I was just recently told that recumbents are not a real bike. Does anyone else think this is true?

And that I should get a real bike, in other words a wedgie. I shudder at the very thought if that.

The first recumbent was built and ridden in 1896. During that time most of the other styles of wedgies were still in their infancy & going through a lot of technological changes.

If anything recumbents should be considered the first true bike. Another little known but important fact is the basic design of recumbents have for the most part remained totally unchanged since the first one was built and ridden. Wedgies can not make this claim to fame. They have been through and are still going through changes. I wonder why that is. Could it be because the search for the perfectly designed wedgie is still on going? When with the basic design of the recumbent this has already been accomplished. Are the wedgie manufacturers trying to catch up? Whats the deal here?

Recumbents are also the only true HPV's, or Human Powered Vehicles. What I wonder though is why are wedgies not considered HPV's? They require human power to operate them as a recumbent does, but yet no one considers them a true HPV.

Please share your thoughts, feelings & opinions on this matter.

Thank you.

John.

Most of your propositions are straw hypotheses or untrue. Two wheeled bicyles
precede 1896 by decades. If you refer to the "safety" bike, its advent was in
roughly the same era (1896). HPV would include skates, ice and roller, skate
boards, scooters, pogosticks, unicycles, canoes, kayaks and rowboats among
others. The watercraft precede bicycles by centuries. There are far more
designs for bents than for DF road bikes though the ATB bike designs probably
exceed the bent designs in number. (Not to exclude trikes, handcycles, wheelchair
variants, and quads.) Steve

BIKE is derived from the word BICYCLE.... BI meaning 2 and cycle means well pedallign i guess. the 2 could mean 2 wheels and 2 pedals etc.... so in theory both are bicycles. Wedgies and Bents.

Brendon

Recumbents are also the only true HPV's, or Human Powered Vehicles. What I wonder though is why are wedgies not considered HPV's? They require human power to operate them as a recumbent does, but yet no one considers them a true HPV. "No one"? The vehicle code of every state in the United States considers them HPV's. They are "vehicles" in the language that defines the word, and "human powered" in the language that distinguishes them from motor vehicles.

You should know, JV, you ride a Vision. Duh.

Of course they're real bicycles! And I've seen some recumbent riders totally blow upright riders right out of the water. Those guys can go fast when they get going. I stay out of their way if I can. I ride an upright, but 'bent's rule!

Recumbents are an HPV not a bicycle according to the UCI. Has alot to do with the bottom bracket distance, seat and frame geometry and such,and I do know they cannot hold any bicycling records, again according to UCI rules. However I do believe that a recumbent does hold the world speed record for a two wheel Vehicle. Check out The History of the Recumbent Bicycle: Winning Forbidden.the storys there: April 1, 1934. Recumbents Banned from all UCI Sanctioned Racing: do a goggle search for cycling records and you will find your answer. The bottom bracket had to be between 24 and 30 centimetres above the ground.
The front of the saddle could only be 12 centimetres behind the bottom bracket.
The distance from the bottom bracket to the axle of the front wheel had to be between 58 and 75 centimetres. :mad: :mad:

I understand & totally disagree with the UCI rules regarding why 'bents are not allowed to hold any records. What it boils down to is the UCI does not recognize and are denying any records made by 'bents.

The B.S. rules almost sound like they were developed because of politics. BTW why were these foolish rules even made? What is the UCI's reasoning behind it? What is the real reason behind it, not what the UCI tells everyone but the true reason? What are your opinions on these rules the UCI has come up with?

But I do have a question about the bottom bracket distance. Lets say a recumbent is built with a bottom bracket between 24 & 30 centimeters above the ground. The seat of the recumbent is only 12 centimeters behind the bottom bracket. And the bottom bracket is between 58 & 75 centimetersfrom the front axle. I noticed it is not stated whether the bottom bracket has to be in front of or behind the front axle

Would the UCI then recognize any records that may be set on a 'bent designed in such a manner? It meets the criteria of the UCI so why shouldn't it be recognized as a legitimate record setting bike? Or would the UCI again come up with some more B.S. rules for political reasons that would strip a recumbent designed in such a manner of any records?

Real bikes? Hmmm.... UCI rules, bottom bracket-to-seat position - yada-yada-yada. Bents provide a distinct ride experience. You cannot experience the same degree of exhilaration a bent ride provides on any road bike I know of so I'd say a bent is more than a real bike - it is actually a surreal bike!

I was just recently told that recumbents are not a real bike. Does anyone else think this is true?

Why worry about it? Who told you that and why should you care? If you live in Iowa - I'm sure you've been on RAGBRAI and seen that whether you are on a mountain bike with a kitchen sink mounted on the back, a recumbent trike, a triple tandem, a unicycle, a Trek 5500, an EZ Sport - they all bike across Iowa and make it to the other side. I would note that when registering online for RAGBRAI this year, it did have a box to check if one would be riding a tandem, a recumbent or a recumbent tandem. Maybe Iowa has a thing about knowing just who are the people riding "real bikes" and who are the people riding "not real bikes".

I wonder what the person that recently told you that a recumbent was not a real bike would say about a tandem bicycle pulling a trail-a-bike which in turn was pulling a Burley trailer? Would that be a train or not a real train? ;-)

And that I should get a real bike, in other words a wedgie. I shudder at the very thought if that.

What's wrong with owning both. No need to shudder about riding a standard bicycle - be it a road frame, mountain bike frame, cross frame, cruiser frame or a hybrid frame. Oodles of components, tires, styles, seats, bars and gear to make it a very pleasant experience.

If anything recumbents should be considered the first true bike. Another little known but important fact is the basic design of recumbents have for the most part remained totally unchanged since the first one was built and ridden. Wedgies can not make this claim to fame. They have been through and are still going through changes. I wonder why that is. Could it be because the search for the perfectly designed wedgie is still on going? When with the basic design of the recumbent this has already been accomplished. Are the wedgie manufacturers trying to catch up? Whats the deal here?

You lost me here, John. The first "true" bike? Recumbents come in quite a variety of shapes and sizes - as do bicycles. Not all riders are alike - and not all pedal powered vehicles are alike. It is hard to argue with the pure simplicity of a "wedgie" that is way on the far right side of the sloping bell curve in its technology adoption life cycle. It's standardized and about all that can be done at this point is substitution of materials, colors, bells and whistles to keep the industry "alive".

BB

I'll tell you why recumbents are considered weird: it's because it looks like you're sitting in a lazy-boy chair and pedalling. It's uncommon and kinda funny looking.

A regular bike puts the rider in a position that looks like a motorcycle rider so it's more associated with speed and as a 2-wheel vehicle.

I see recumbents all the time, they are never going fast but they do seem to have a decent amount of popularity.
Just ride what you like, that's the important thing.

Recumbents are considered weird? I don't believe so, and what does a motorcycle have to do with a bicycle I don't believe I'd like to pedal my Vulcan 1500 very far. As for speed, the recumbent should be faster than a bike because it's more areo, but again that depends on the rider. The only thing I do agree with on is Just ride what you like, that should be your thing. If anyone is interested about Bent History check http://afchap.home.mindspring.com/BentHist.htm the story is there.

(why won't the UCI accept a recumbent bike that fits their rules... one where... "The seat of the recumbent is only 12 centimeters behind the bottom bracket" etc.)

think about it for a while (or try to draw it) and you'll realize that nothing you can call a recumbent will fit this rule. in order for the seat to be only 12 cm behind the bottom bracket, it has to be way above the bottom bracket. (unless it's a hampster-sized recumbent, or a lay-on-your-back-feet-straight-up-in-the-air bicycle)

the problem is that the UCI made up this silly rule in the first place and still refuses to get rid of it. the problem is not that they aren't following their own rules; they are.

I was just recently told that recumbents are not a real bike. Does anyone else think this is true?



Why are you so concerned with what others think? I have never ridden a recumbant and honestly consider them a little bit dorky looking but if the day comes that I want one, I will get it. Actually they look pretty fun to ride. Who cares what anyone else thinks?

They look like a lot of fun (even if they make the rider look like like a two-year old having a hissy fit :D )

I'm gonna get one when I've got *more room* in which to store the thing, *less ego* to bruise from riding the thing, and enough low-traffic roads where I won't worry about getting run over in the thing.

They look like a lot of fun (even if they make the rider look like like a two-year old having a hissy fit :D )

I'm gonna get one when I've got *more room* in which to store the thing, *less ego* to bruise from riding the thing, and enough low-traffic roads where I won't worry about getting run over in the thing.

None of these hang-ups against getting a recumbent have been mentioned by any recumbent owners I know. You'll never "cross over" until you have better reasons to do so.

Eddie

no they are recliner chairs on wheels;

no they are recliner chairs on wheels;

Yes, indeed, and of course that makes a "real bike" an anal post on wheels - a mobile perch with a tiny pad lodged in a delicate area of the body where the sun never shines.

And yet, it's the recumbent that gets the "weird" and "dorky" tags? Go figure! Really, who cares?

I consider recumbent bikes to be true bicycles, and I base that on what MY perception of a true bicycle is, NOT on the narrow minded perceptions and definitions of other people, or politically driven organizations like the UCI.

I proudly own a Burley Django swb(short wheel base) recumbent, as well as my upright, diamond frame Marin Larkspur City bike. And I just received my newest addition, the semi-recumbent Rans Fusion. I've had a chance to take it on my favorite loop a couple of times, and it's about the most fun thing that I've ever ridden on two wheels! It retains about 80% of the comfort that full recumbents provide, but it has the sweet traditional handling of an upright. And it looks cool to boot!

Recumbents offer a very real solution for those of us who just cannot find comfort in riding a traditional upright bike(I only ride my Larkspur on really short jaunts). And the cycling world should applaud recumbency, because it's getting a lot more people out cycling and having fun...isn't that what it's all about??

Yes, indeed, and of course that makes a "real bike" an anal post on wheels - a mobile perch with a tiny pad lodged in a delicate area of the body where the sun never shines.



:roflmao: :lol: :roflmao:

If it has 2 wheels, and you propel it forward using your own muscle power, it's a bicycle regardless of how it looks.

This recurring "debate" about what constitutes a real bike (hybrid vs. road, 'bent vs road, steel vs. everybody, etc.) illustrates one of cycling's worst problems: elitism. This snobbery is far from universal in the cycling world, but it is prevalent enough to dissuade many novices from taking up the sport. I've seen this in my own personal experience in trying to recruit or retain new riders. This even carries over into rudeness toward inexperienced riders who make mistakes; come on, newbies don't have the bike skills yet, so ease up.

If it has 2 wheels, and you propel it forward using your own muscle power, it's a bicycle regardless of how it looks.

Okay - this has two wheels and you propel it forward using your own power. So, it is a BICYCLE?

Okay - this has two wheels and you propel it forward using your own power. So, it is a BICYCLE?

Denver,

If you own it, it must be a real bike because you are a real cyclist. :D


"Just keep pedaling, just keep pedaling..." (paraphrase of Dorry in Finding Nemo ©Disney, 2003)

VéloSíDad

Okay - this has two wheels and you propel it forward using your own power. So, it is a BICYCLE? By Wisconsin law, no. It has to have a seat and a mechanical means of propulsion (that is, not propelled simply by "kicking"). Otherwise, it's legally defined as a "play vehicle", and is not allowed on the street.

Not to disparage it; I have one. An adult-size Schwinn Sting-Ray. "Bass-boat" blue, metal-flake grips. Good for quick trips to the store and the like (on the sidewalk, of course :) ).

I proudly own a Burley Django swb(short wheel base) recumbent, as well as my upright, diamond frame Marin Larkspur City bike. And I just received my newest addition, the semi-recumbent Rans Fusion. I've had a chance to take it on my favorite loop a couple of times, and it's about the most fun thing that I've ever ridden on two wheels! It retains about 80% of the comfort that full recumbents provide, but it has the sweet traditional handling of an upright. And it's got the mechanical advantage of a 26" rear wheel. The other semi-bents I've seen (Giant Revive, et al) have 20" rear wheels, which, IMHO, fails to take advantage of the general design.

And it's got the mechanical advantage of a 26" rear wheel. The other semi-bents I've seen (Giant Revive, et al) have 20" rear wheels, which, IMHO, fails to take advantage of the general design.

Hi madpogue,

Have you had a chance to test ride the Fusion? I know it's not a full-on recumbent, but I can tell you that it's a LOT of fun to ride. There's no seat back, of course, but there's a slight lip at the back of the seat which keeps your butt in place--seems the best way to ride it is with your arms straight, while leaning back. This position makes the bike feel like it has front suspension, softening the bumps in the road, and it's a blast leaning into the turns. It's very stable, easy to start going, and, with the 26" rear wheel, you can get it up to speed pretty quickly. When climbing, you pull hard on the handlebar, and you can get great driving power to the pedals. It's a totally different kind of ride than a full bent or an upright--hard to explain...but well worth taking one out for a spin. And where you live, there are probably more major league recumbent shops per square mile than almost anywhere else in the country!




:)

Dang, you've got my mouth watering to try it. And you're right; there are several LBSes within a stones throw that carry recumbents.

Another 'bent criterion for me is ability to fit in my bike locker. On a whim (and 'cuz I got it VERY cheap) I bought a Sun EZ-1 at the swap meet in January; two weeks later I got an Email that I FINALLY got the locker, for which I'd been on the waiting list for THREE YEARS. Needless to say, the EZ-1 doesn't come close to fitting. I doubt even a SWB would fit, on account of either the OSS or the boom. But a Fusion might just. Hey, that's the excuse I can use to get an extended test-ride: "guys, I gotta determine that it will fit in my locker, so I have to ride it uptown."

I wonder if a mesh-back seat could be fitted to the Fusion. Or would that make it a total hopeless geezer-glide?

Hi madpogue,

I just sent you a pm, regarding some info on a Fusion that's available in your general area.

A hopeless geezer-glide? I don't think so. Actually, a mesh seatback on a Fusion would make it look a lot like a shorter version of a clwb, like the Rans Tailwind, but with a 26" rear wheel...but it would be easier to get started than a clwb, and handle a little sweeter!

Well, I test rode one, and I found out the one to which you refer is available. So should I get it? Aw, man, it's a nice ride. I'm tempted!!! What should I do???!?!?

Hi madpogue,

It is a totally different kind of ride, isn't it? It's hard to describe the feeling when riding it...it's kinda like the feeling I used to get when I rode my Schwinn Stingray when I was a kid! It's just fun to get on and ride!

Should you get it? Only you can decide, I'm afraid...but, as far as that one bike that's available that I pm'd you about is concerned...well, that's a really nice deal...and you won't find a shop anywhere that can offer the kind of customer or technical support that they can...and, because they're such a successful bent dealer, you know that they'll be around for the long haul....

Good luck! Let me know how it goes...'til then, take care, and have a fabulous Memorial Day Weekend!

I'd try a Bacchetta Strada before I bought anything. It's 26 front and back and it's the best ride you can buy. GREAT BIKE

I'd try a Bacchetta Strada before I bought anything. It's 26 front and back and it's the best ride you can buy. GREAT BIKE

Hi Ric,

You're right, the Strada is an awesome high performance bent, and, IMHO, probably no other swb manufacturer has rocked the bent world this past year the way Bacchetta has.

I'm not sure if madpogue was actually in the market for a bent to replace his current #1 ride. I think he's probably pretty happy with his bike(s). The stuff I wrote previously about my new Fusion may have sparked an interest within him to check out a different(but very fun and pleasing) kind of ride...different than that of a traditional upright, and different than that of a recumbent...and not one to replace another, but rather to add to or supplement. I kinda encouraged him to check it out...only because the Fusion offers a ride experience unlike anything else out there, and, when I first rode it, it awakened the kid in me--the ride really reminded me of the simplest joy I used to experience when I rode my Stingray. I think that's an experience any adult(who used to ride a bike as a kid) could benefit from, and appreciate.

I just checked out the specs on your Strada...Wow! That bike has a great component gruppo! That thing must fly!




;)

Well, I couldn't resist the deal on the Fusion. Friday's test ride determined it does fit in my locker (with an inch or so to spare!). You're right, Geoff, W&S is a great LBS, as good as any Madison shop. 'Course, being >1 hour (by car) away, I probably won't use their service much at all. Harry's quite the character. Great multi-purpose trip. We had a painting to pick up in Milwaukee, and an art show to go to, and we wanted to do some riding on the city's path system. I didn't even load one of my own bikes in the car; that's how sure I was about buying the Fusion. Threw it in the car, headed downtown and had it on the paths within the hour.

The bike even had a cheapo Planet Bike rack, mounted rather strangely to the fork rack braze-ons and the riser tube. Created a rather high center of mass for the pannier, though, so when I got it home I stayed up all night and figured out a way to mount a set of Topeak low-riders.

It's a sweet-riding bike. Gearing and speed are like a wedgie, and you're almost up as high. It's definitely easier to handle than a full CLWB 'bent, but still takes some getting used to. Can't negotiate around obstacles (the rain created a lot of washouts/sinkholes in the paved paths this weekend) as quickly as with a wedgie. I had to angle the seat to the nose-down position (it has three angle options) because, well, on bumps, railroad crossings, etc., it was, well, not kind to me, as a fella, if you get my drift.

Put on about 70 miles over the weekend. Yesterday I towed a Bykaboose trailer with it, and picked up a 30-lb bag of worm castings for the garden. We put on about 15 miles after picking up the poop, and I'd kinda forgotten it was back there.

The bike's definitely a head-turner, with its cantilever-curved tubes. Even moreso than with a full 'bent, people wanna know what the heck it is.

One "pet peeve" point. It looks like none of Rans's bikes have water bottle braze-ons. This frame wouldn't have a place for 'em anyway. But they all have "riser tube" style OSS. So why not put a set of bottle braze-ons on the riser tube? My silly Sun has a set on each side of the "ape hanger" upright sections of the handlebar.

Fun bike! Thanks for the tip, Geoff.

One "pet peeve" point. It looks like none of Rans's bikes have water bottle braze-ons. This frame wouldn't have a place for 'em anyway. But they all have "riser tube" style OSS. So why not put a set of bottle braze-ons on the riser tube? My silly Sun has a set on each side of the "ape hanger" upright sections of the handlebar. Fun bike! Thanks for the tip, Geoff.

I'm glad you're having so much fun with the Fusion, madpogue! And I know that you saw my thread on the possible problem with the bottom bracket/shell...good luck on that!

When I ordered my Fusion, I had the dealer install a Minoura Water Bottle Cage Adaptor to the riser bar. It works kinda like a hose clamp, but looks much more classy and OEM. Plus it includes some kind of black plastic taping that protects the bike's finish from the metal band. The band has the bosses on it, so you can secure any water bottle cage of your choosing to it. And it looks like you can probably place the adaptor to other parts of the frame--wherever it would make sense and would be within easy reach.

I also had a Greenfield kickstand installed, which is a light but high quality stand...and, again, looks very OEM!

Have fun with your Fusion, madpogue! Keep me updated on the bottom bracket thing! Take care....
;)

I think the riser is the only place a water bottle would fit; I don't think the inside triangle of the frame would fit one. And mine came with a kickstand, I think a Greenfield. It attaches to the left side stays. These stands interfere with some trailer hitches, but fortunately my Bykaboose isn't one of them. (BTW, I found a kickstand like this at the "Dig & Save' outlet of our local St. Vincent's; it's where they put stuff they figure they can't even sell at the thrift store. Using it on our wedgie tandem. Misc. items are $0.25 / lb, minimum $0.25. So I got it for a quarter! They probably didn't know what it was...)