Recumbent - recumbent bike info

Hello all!

I just joined the forum in hopes to collect info on recumbent bikes, I'm interested in possibly purchasing one. Please give me info regarding: pros/cons, what to look for, brands etc.
I am female, 5'1" ~ 115 lbs. Inseam measures 28". Not sure what else I need to know. I've been riding a Schwinn mountain bike for the past 12 years (not in the mountains). I ride mostly on streets, flat roads, hills. I would like to go on long distance rides too.

Thanks for any info!:)

Well, gee.....'bents are comfortable and you might be faster on one. Or slower. Either way, you will be more comfortable. Have you seen one up close or maybe ridden one? No? I bought a used RANS a few years ago after a single test ride around the block. I special-ordered a new RANS last summer and bought it after a ride in the parking lot. No regrets with either purchase.

That being said, try to find some bikes to check out and test ride, if possible. Besides hanging out here, check out bentrideronline.com. There is a message board there and lots of links to 'bent manufacturers and online and/or local 'bent retailers.
Both the RANS and Bachetta sites have instructions on how to measure your x-seam, which is approx. from your hips to the bottom of your feet. My x-seam is 45", while my inseam is 32". Most specs for 'bents will list min./max. x-seam that will fit each model bike.

With the X-seam you have and your riding interest you may want to look into trikes. or a LWB bent. Most of the SWB bents you would have a hard time with your feet hitting the ground. The best source to ask this question is at http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/index.php . You will find a wealth of knowledge there.

We need your X-seam measurement.

http://www.easyracers.com/X_Seam.gif

Manufacturers list the X-seam range their bikes fit, but it might be hard to reach the ground with a short X-seam on some bikes. I wear 30" inseam pants, but have a 43.5" X-seam.

What type of hills are you talking about? How steep?

You will certainly fit on a small frame trike but the good ones are shockingly expensive. One short wheelbase 2-wheeled model that will fit you is the Haluzak Leprechan. No longer in production but they are a really good bike and do come up for sale used occasionally. You would have an easy time fitting on an older Linear. They come in a variety of frame sizes in both a short and long wheelbase version and are very available used.

You could maybe find a used Vision R40 on Craigslist for something less than $500.
ask the seller to transport the bike to their local bikeshop and give you the contact into, you coordinate shipping effort directly with the bikeshop, even get it shipped to your local bikeshop to get it unpacked, built up and fitted to you. You could likely end up with a decent recumbent for less than $700.

My wife is 5'1", we got her a Vision R40 couple of years ago, she's been forced on 60+ mile rides and still have interest in riding.



Vision R40's are pretty simple bike, fairly light in weight, compact so it is easier to transport in cars.
the shorter wheelbase may take some time to master, but just keep in mind that speed is your friend to keep you stable.
My wife had not ridden a bicycle for decades before I got her to ride her recumbent, with clipless pedals even, she fell a couple of time at zero speed because she forgot to unclip frm the pedals and that was all it took.

You've suggested the R40 a couple of times now, cat0020. What is the seat height?

IMO, they are better value than most other on the market. Depends on which front wheel model you choose, my wife has 16" front wheel, I've got 20", seat height is approx. 25" and 27" accordingly.

IMO, they are better value than most other on the market. Depends on which front wheel model you choose, my wife has 16" front wheel, I've got 20", seat height is approx. 25" and 27" accordingly.Optimum seat height for 38" x-seams is about 21" (preferably less). Anything much higher produces tippy-toes and the inability to launch the bike straight. It also makes launches on loose surfaces such as gravel, very hazardous. This is why most SWB 'bents don't mix well with short legs.

Optimum seat height for 38" x-seams is about 21" (preferably less). Anything much higher produces tippy-toes and the inability to launch the bike straight. It also makes launches on loose surfaces such as gravel, very hazardous. This is why most SWB 'bents don't mix well with short legs.

How is the optimum seat height determined for a recumbent exactly? seems to me seat height on a recumbent bike is likely to stay pretty constant off the ground.
Launches on recumbent can be mastered with practice, even with short legs; but a recumbent trike is never going to be easy to transport as a short wheelbase recumbent bike, and it will always take up more room no matter if it is being ridden.

In general, I'd recommend a LWB for someone with short legs. Seat height aside, a SWB requires the rider to reach over the front wheel for the pedals. There's only so many ways to accomplish this, and having short legs complicates it.

How is the optimum seat height determined for a recumbent exactly? With few exceptions, a properly fitted 'bent should allow the rider to easily hold the 'bent in a perfectly vertical position while fully seated. If the 'bent is leaning, even slightly, to one side or the other (because of short legs), awkward and sinuous launches will be unavoidable. Mix in gravel or slick spots at busy intersections, and it's a receipt for an ambulance ride.


Launches on recumbent can be mastered with practice, even with short legsFor someone who stands "5' 10"", I believe you are ill-qualified to include "short legs" in your statement. It is further evident by the way her R40 is setup in the image you posted.

1. Seat height is 'seriously' too high and there is no clearance between the front edge of the seat and the steering stem necessary for easy mount and dismount.

2. CoM is too high (determined by her position relative to the 45 degree, forward thrust angle to the front tire's contact patch). Just a little too much front brake and she'll be eating asphalt - if she hasn't already.

3. The grips are forward of the steering axis - this makes the 'bent squirrely and sensitive. Unfortunately, placing the grips behind the steering axis where they belong, would put the handle bar in her chest... screwing up ergonomics. Both are indicators that the rider is too close to the steering axis.

Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if she still rides it.


In general, I'd recommend a LWB for someone with short legs. Seat height aside, a SWB requires the rider to reach over the front wheel for the pedals. There's only so many ways to accomplish this, and having short legs complicates it.Agreed. Many SWB 'bents also place the short legged rider too far forward, screwing up weight distribution.

My wife, who is 5'1", has ridden her Vision R40 since June 2006 with clipless pedals, over 1000 mile or so, she has not fallen from her bike and nor does she have problem with her bike being "squirrely", she does not have any problem starting nor stopping on her bike, even on gravel road, canal paths, Rails to Trails kind of passage. Is she extraordinary or what? I knew I picked a good one, ha.

With enough practice anyone can master any vehicle, but nothing can change the difficulty of transport if you have a large vehicle, can you agree with that?

My wife, who is 5'1", has ridden her Vision R40 since June 2006 with clipless pedals, over 1000 mile or so, she has not fallen from her bike and nor does she have problem with her bike being "squirrely", she does not have any problem starting nor stopping on her bike, even on gravel road, canal paths, Rails to Trails kind of passage. Is she extraordinary or what? I knew I picked a good one, ha.

With enough practice anyone can master any vehicle, but nothing can change the difficulty of transport if you have a large vehicle, can you agree with that?

I think you just made the argument for why your wife can ride her Vision when it's really a bit too big for her. As for transportation, I've never seen a LWB that couldn't hang on a 2-arm trunk or hitch rack. My lowracers can't do it, though.

I think you just made the argument for why your wife can ride her Vision when it's really a bit too big for her. As for transportation, I've never seen a LWB that couldn't hang on a 2-arm trunk or hitch rack. My lowracers can't do it, though.

I think you just to conclusion without withnessing the effects, if the Vision is indeed too big for my wife she would have difficulties with it, but since she clearly does not have difficulty controlling her bike, even maneuvering in downtown Philly traffic, I'd say it fits her just fine.
The picture clearly shows that her handlebar is not too close to her chest, she has good arm and leg extensions and having a good time while riding.

I can fit two Vision R40's inside my 1990 Mazda 323 hatchback, along with luggage for two for a weekend getaway and my wife sitting comfortably in the passenger seat. Beside, LWB or trike are not only hard to transport, but also take up more space when it's not being ridden, which would make them more difficult to walk along side of when need to, more difficult to get on and off public transportation.
My wife and I have taken local train and bus services with our Vision R40s.

Physical disadvantage of LWB recumbents and trikes is something that no amount of practice could overcome, wouldn't you agree?

My wife, who is 5'1", has ridden her Vision R40 since June 2006 with clipless pedals, over 1000 mile or so, she has not fallen from her bike and nor does she have problem with her bike being "squirrely", she does not have any problem starting nor stopping on her bike, even on gravel road, canal paths, Rails to Trails kind of passage. Is she extraordinary or what?Your words, not hers.

Since you seem to make a habit of posting the same image, try posting one of her during launch mode - better yet, lets see it real time via youtube.


With enough practice anyone can master any vehiclePerhaps, but at the expense of unnecessary discomfort and potential skin loss, only ignorance would buy such a compromise.


but nothing can change the difficulty of transport if you have a large vehicle, can you agree with that?And again, you seem to value inconvenience far more than comfort and safety for your wife.

Your words, not hers.

My words are true and you can't prove otherwise no matter how hard you try.


Since you seem to make a habit of posting the same image, try posting one of her during launch mode - better yet, lets see it real time via youtube.

Post your own image or movies to prove your point. Have you ridden with a shorter person on a recumbent for over 1000 miles?



Perhaps, but at the expense of unnecessary discomfort and potential skin loss, only ignorance would buy such a compromise.

No one can take away your ability to maneuver a vehicle once you've mastered it, but never can a large vehicle be transported as easily as a smaller one. Ignorance? more like laziness to learn how to ride well, no matter the machine.


And again, you seem to value inconvenience far more than comfort and safety for your wife.

And yet you failed to see the value of human ability to ride a bike, whether it fits your standard or not. I have more faith in my wife's riding ability than your opinion how she should fit a bike. Learn to ride, dummy.

Physical disadvantage of LWB recumbents and trikes is something that no amount of practice could overcome, wouldn't you agree?

No, because what you see as disadvantages might not be important to others. Maybe to someone else, the seat height might be more important than storage space or transportation.

Physical disadventages of LWB recumbents and trikes is something that no amount of practice could overcome, wouldn't you agree?


No, because what you see as disadvantages might not be important to others. Maybe to someone else, the seat height might be more important than storage space or transportation.

I don't know how big your garage is, but myself and most people I know can always use more garage room.

Smaller, lighter bike would always be easier to carry, over larger, heavier bike.

Have you ridden with a shorter person on a recumbent for over 1000 miles?Not lately.

Largely because most who share my rides are typically 4" to 10" taller than me... because I'm only 5' 3". So the fact is, cat0020, I've not only 'walked in your wife's shoes', but I also posses a reasonably degree of 'hands-on' experience with over 13 different manufactures', including a first generation Vision. I am also a 20+ year recumbent veteran who designs, builds and rides these wacky machines. A full 90% of my sales are 5' 6" and shorter,.. because unlike you, I know through genuine, hands-on experience, what works,.. and what does not work.

Not lately.

Largely because most who share my rides are typically 4" to 10" taller than me... because I'm only 5' 3". So the fact is, cat0020, I've not only 'walked in your wife's shoes', but I also posses a reasonably degree of 'hands-on' experience with over 13 different manufactures', including a first generation Vision. I am also a 20+ year recumbent veteran who designs, builds and rides these wacky machines. A full 90% of my sales are 5' 6" and shorter,.. because unlike you, I know through genuine, hands-on experience, what works,.. and what does not work.

Good for you, then it shouldn't be too diffucult to show some photo of yours to prove your point as you have built these "wacky machines" as you call them.

Personally, we just like to ride... and that's "hands on" enough for us, if that doesn't work in you, that's still only your opinion.. maybe you should ride more to master the minor inconvenience in couple of inches in "seat height" on a recumbent. But honestly, some people will never be happy, some people just adapt to what they have, in the end you can't determine what works or not without riding.

Have you got pictures of you actually riding?

WOW, sure glad this is a friendly forum.

WOW, sure glad this is a friendly forum.

So, whatever became of the OP? :twitchy:

So, whatever became of the OP? :twitchy:

Probably headed out to test ride some uprights.

This ain't the best source of info on bents.

Try here:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/index.php

And here:

http://www.bacchettabikes.com/forum2/

For more info.

It seems to me that Cat's and Papa's fight is rather academic, considering that the Vision company has been out of business in 2003. However, Volae took over their design and continue building similar bikes: http://www.volaerecumbents.com/2007/volae_tour.php

It's kind of fun to watch two grown people argue crossways. Some of what both of them are saying is true:

SWB's are-
more compact
tougher to fit to shorter riders
easier to pack in a car
tend towards more sensitive handling

LWB's are-
easier to "re-learn" to ride
easier to design around a lower seat
tend to be heavier
tougher to transport in motor vehicles

As to what would best fit her... well, only she can determine that. Only by test riding different bikes can she figure out what's best for her. I recommend finding a recumbent-riding group and ask questions. Lots of questions. You'll find that you'll get offered many test rides.

In terms of "size", I've known a couple 5-foot-couple-inches women who have ridden recumbents. One rides a HP Velo Streetmachine comfortably (despite the 20" front wheel) and one rode an XXS Easy Racers Gold Rush, touring it up and down the West Coast. Both were very happy with their riding choices.

As to my qualifications: I was building recumbent trikes (http://home.comcast.net/~jeff_wills/aerocoupe/index.htm) in the early '80's. My wife and I bought and rode Lightning SWB bikes from 1991 to 2002 (I still have mine (http://home.comcast.net/~jeff_wills/lightning/index.htm)). At that point we switch to Easy Racer LWB bikes: first Tour Easies (http://home.comcast.net/~jeff_wills/diane-big.jpg), now Gold Rushes (http://home.comcast.net/~jeff_wills/jeff-grr/index.htm).

Sorry I can't give you any help on sizing, but we're on the other end of the sizing spectrum: I'm 6-foot-4, my wife's 5-foot-10.