Recumbent - How much faster are u on a 'bent that a std road bike?

I'm have a fixed gear and a road bike that I'm very fond of, but I have never tried a recumbent.
I'm looking for speed and I think I'd like one of those long wheelbase dandies with the under-the-seat steering.

If I average 18 mph for a 100 mile century, would I be alot faster, assuming the course is pretty flat on a recumbent?

First off, don't expect to be faster right away. Recumbents use different muscles (or the same muscles, but at a different amount compared to a road), and take some time to get even as fast as you are on a DF.

That said, once you are well trained on a recumbent and comfortable, I would say on a flat ride you can expect to be anywhere from 10-20% faster, but more importantly, more comfortable. Of course if you are in something fared like a velomobile, the improvement will be even greater.

I unfortunately don't have a cyclocomputer on both my DF and my recumbent, but from some rough timing on my route (mostly rail-road grade slope or less) I know I'm typically faster on the recumbent, and much more comfortable, especially on longer rides. Aerodynamics plays a big part, but I'm sure comfort has something to do with it too.

Best way to find out for sure is to try it though, just don't judge off your first ride on the 'bent. Give it some time before the trials.

Edit: There's one thing I forgot to mention. Even though I am slower on my DF on flat areas, it feels like I'm faster. I attribute this to my face not sitting in the slipstream from my feet/legs/frame, and that it's pointing directly into the wind. Also, I'm sure there's less wind pressing on my body as a whole, leading to the faster time (but slower perceived speed) on the 'bent. Definitely take a cyclocomputer if you want accurate speed measurements, as your senses can be misleading.

Yes, but the difference depends on the aerodynamics of each bike/rider combination.

But, to illustrate, the last time I had a road bike was about 20 years ago. I could max about 25 mph on level ground. I can do about the same max on my recumbent now. The difference is that now I have nowhere near the fitness and strength level I had when I was much younger and couldn't possible ride a road bike to the same speed. The recumbent let's my older body play to the same level as my young mind.

:)ensen.

On a USS LWB you'd probably be slower. If you got a racing style recumbent, you'd be faster, although it's hard to say by how much. I have several racing recumbents. My former best time for a century on an upright, drafting for all I was worth, was 18 mph not including stops (avg speed on the auto-start computer.) I was pretty well wiped by the end. My best on a recumbent has been 23 mph, mostly solo, and non-stop. Well, non-stop except for having to wait through TWO cycles of the only light on the route! GRR! I was tired, but after catching my breath I walked several blocks and got myself a hot dog at a vendor stand.

On most days, I am somewhere between 14 and 16 MPH faster on a bent than on a road bike. My recumbents get used. DF's mostly pine away in the garage going zero MPH.

On a USS LWB you'd probably be slower. If you got a racing style recumbent, you'd be faster
Yeah, LWB are not generally know for speed. and USS are not known for speed (extra wind resistance). So put them together and you would probably be slower.

Recumbents enable you to ride for longer periods of time as well (due to the comfort aspect)

Yeah, LWB are not generally know for speed.

Yeah, except for the Gold Rush, which was used for setting speed records.

Yeah, except for the Gold Rush, which was used for setting speed records.

Streamliners are a different breed entirely. An unfaired Gold Rush isn't any faster than an unfaired V-Rex.

I'm have a fixed gear and a road bike that I'm very fond of, but I have never tried a recumbent.
I'm looking for speed and I think I'd like one of those long wheelbase dandies with the under-the-seat steering.

If I average 18 mph for a 100 mile century, would I be alot faster, assuming the course is pretty flat on a recumbent?

I am trying to accumulate real-world data on this question...It turns out it is difficult to do, at least in my case where the comparison is between a carbon fiber road bike and a high racer. I think the best way to answer this question is to use this bicycle speed and power calculator:

http://www.noping.net/english/

My experience is consistent with the results of this calculator. So, if you have an upright racing bike with your hands on the drops and can produce 200 watts then your speed is estimated at 19.8 mph. A highracer estimates out at 21.6 mph. So a high racer recumbent might be about 10% faster than an upright DF racer for the same 200 watt rider on the flats.

A low racer with above seat steering estimates at 23.4 mph.

I'm not actually any faster riding my titanium recumbent than either of my two road bikes. I'm just not as sore or tired after a long ride.

I recently changed from a USS bike to a bike with tweener bars. I'm not sure there's much to the aero difference actually. If anything, my old USS bike had a terminal velocity going down hills several mph faster than my new bike, suggesting it may have been more aero. But hills aside, I'm much faster overall on my new bike because the position lets me generate more power, more efficiently.

To the OP: try to find a dealer and do lots of test rides. Recumbents have very varied designs, and some may suit you better than others. In general, to get the speed you're after you'll want to look for a high bottom bracket and reclined seat. Light weight would be nice too, but quickly gets expensive and a few extra lbs may not be a big deal if you're riding in mostly flat areas.

The other thing with speed questions is, at 10 mph, aerodynamics don't matter by a measurable amount. Ya gotta be going fast before aerodynamics matter.

Slower uphill. Faster downhill.

I'm averaging 14 MPH on my LWB recumbent.

Forgot to mention I ride a homebuilt recumbent in a hilly area. I might get a faster average speed in a flat area or with a commercially made recumbent bike with OSS. Who knows?

I'm faster on a loaded CF than I am on a DF stripped down road bike!

just curious, but why is a bent with under seatr steering slower than above seat steering, with both bikes being the same?

train safe-

why is a bent with under seatr steering slower than above seat steering

I'm not 100% sure this is so, but if it is, it would be a matter of aerodynamics. Aerodynamic drag is a function of two things: your frontal area (that is, how big a silhouette you present to the wind), and your coefficient of drag. Your Cd probably isn't much different either way, but with your arms in front of you, they are subtracted from your frontal area.

I'm have a fixed gear and a road bike that I'm very fond of, but I have never tried a recumbent.
I'm looking for speed and I think I'd like one of those long wheelbase dandies with the under-the-seat steering.

If I average 18 mph for a 100 mile century, would I be alot faster, assuming the course is pretty flat on a recumbent?

Agree with BP's assesments and also think Smokesters calculations give a good indication of DF-HighRacer-Lowracer speeds(i'm about 1.5 mph faster on Lowracer than my HiRacer) . Wouln't want to do a century on a DF constantly in the drops for sure.

I really think the biggest bonus is the relax/rest factor on a reumbent, your normal sitting position is both exceedingly comfortable and aero. I would really suggest getting a LowRacer or HiRacer (or both).

LowRacers really can't be beat for speed and comfort on long distance, but I would consider them more of a loner bike. HiRacers just a step below in speed fit in very well with the DF crowd. I paceline with a group of upright riders quite a bit (allways in front or the back-never in between). Have done some 19 mph 100 mile paceline rides with my HiRacer. A 5 hour century this year on my LowRacer at age of 62.

Most USS are not designed for speed. They often have somewhat upright seating, with the bars below the seat. This increases frontal area, since the arms are essentially perpendicular to the wind (like an upright rider's legs.) Exceptions are bikes like the Reynolds Wishbone, which although they were USS, placed the rider so reclined that the arms ended up being in line with the airflow.

The biggest advantage for recumbents is comfort. For the racing 'bents, they also have the advantage of aerodynamics. A broad question like "how much faster are recumbents" ignores the diversity of the genre. If someone asked, "how fast is an upright?" the next question would rightly be "what kind - road, mountain, hybrid, cruiser?" Somehow, that eludes the upright community, who think a Carbent and a Bike-E are both recumbents, and lumping them together is perfectly valid.

The bikes with under-seat steering are not as aerodynamic, because your arms catch a lot of wind that would be avoided by using above-seat-steering. Underseat steering is more about general riding and touring comfort more than speed.

The only currently-made underseat-steering LWB I know of (in the US) is the Longbikes Slipstream (http://www.longbikes.com/SiteII/Bikes/Slipstream/SlipstreamSpecs.html) ($2800).

If you want a long-wheelbase that's fast, the $2600 RANS X-stream (http://www.ransbikes.com/X-Stream.htm) is an option (the top bike pictured).

High-racers are fast also and can be had for $1500 easily, but the steering is more-jittery. I had a short-wheelbase bike first and switched to a long-wheelbase, and very much prefer the longer wheelbase just for the steering stability.

There are also lowracers, but they mostly cost even more.

-----

I have a 20/26" long-wheelbase recumbent by the by. I am probably slower on it than I would be an upright bike--but I am far, far more comfortable on the recumbent.

I didn't buy my first recumbent until I was about 35 years old.
If I'd have had recumbent bikes my whole life, I'd have rode at least twice the miles I did on "normal" bikes.
~

On my LWB recumbent im 2 to 4 mph faster on ave. Also because of the comfort, I probably ride about 50% further. As stated the ASS LWB recumbents have a better aero profile. I myself adj my handlebars to keep my arms almost straight out so the aero proflie is just my fist. And of course the faster you ride the more advantage a recumbent will have since almost all of them have a smaller profile. Above 15 mph about 85% of energy used is to overcome aero drag.

So a SWB is faster than a LWB? What do "DF" and "high racer" mean?

If this comes thru properly then they are (left to right) (click on attachment to zoom in)

LWB (long wheelbase), MLWB (medium-long wheelbase), SWB (short wheelbase), not quite sure, highracer, lowracer, velomobile

DF is "diamond frame," a.k.a. UCI-compliant bike. We have other names for them, too; but "DF" or "upright" are the polite ones.

Racing 'bent come in two basic varieties: high and low. Highracers have two big wheels, 26 or 700c and very reclined seating. Lowracers are, well, low. Seat height is generally 13 inches or less, and also very reclined. Both types place the bottom bracket higher than the seat so that the torso is placed behind the legs (minimizes frontal area.) Of course, there is a smattering of 'bents which don't quite fall into those two categories, so you will hear of 'quazi-low' or 'mid-racer' or other variations.

So a SWB is faster than a LWB?

Depends.

I anticipate that I will be faster on my LWB V3 than I have been on my SWB V-Rex, once I get the V3 and my legs dialed in.

expect to be anywhere from 10-20% faster

This is a ridiculous notion. With all the racer boys and weight weenies out there, why have they not embraced this secret 10-20% advantage? I know, I know, bents have been banned from official racing. So why don't we see racers on the road in everday practice or club rides embracing this 20% advantage?

Because it simply doesn't exist.

Do you realize that you're saying a bent (with a properly conditioned rider) would allow up to 20% better speed which means a typical century rider could shave 72 minutes off a 6 hour ride? Thats quite a margin in races won by mere minutes.

20% advantages are hard to find, nearly impossible in the sporting world. Even REI's 20% coupon only occurs once a year.

This is a ridiculous notion. With all the racer boys and weight weenies out there, why have they not embraced this secret 10-20% advantage?
I am equally fit on both uprights and recumbents. On my almost daily 28 mile rolling route, at the same average heart rate, here are my typical average speeds - and I mean GPS calculated averages for the whole ride - not "average cruising speed" (whatever that is...):
Raleigh R700 road bike. 17 mph
Bacchetta Strada recumbent. 20 mph

That's about a 17% improvement. And I'm just a recreational rider, not a racer. So, yes it is definitely ridiculous.

I think the reason "racer boys" don't embrace recumbents is because part of the reason that many of them ride is to create a certain look. I know this because they have told me "that bike looks stupid", or "it's for geeks". Fine. If you are riding to create a certain look, definitely stay on your road bike. For fast, comfortable, recreational riding on the open road, recumbents offer a ridiculous advantage. As long as you don't mind a little ridicule.

Do you realize that you're saying a bent (with a properly conditioned rider) would allow up to 20% better speed which means a typical century rider could shave 72 minutes off a 6 hour ride? Thats quite a margin in races won by mere minutes.

72 minutes would be on the high side, but it sounds reasonable. As I wrote earlier, my personal best times have dropped by about that much. A bit more, actually. But I don't do that many centuries, especially for time. I don't pretend to know why more cyclists don't ride recumbents, but I'm happy they don't. I like havng the advantage I have; and if a lot of strong riders got lowracers, I'd be back where I started: just another middle-of-the-pack rider.

My average speed over a 50 mile circuit (the max I can stand on a DF) is just shy of 17 MPH on either my 2002 Vision VR-45 SWB or my 2006 Trek 1500. Both are Ultegra level 9 speeds very similarily equipped. The DF is 7 or 8 pounds lighter and the Vision is more Aero. The speeds are calculated with the same GPS. I have over 5000 miles on the Vision so I believe I have reached my limit.

I still can't buy into even a 17% advantage. I want to believe this since I'm still a bent fan.

But consider the following: This year's Tour De France had 156 riders complete the race. 1st place around 85 hours and last place around 90 hours. Only a 5 hour gap between 1st and 156th? A 17% (bent) advantage would equal almost a 15 hour gap........... TRIPLE the gap of the world's most famous bicycle race?

I know bents can't compete in the TDF, and I agree that most racer boys wouldn't be caught dead on one. But what about the vast number of speed freaks paying top dollar for any and all performance advantages and modern lightweight technology. This is a large group apparently ignoring the bent secret? While they may not ride with their groups on a bent wouldn't they love to boast how they did "x" ride the other day on their bent in 17% less time just for the sake of the argument, if it were true?

I am trying to accumulate real-world data on this question...It turns out it is difficult to do, at least in my case where the comparison is between a carbon fiber road bike and a high racer. I think the best way to answer this question is to use this bicycle speed and power calculator:

http://www.noping.net/english/

My experience is consistent with the results of this calculator. So, if you have an upright racing bike with your hands on the drops and can produce 200 watts then your speed is estimated at 19.8 mph. A highracer estimates out at 21.6 mph. So a high racer recumbent might be about 10% faster than an upright DF racer for the same 200 watt rider on the flats.

A low racer with above seat steering estimates at 23.4 mph.

IMO it's doubtful that a rider who can output 200 watts on a DF will also be able to put out 200 watts on a 'bent. It just doesn't work like that.


I'm not actually any faster riding my titanium recumbent than either of my two road bikes. I'm just not as sore or tired after a long ride.

+1


But what about the vast number of speed freaks paying top dollar for any and all performance advantages and modern lightweight technology. This is a large group apparently ignoring the bent secret? While they may not ride with their groups on a bent wouldn't they love to boast how they did "x" ride the other day on their bent in 17% less time just for the sake of the argument, if it were true?

Not if they follow the same train of thought that you have and let's face it, they're stupid jocks.

The bike calculator is in line with my personal experience. I would not ride a low racer b/c I'm in NYC traffic. But if I was in the right locale, that's what I would ride. This is a fast one: http://www.zockrabikes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=8

This is a ridiculous notion. With all the racer boys and weight weenies out there, why have they not embraced this secret 10-20% advantage? I know, I know, bents have been banned from official racing. So why don't we see racers on the road in everday practice or club rides embracing this 20% advantage?

Because it simply doesn't exist.

Do you realize that you're saying a bent (with a properly conditioned rider) would allow up to 20% better speed which means a typical century rider could shave 72 minutes off a 6 hour ride? Thats quite a margin in races won by mere minutes.

20% advantages are hard to find, nearly impossible in the sporting world. Even REI's 20% coupon only occurs once a year.

I am 15% faster on my Ti Aero with the seat stays at mid-point (about 19"). I would be faster if I were on a low racer with a 20 degree seat angle. Uprights put you in parachute position, and the only things keeping you from going as fast as you want are wind resistance, rolling resistance, and fear. Recumbents conquer the wind resistance part.

They are not for everyone. IMHO, they are less maneuverable, less visible, and most require more chain. (I can't think of any other problems, but I'm sure that there is one.)

To coin a phrase from Isaac Asimov, a lowracer or highracer is an 'unsecret weapon.' There's nothing secret about them. Anybody can see how they work, and I give regular demonstrations that they do work; but none of the upright crowd in my club can bring themselves to get one. And so they get destroyed every week, all summer. That's OK by me! :roflmao2:

Let's not forget that MOST recumbents are not race-oriented and are NOT faster than a good road bike. 20% may be atypical, but it's possible.

I am 15% faster

So why hasn't anyone in the public racing world, or record setting world, demonstrated this secret either alone or with a team or sponsor? Surely this would be the end to all speculation.

Wouldn't it be a revelation if just one TDF caliber racer trained to get his bent legs, then climbed on the lightest laid back carbon racer known to man and retraced the entire TDF route in 70 hours. The first 7 finishers this year came in at 85 hours or so. Or find me an equal of the riders last in line at 90 hours and get them to do it in 75.

We have not seen it because it can't be done. And if we keep hearing the advantage is only in the flats then its not an advantage. Like sayin my driver's a lousy putter.

Every bent I see on the road I'm passing. And I'm a girl. All the riders are old, however. This is why they are so slow I think. Have never seen a fit 25-year-old on a bent. That would be a better test.

In Essex County, Massachusetts where I live, we have lots of recumbents around and several trikes with full fairings. I speak with a man in his early 80s who lives a few towns over who rides a faired trike. He is very slow but is a nice man and he is having fun. What more can you ask of life?

@uprightbent: I for one would love to see them allow a single recumbent as a demonstration at the solo TT stage in the Tour. They could even make it so the IHPVA could pick their one guy. I'm sure it will be somebody like Sam Whittingham, a former national track cyclist who happens to ride recumbents at record speeds. This way, we know that his performance will be within the same range as the elite Tour riders on their Ridleys and Cervelos.

But since we all clearly know that isn't going to happen, may I suggest that instead, you come to a recumbent specific event in which there is a one hour mass start race. This will be like riding your favourite charity race, except that you will be surrounded by streamliners, velomobiles, lowracers, highracers and trikes.

Leaving the streamliners and velomobiles out of it for a second, since they will all be in the 50+kph, this is what I predict will happen:

You will start strong by standing on the pedals, then settle into a nice pace. Let's assume that you are riding a proper TT bike with the aerobars, front aerospokes and rear disk. Most of the recumbents piloted by various weekend warriors will not see you again for the whole hour, and that will include someone like me. You will think you are alone, but don't let up because around 20 minutes into it, the first pair of the lowracers will begin to nudge up behind you. They will wait behind your draft shadow for a while and rest, then make a pass as a draft team. There will be some back and forth as you step it up, but eventually they begin to crawl away into the distance. It's at this point you're thinking you should have brought your buddy so you could draft each other. About 10 minutes after the first pair crawled away from you, another lowracer, then another will find your draft and do the same thing. Since there will only be a half-dozen lowracer types with the legs to chase you, maybe only 4 of them will pass you before the end. After the race, you'll find out that they were almost all piloted by 40-somethings. In all likelihood, nobody will rub it in, although there will be some light-hearted jokes about you bringing a funny-looking bike.

:)ensen.

The outcome will also depend on if you are riding in a group of DF bikes or solo. I haven't ridden my bent for a few years now, but have been riding a DF Tandem. I think the performance characteristics of the tandem and a fast bent would be comparable. Fast downhill and on the flat but a bit slower uphill.
So in a TT situation it is faster or in a group of DFs on a flat course it is also good.
On a hilly course though I am slower on the tandem (equal ability riders) in a race situation than I am on a solo Df. What happens is that a bunch of DF riders drafting can match the speed of the tandem on the flat and then you get dropped on the hills.

I can't explain why pro racers aren't choosing 'bents to race and set speed records. I can only guess that it's tied up in marketing, racing rules and sponsorship money. But as far as recreational fast riders on road bikes, I would still contend that they avoid 'bents because they are following a fashion. Even "uprightbent" says that most racer boys "wouldn't be caught dead" on one. Yup, that's what you would say about a country club wife wearing last year's dress.

It's no secret - it's old news. The aerodynamic riding position of a recumbent offers a significant speed advantage for most fit riders. Of course there are lots of other reasons to enjoy riding uprights.

Hey, Laurel Lane, this is funny, but true. I am about to step out the door to head to a ride in Essex County, MA with a couple of other "old guys" on 'bents! (Haverhill to Plum Island and back) We will ride about 50 miles, and average 19-20 mph over that ride. Keep on the lookout!

So why hasn't anyone in the public racing world, or record setting world, demonstrated this secret either alone or with a team or sponsor? Surely this would be the end to all speculation.

Would it? I doubt it would resolve anything. For instance, RANS sponsored a 4-main RAAM team this year and beat all the other 4-man teams. Did it prove anything?

I can't explain why pro racers aren't choosing 'bents to race and set speed records. I can only guess that it's tied up in marketing, racing rules and sponsorship money. But as far as recreational fast riders on road bikes, I would still contend that they avoid 'bents because they are following a fashion. Even "uprightbent" says that most racer boys "wouldn't be caught dead" on one. Yup, that's what you would say about a country club wife wearing last year's dress.

It's no secret - it's old news. The aerodynamic riding position of a recumbent offers a significant speed advantage for most fit riders. Of course there are lots of other reasons to enjoy riding uprights.

Hey, Laurel Lane, this is funny, but true. I am about to step out the door to head to a ride in Essex County, MA with a couple of other "old guys" on 'bents! (Haverhill to Plum Island and back) We will ride about 50 miles, and average 19-20 mph over that ride. Keep on the lookout!


A-bomb: I live in Marblehead and work in Boston. I keep a horse in Ipswich and frequently ride my bike up Rt.1 to Newburyport and Southern NH. I'm 31 and 6 feet tall. I'm a big girl. I can maintain 22 mph long enough to get ahead of you. Then I'll have to go hide behind a billboard and throw up as you repass me. But you won't see this and you'll think that tall chick can really go.

I never doubted the bent bike's ability, it's the older riders I see pushing them. Have no doubt a youngster can make them go.

they avoid 'bents because they are following a fashion.

Athletes go to extremes for records. Men shave to ride a bike. Swimmers spend thousands on a low drag suit. Athletes across the board risk careers and lives with doping and god knows what else. The time trial upright racer who dons that most ridiculous mowhawk aero helmet cannot be too concerned with fashion.

Hopping onto a bicycle (any bicycle for that matter) thats 20% faster AND legal should be a no brainer not impeded by fashion.

Hopping onto a bicycle (any bicycle for that matter) thats 20% faster AND legal should be a no brainer not impeded by fashion.

It's like political spin doctoring. You repeat something enough, people believe it - fervently.
"It's not a real bike". That's spin.
Thank the UCI. What do you think bicycle racing would look like today if the UCI had not limited the machines to the conventional frame configuration we know (and love)?
Don't ask 'bent riders why 'bent's aren't being adopted by the fast riders. Ask the fast riders.

Hopping onto a bicycle (any bicycle for that matter) thats 20% faster AND legal should be a no brainer not impeded by fashion.Yes, except for the fact that we are discussing human beings here; most of whom use logic only as a very last resort far behind emotion when making such choices.

if the UCI had not limited the machines

We always fall back on the UCI ban from way, way back. Was it in the 40's? Can someone confirm this? The UCI ban is a weak and old argument.

In the same timeframe we've accomplished huge world class tasks like civil rights legislation and the creation of an electronic society, but we can't let bents into a darn bicyle race?

On a smaller level look at what NASCAR has done or modified over the years. Allowing Toyota into the original good ole boy club? There has to be a better reason behind this and it must be the speed, or lack of.

Uprights put you in parachute position, and the only things keeping you from going as fast as you want are wind resistance, rolling resistance, and fear. Recumbents conquer the wind resistance part.

They are not for everyone. IMHO, they are less maneuverable, less visible, and most require more chain. (I can't think of any other problems, but I'm sure that there is one.)

They might conquer the wind resistance part, but I think they lose some ground on the "fear" part. There's something about laying in a reclined position that's just not conducive to power production.

In other words, although recumbents use less power to go a given speed, the recumbent position also generates less power. So you'll only be faster if you're not maxing out your power output. I don't know why this is so difficult for some people to understand.


Don't ask 'bent riders why 'bent's aren't being adopted by the fast riders. Ask the fast riders.

+100 And I bet uprightbent would be surprised by the answers he gets from them.

We always fall back on the UCI ban from way, way back. Was it in the 40's? Can someone confirm this? The UCI ban is a weak and old argument.

In the same timeframe we've accomplished huge world class tasks like civil rights legislation and the creation of an electronic society, but we can't let bents into a darn bicyle race?

On a smaller level look at what NASCAR has done or modified over the years. Allowing Toyota into the original good ole boy club? There has to be a better reason behind this and it must be the speed, or lack of.

Why does there have to be a better reason? Why is it so difficult for you to accept that for most people of intelligence cycling has become largely irrelevant since the 40's due to the popularization of motorized vehicles.

Speed has not been the primary motivator in cycling for a long long time and it probably never will be because everyone knows that without artificial rules a bicycle is not a fast vehicle. How could speed possibly be the primary motivator when the only reason the sport even survives is due to nostalgia and tradition?

But you're going about this entirely ass backwards. Surely trying to deduce which is faster by looking at the social dynamics of the cycling community is the worst possible way. We know for a fact that the faster one will remain faster regardless of what people ride, so if you really want to know the answer I suggest you start by defining your goals and testing against those (not some ridiculous unrelated proxy). All I can tell you from my own testing is a recumbent is a better vehicle as it relates to my goals and I couldn't care less about the goals of pro racers (but if for some strange reason you do then by all means buddy up and ask them).

We always fall back on the UCI ban from way, way back. Was it in the 40's? Can someone confirm this?

For the record, the ruling that a recumbent was not a bicycle was by the 58th Congress of the UCI, on February 3, 1934. Recumbent development was flat-lined until the early 1980s. While the Safety Bicycle is a mature product, i.e. further improvements are in components or materials, not in basic design, recumbents are evolving at a relatively quick pace.

The UCI ban is a rock-solid explanation. That and the weight of tradition. Advocates of Dvorak keyboards probably shake their heads in astonishment at the continued dominance of QWERTY, despite what they consider the obvious benefits of Dvorak. Regardless of their relative merits, it's difficult to overcome that incumbency. Our parents used QWERTY keyboards, and our first keyboards were QWERTY too. But some folks will happily try something different if they see a potential advantage in it.

Same with recumbents. (sidebar: I will speculate there is a positive correlation between Dvorak keyboard usage and recumbent riding.) We all grew up on DF bikes. I'm sure there are some non-racers who are intimidated by the novelty of the recumbent position, but we're seeing a gradual increase in the popularity of quasi-bents among comfort bikes. I'd be surprised if many non-racers really had a problem with recumbents.

Racers really have no choice; the disdain that some of them show for recumbents is dismaying, but no more dismaying than the disdain that some folks in this forum are showing towards DF bikes and their riders.

I have owned a recumbent and I will again, but right now, my household is DF-only. And you know, that's fine. I like my bike; more importantly, I like riding them. When you dismiss the riding of DF bikes as merely conforming to a fashion, you're insulting me.

Whenever cycling events allow recumbents, usually one or two are game to join. Trouble is that the major competitions do not. UCI rules do not allow recumbents. Notwithstanding the 1934 decision to ban the Mochet velomobile, as recently as 1996 the UCI downgraded their 1 hour record bike specification to pre-Boardman and Obree machines, effectively sidestepping any radical improvement in their fastest bikes and fastest speeds. While the TdF TT bikes conform to this older specification, any of the recumbent bikes and indeed even the Superman position bikes would not.

As I said, if the major competitions allowed recumbents, we would field teams. For example, RAAM and other ultra-marathon events. Since most competitive recumbent riders cannot easily access a general event that will allow them, we make our own. And in these human powered vehicle competitions, anything goes, provided that a human makes it go. If you can successfully field a DF bike in these competitions, more power to you, literally.

We certainly wouldn't refuse Lance Armstrong and his Trek if he wanted to race. He might still win, with his 500 watts, but when a guy with only 300 watts comes close, it's a sure bet that the bike is the difference.

The challenge is laid down. The HPRA will have their 2010 recumbent racing schedule on the WISIL website. Come to one and see for yourself.

:)ensen.