Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Recumbent (http://www.bikeforums.net/recumbent/)
-   -   Why? (http://www.bikeforums.net/recumbent/797738-why.html)

Cyclebum 02-09-12 07:33 PM

Why?
 
Why are recumbents are not 'kings of the road' and DFs the odd thing out? Why do kids not start out with cheap swb bents with training wheels? Is there something about a DF that inherently makes it a better ride? If, as most of us believe, bents have the inherent advantage, why aren't more people riding them. (Let's ignore the cost difference which is mostly due to low production.)

What say you?

I did a 30 miler today on my TE, pondering this question. .

10 Wheels 02-09-12 07:39 PM

I did a no problem 93 mile ride Tuesday on my 32 lb DF touring bike.

Bent riders seem not to get in high mileage rides.

I am also a member in a bent forum.

Dudelsack 02-09-12 08:42 PM

Bents are hard to get used to.

Many bent riders are gainfully employed and don't have the luxury of doing 93 mile rides in the middle of the week. I had to work 9 hours today, and that doesn't leave enough time to do 93 mile rides.

That's all I can think of.

wphamilton 02-09-12 08:46 PM

I thought that bents were kings of the road. But less versatile and not as sporty, if not in fact at least in general impression.

JanMM 02-09-12 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclebum (Post 13832531)
Why are recumbents are not 'kings of the road' and DFs the odd thing out? Why do kids not start out with cheap swb bents with training wheels? Is there something about a DF that inherently makes it a better ride? If, as most of us believe, bents have the inherent advantage, why aren't more people riding them. (Let's ignore the cost difference which is mostly due to low production.)

What say you?

I did a 30 miler today on my TE, pondering this question. .

Because there have been a blue billion DF's made and ridden since the death of the ordinary/penny farthing more than a century ago? And a relatively miniscule number of recumbents? That might have a lot to do with it.
I loves my 'bents but most cyclists are just not interested.

JanMM 02-09-12 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 Wheels (Post 13832565)

Bent riders seem not to get in high mileage rides.

You have data to support that? Some bent riders do indeed ride far.
Most cyclists of all sorts don't ride long distances.

k7baixo 02-09-12 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 Wheels (Post 13832565)
I did a no problem 93 mile ride Tuesday on my 32 lb DF touring bike.

Bent riders seem not to get in high mileage rides.


Define 'high mileage rides' please.

aenlaasu 02-09-12 10:08 PM

I've never gotten in what might be called 'high mileage rides' on DF or Bents, but I've ridden my bent farther and more frequently than I ever did any of my DFs. The times I've ridden solo (usually I go with my husky), I'm faster as well. I know I'm a long way off the standard, but those are my observations. :)

BlazingPedals 02-10-12 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclebum (Post 13832531)
Why are recumbents are not 'kings of the road' and DFs the odd thing out? Why do kids not start out with cheap swb bents with training wheels? Is there something about a DF that inherently makes it a better ride? If, as most of us believe, bents have the inherent advantage, why aren't more people riding them. (Let's ignore the cost difference which is mostly due to low production.)

I'd say your basic premise is wrong. Recumbents DO cost more and it's likely they always will. Assuming other costs are the same, recumbents have a more substantial seat and three times the chain. Given that most kids are more into riding in their neighborhoods than they are to racking up huge mileages, an upright will be cheaper and last until they outgrow it - and the kid won't care. There are no downsides to the upright!

And anyway, I don't mind that recumbents aren't the primary bike style. If everyone rode recumbents, there'd also be more fast recumbents, too. I'm not the biggest engine out there and I'd rather keep others off from lowracers so I can keep my advantage.

Cyclebum 02-10-12 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingPedals (Post 13834091)
There are no downsides to the upright!

You gotta be kidding.

10 Wheels 02-10-12 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k7baixo (Post 13833190)
Define 'high mileage rides' please.

10,000 to 16,000 miles a year.

VegasTriker 02-10-12 09:59 AM

You simply can't ignore price when it comes to widespread adoption of recumbents. Even if they were mass produced, a decent quality recumbent, just like a decent quality road or mountain bike, would cost more than most of the general public wants to spend on a bike. It is difficult to persuade adult riders to stay away from the mass merchandiser bikes when buying a bike for themselves or their children. Few have ever ridden a really high quality bike to know the pleasure it can produce. To them it is just a toy or something for an occasional jaunt for exercise. Very sad!

Cyclebum 02-10-12 10:44 AM

Ignorance, cost, and 'image' are why the bikeways aren't crowded with bents. Shame. Gotta feel a bit sorry for the DF crowd. I was part of that crowd until a few months ago.

Recumbomatic 02-10-12 11:53 AM

Because DFs were here first, by a longshot. The refined, practical, readily available recumbent that modern bentheads love is a fairly new concoction. Whereas, the DF industrial complex has been around for a century at least.

gavtatu 02-10-12 11:56 AM

http://www.cyclegenius.com/history.php

this is a great article, and a crackin' read !

scrapser 02-10-12 12:09 PM

I wonder what a child-size recumbent with training wheels would look like.

BlazingPedals 02-10-12 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 Wheels (Post 13832565)
Bent riders seem not to get in high mileage rides.

Don't see the relevance. Besides, your definition of 10-16K miles would rule out 99.9% of upright cyclists, too.

dcrowell 02-10-12 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclebum (Post 13832531)
Why are recumbents are not 'kings of the road' and DFs the odd thing out? Why do kids not start out with cheap swb bents with training wheels? Is there something about a DF that inherently makes it a better ride? If, as most of us believe, bents have the inherent advantage, why aren't more people riding them. (Let's ignore the cost difference which is mostly due to low production.)

What say you?

I did a 30 miler today on my TE, pondering this question. .

If you don't already know how to ride a bike, learning a 'bent would be harder. The lower position gives you less ability to affect the balance. A semi-recumbent solves that issue, but for *most* people, there's no reason to ride a 'bent.

Again, who cares? We're all riding bikes (and trikes), so what's the problem?

roby 02-10-12 01:49 PM

Why children wont use bents:

1. Useless in skate parks
2. Can't pop wheelies
3. Can't do stoppies
4. Can't do the run and jump on to get going quickly when playing with friends
5. Can't do the one foot on pedal other off and jump off the bike (and watch it crash in nearby object)
6. Foot pegs would be useless
7. Foot down reflex isn't as simple on bent
8. Getting stuck going uphill would be a PITA for kid
9. Can't see if your friend is riding your handlebars ("safely" in the backyard!!!)
10. Way more componentry for dad to fix
11. Less visibility (harder to look back/around you or even forward near your wheel)
12. Takes more space in the garage


I don't have a bent yet, I hope I can get some sick carbon lowracer in a few years. If the bent can't go faster than my CF DF with less effort, I see no use for it! BTW I think bents are slick as hell and I oogle them whenever I see them. Unfortunately I rarely see any that are built to go fast.

Dudelsack 02-10-12 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclebum (Post 13834938)
Ignorance, cost, and 'image' are why the bikeways aren't crowded with bents. Shame. Gotta feel a bit sorry for the DF crowd. I was part of that crowd until a few months ago.

Whoa. I'm a true believer too, but this is a bit overstated.

I guess I'm one of those "it's all good" types. If it's not producing nasty exhaust or covertly sucking up energy (like battery-run cars do), I'm fine with it.

I was going to say "If you don't do it in the road and scare the horses, I'm cool with it", but (Crowell will appreciate this) this weekend I was cruising about Simpsonville, with all its many horse farms, and every single horse that saw me and the bent high-tailed it away from the road. I really did do it in the road and scare the horses. I thought it was pretty cool.

Cyclebum 02-10-12 04:35 PM

Yeah, that was a bit harsh and controversial, but it did encompass all the reasons it took ME so long to convert. Can you really argue the basic truth in the statement?

How 'bout we strike 'ignorance' and substitute 'lack of experience.'

Dudelsack 02-10-12 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclebum (Post 13836526)
Yeah, that was a bit harsh and controversial, but it did encompass all the reasons it took ME so long to convert. Can you really argue the basic truth in the statement?

How 'bout we strike 'ignorance' and substitute 'lack of experience.'

That would work.

Hey, it's not as if our ancestors came over in slave ships and were beaten senseless for years by their evil overloads. It's just about bikes. As long as they don't do it in the road and scare the horses, it's all good.

Jeff Wills 02-10-12 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k7baixo (Post 13833190)
Define 'high mileage rides' please.

This: http://www.ohpv.org/events/albums/alex508-2008/

http://www.the508.com/2008web/2008sh...s/_A041575.jpg

Dudelsack 02-10-12 08:00 PM

Very cool story. Brave young man. Thanks for sharing.

Cyclebum 02-10-12 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Wills (Post 13837139)

Now that's what I'm talkin' about. Climbed Townes Pass myself on a loaded DF. 'Bout killed me.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:52 PM.