright either. I also wouldn't call it something that I would like to own...but that's just me.

That is one fine steed that will look good in any recumbent stable.

Nicer looking than a Bacchetta but not as cool as a ReBike. The seat on the Revive has more padding than my ReBike. All recumbent seats should be as comfortable. It is awful that some pricey recumbents have that hard euro seat that people get sores from.

God Bless

Mooky






We had a couple. Though we even did some minor single track riding, we regarded them as urban riders. They are comfortable. They are HEAVY. They are VERY adjustable. If you're committed, I recommend the cheaper of the two models as it has a broader gear range (besides saving money). An upgrade to higher pressure tires is also a good idea.

Chip

The Bacchetta's are more performance oriented, and most likely way lighter. The Giant is not looked at as a recumbent by most recumbent riders. Giant calls it a Semi-recumbent, and I personally think it's a wanna be recumbent. I love my Bacchetta Strada, and I'm part of that go fast crowd, and I bought it for going fast. However, it's nice to just ease back, and put your feet up, just like on a lazy boy. I'm surprised I don't fall asleep riding. :) Same effort that has me cruising 19-20 on my upright has me cruisng 23-25 on the Bacchetta. If you follow this stuff, a bunch of Bacchetta riders recently did the Hotter than Hell 100 century in under and or right at 4 hours. Fastest guys were 3:56, with a bunch coming in at under 4:30. That's a good performing lawn chair. :) Especially considering they caught and passed the Cat-4 race that started 15 minutes before them. I can see it now, hollering "On your left" at a peloton. :)

That's a good performing lawn chair. :) Especially considering they caught and passed the Cat-4 race that started 15 minutes before them. I can see it now, hollering "On your left" at a peloton. :)

I do the same thing on my ReBike every Saturday and Sunday when I ride across several states. I see many peletons and yell "passing on your left". Sometimes "passing on your right". The peletons do not to get passed by a ReBike but that is the way it goes.

Mooky

Finally getting my Revive up and running. I use it all the time since are only form of transportation is bike or walking where I live. I really love my standard 8 speed Revive! I have some issues with my back and this is the first bike that has helped! It is well worth it. It took a little getting used to it, but not it's just normal to get on it. I get a lot of compliments on it too....since I have the only one like it here.

Good luck!

We had a couple. Though we even did some minor single track riding, we regarded them as urban riders. They are comfortable. They are HEAVY. They are VERY adjustable. If you're committed, I recommend the cheaper of the two models as it has a broader gear range (besides saving money). An upgrade to higher pressure tires is also a good idea.

Chip

Just out of curiosity--how heavy are they? The "specifications" list on the web page doesn't include details like weight, wheelbase, etc.

If you want a Crank Forward bike just get a Rans Fusion and be done with it.

http://www.ransbikes.com/fusion26x26.htm

I bought one last summer and love it! Of course I live in eastern NC and don't have to contend with a lot of hills. I got the standard 8-speed and that leaves a lot to be desired if you wanna do any long distance touring, but around town and commuting to work it works quite well. It is a great bike for us "over 50" crowd. My back was killing me on my road bike (3 herniated disks) but I can ride my Revive for hours with no pain! It took this bike to get me back on two wheels after a 17-year lapse (due to back problems), so it was worth every penny.