Originally Posted by
Genshu
So which is really the more effective bike for covering ground?
Bents are far more comfortable for going long distances, but everybody doesn't ride distances long enough for that to be useful.
Seems like bents have an aero advantage, but regulars are better on the hills, basically canceling each other out unless one rarely deals with hills or is always dealing with hills.
Bents have a wider variety of rider positions than upright bikes do. Some bents are very reclined and made to be very aerodynamic but can be daunting to ride in heavy car traffic, while other "touring" types sit upright and are easy to ride, but slower than a typical upright bike would be. Both are comfortable, but you kinda need to make a decision which way to go--higher-speed or easier-use.
The blue part is pretty much true.
Someone showed me a velomobile and I found it fascinating which also got me more interested in bents in general.
I've not ever owned or rode one. It'd be interesting to try for a bit, but I doubt I'd buy one. The main justification for velomobiles seems to be to shelter the rider during cold weather.
Velomobiles look like they'd be fast, but they are almost always trikes--which means they are slower than a similar recumbent bicycle would be.
Plus even if you do buy a more-upright-seating recumbent, it can be streamlined fairly easily and cheaply compared to buying any production velomobile: on the bicycle you just add a front fairing from Mueller or Windwrap, and then add a bodysock.