Why are most of the low cost semi recumbent bikes discontinued
 

I assume most of you guys in this forum ride recumbent bikes or semi recumbent ones, so you know how good it feels comparing to riding a DF bike.

I got mine (KHS) from craigslist for only $100 and I love it! But I noticed most of these low cost (~$500 new) recumbent bikes were discontinued.

E.g.

ReBike Recumbent
BikeE Recumbent
KHS Comfort Recumbent
Giant Revive Recumbent
etc.

I guess the reason must be not selling well. But why? I can't imagine if my LBS sells recumbent bike and DF bike side by side with same quality and price, people will not choose recumbent. Worst case i can imagine is half people choose recumbent and the other half still choose DF bike for whatever reason.

What do you guys think?

Tomhttp://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=480155

You could add Huffy Venice to your list. Of the bunch, only the BikeE was a true recumbent, and they went bankrupt due to poor timing of a major recall. The others are/were all semi-recumbents trying to compete price-wise with dept store bikes. It's a tough market segment. The closest thing to a modern version of them would be the Sun line-up. Suns can be ordered via the J&B catalog that most every bike shop in the U.S. uses.

The BikeE was hardly a "low cost" bike. The CT with no suspension was the cheapest. I rode an XT (rear shock version) for a short period of time. It sold new for $1,100 at a time you could buy a long wheelbase folding Linear for $1,200. That was my second recumbent and it was light years ahead of the BikeE in terms of handling and efficiency. The major stockholder of BikeE, John Acres, went on to make the BigHa which was just as big a failure as the BikeE brand. You might get that impression as there are so many use ones still being sold for just a couple hundred dollars today.

What are potential buyers comparing them to?

The lowest cost recumbents generally cost a lot more money than the lowest cost DF bikes. At the same price level, DF bikes generally offer better components. Most people have a realistic idea of what to expect from a DF bike. First test rides on some recumbent styles can be real iffy.

Unless a customer comes in specifically looking for a recumbent, selling them a recumbent is always going to be hard. You have to determine what their other options are before you can talk about why a recumbent might be a good choice for them.

You've already drunk the recumbent kool-aid, so you are not able to imagine on behalf of those who have not. Recumbents look weird. They don't look like the bikes we rode as kids, don't look like the bikes people ride in the movies, the bikes racers ride, the bike ET rode, or even the bike Albert Einstein rode. Image is darned near everything. Add to that the need to relearn something you already knew how to do, and that adds up to a very tough sell. For the shop owner, what's the benefit? Sell the guy what he came in to buy, or work hard to sell him something else, for no additional profit? No, you put those two bikes side by side, and you're going to sell 100 DF bikes for every recumbent, if not more. Why on earth would any shop owner waste the square footage with turnover that low?

One recumbent specialty shop serving a multi-state area may draw enough recumbent-seeking customers to stay in business. That's pretty much where we are.

I have been aware of recumbents since the early to mid 70's and have only seen 2 or 3 actually on the road since that time. People are not aware of their existence for the most part. My wife and I are new to tadpoles and we get all kinds of beeps, honks, waves, and other methods of thumbs up notification. Most folks are simply not aware and do not realize the advantages. Mostly comfort......When people ask about $$$$ they just get glassy eyed. They have not idea that good DF bikes cost well into 4 digit $$$ and a few are 5 digits. They think a bike should cost about $200.

+1 on your statement that more than 90% of people think that a bike should never cost over $200. Many also wince at the price of bents, even tho they are basically semi custom built.

I ride an Inexpensive lower end mountain bike I purchased new as a year end closeout with a trade in, cost me $1500 before the trade in. I have $2200 Invested in the bike and It is all the mountain bike I want and/or need.

I bought My Tour Easy Used for $1000 and sold my Sun EZ-1 for $200 more that I paid for it after more that seven years of ownership, the Tour Easy ended up costing me $300, Its a rescued garage queen, like new, I have $500 In the bike with mods. a new one is about $2500

Got $875 In a folder.. $725 In a Delta Trike,, All keepers, all great bikes IMO

I do not consider any of my bikes over priced or extravagant look at me toys, It's just that I have already learned that old lesson, 'You Get What You Pay For'

TANSTAAFL... (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)

I think the lower end smaller recumbents/semi bents are gone because those In love with bents get Into better quality real fast...
and as for the rest of the bike people out there, they just don't know any better :P


http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=480312http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=480313

I mean really,,, Of the two bikes pictured, think you can pick the one that rides the best ?

It's the one I didn't try and modify ~

Sometimes when friends come by and want to go for a ride, I show them my Easy Sport AX, and try to get them to take a short test ride up and down the street. They always come back and say "Wow! This thing is cool. I can't believe how comfortable it is."

Then I say "Let's go for a ride. You can ride the recumbent."
And most of them will say "No way! I can't be seen riding one of these....":rolleyes:

What happened to "This thing is cool"?

On answer to "semi recumbent" bikes is the line of crank forward bikes offered by Rans.

Throw 'low cost' out the window, then, but, yes, the RANS crank forwards would seem to be the very best. (Have never ridden one, or any crank forward.)

Remember everything seems to wax and wane. Right now trikes seem to be the hot item. IMO tho there is someone or company out there that will realize there is money to be made producing a lower cost bent. We can hope anyway.

I'll never understand the 'Crank Forward' design.

You cannot get over the pedals for the diamond frames power advantage, If you do the handle bars will be so close to you balance will take so much energy.
You cannot push your lower back Into the seat back like on a true recumbent, It does not have a seat back to lean against and be comfortable.

Seems to me the only power you can produce Is from pushing down with your legs,,and pulling up the same way If clipped In.
I would not do that to my knee's......
Mashing can cause damage to our knee's right !

Yeah I've stated my view before and was told correctly so, "I should Test Ride one",,, I rode what to me seemed to have a very similar seat position tho not as pronounced,,we always called them Granny Trikes, (Adult Trikes), you know the one.

I see all forms of recumbent's In my area, Tads, Delta's, Two wheeler's, low racers, short, long, wheel bases and high racers in many places down here,, I have never seen a Crank forward actually ridden... just sayin.

Advanced Transportation Products' Vision R-30 was $875 new. Another that fell by the wayside.

(All joke here. Don't take offense.)

Semi-recumbent's challenge? People are realizing they are half-a**ed bikes. Think about it. The rider of an upright road bike is fully a**ed. No? Look at rider drafting another then think about dogs in heat. Full recombents? No a** at all. And those semis. Oh well.

And in seriousness - if I were to go recumbent it would be a higher end semi. I rode MIT Professor David Wilson's semi in 1976 and was very impressed. (Also rode beside him a few times heading out for evening training rides as he was returning from work. That was a good and fast bike. Decades later I took a Vision for a trainer spin at the Seattle trade show. Same position and again, I was impressed that was a good ride. Both were short wheelbase, bars under the legs. Both felt to this old-time racer like how a good bike should feel. I have done a couple of spins on full recumbents and no thanks, I have zero desire to own one. I don't care how fast they are. It's not what I want to do.

If I ever do go recumbent, it might well be on a bike I design myself. I would sketch up myself in a good semi position then design a bike around that. I know TiCycles could build it and do it right; they have done a few recumbents already. It would be a fun challenge.

Ben

Osco, the thing with crank-forwards is that they can have big cushy saddles without worrying about having it fit between the rider's legs. The pedals are out in front some instead of being directly under the saddle. Plus, riders can flat-foot while seated. Performance-wise, they're the worst of both worlds.

The high end would definitely be RANS. But then, most people looking at that genre are looking for low price, and RANS aren't that.

AtomicZombie is the place for you,,,

AtomicZombie - DIY Recumbent Bike, Trike, and Chopper Plans

I have had a RANS Fusion for nine years now.
It is a mostly-upright bike that doesn't hurt to ride. My favorite explanation is that a RANS Fusion is what a Electro Townie wanted to be when it grew up.
The crank-forward bikes have larger noseless seats so you don't need padded shorts, and the upright position means that there is a minimum of hand pressure and neck strain.

On some models you can stand and pedal, but on the Fusion you can't. So you don't.... You stay in the seat and keep spinning. My other bike is a recumbent so I'm used to that.
The seat is inclined forward somewhat, and the RANS bikes use a short solid stem that is strong enough to pull hard on to help pedal.

I have never thought mine was very fast, due to the upright seating position. Some people do put low bars/aero bars on them and claim they do okay. The Zenetic was marketed as the "faster" version of the concept.

There are other bikes that attempt to provide a similar riding position but they usually have one or more design issues that keeps them from working well.
The RANS bikes are expensive but they are the only ones that currently get all the aspects correct.

In my journey for a crankforward, I stumbled upon the Micargi GTS which is a stretch cruiser for around $350, probably cheaper if you shop around. While they don't advertise it at all as such, other than the handles, the geometry is either a cross between a crank-forward and recumbent or a full blown recumbent of the Sun EZ-1 variety. The angles are at least comparable to some recumbent exercise bikes.

Micargi 26" Puma GTS Men's Beach Cruiser Bike, Red - Walmart.com
http://www.amazon.com/Micargi-Mustan...ds=micargi+gts
Amazon.com : Micargi GTS Beach Cruiser Bike, Blue Puma, 26-Inch : Cruiser Bicycles : Sports & Outdoors

Reviews indicate some components like the fork are cheaply stamped and like a typical cruiser it's single speed.... it would be neat to try once. Pretty sure I wouldn't buy it off the net though.

There are a few other stretch cruisers around too like this one but not as extreme.
http://www.amazon.com/Firmstrong-Str...tretch+cruiser

Love to have a Rans Fusion, but the price... the price... probably will end up with an Electra Townie.

I can go ride around White Rock Lake, see about a hundred cyclists, and sometimes I'll see a recumbent, sometimes not. Of the ones I see, I think it's usually the same 5 or 6 guys, it's not just random different people showing up. So the percentage is definitely very low.
In the randonneuring club, there have been a half-dozen people out of 20 or 30 through the years that rode recumbents, so the percentage was higher, but that's in a pretty small club, and that's not really typical of randonneuring in general.
In both cases, the percentage of recumbents is similar to the percentage of tandems, for what that's worth.
The biggest bike store in the area does have a recumbent area, but I don't know how many they sell.
To my way of thinking, the reason they are not more popular is that they solve problems that most people don't have. The recumbent riders I know, for the most part, switched to recumbents due to some specific problem (bad back, neck pain, saddle comfort, circulation issues, etc.), it wasn't just the Troy-bilt "everything is better!" sales talk. And people that don't have those issues aren't too likely to change.
By way of comparison, they make leather saddles, Brooks and similar brands. The specific reason those saddles exist is comfort. But, if you'll go look at (road) bicycles in general, 95% of them don't have one of those saddles. Why? Cause they're not having the problem that would motivate them to go buy a more comfortable saddle for $120.

I didn't switch to recumbents because of '...some specific problem...' But after making the change, I did find that I am generally more comfortable - it's not just the seat - and able to ride farther, faster than when I was riding safety bikes. I was never fast and am not now - except downhill which is much more fun on a 'bent, or, better yet, a tandem 'bent. wheee!

But, this thread is more about not-really-recumbents. Crank forwards have some features that work for some and not so much for others. I would be curious to ride one, especially the RANS mini-CF with dual 20" wheels.

Why would I buy a bike that doesn't have speed or barcalounger- like comfort?

A common point of complaint among the 'bent community is the lack of relatively inexpensive bents. However, in the past, when relatively inexpensive bents (such as the subject of this thread) were offered, the product never met the high quality standards of the whiners.

I guess I don't understand what a "semi-recumbent" is. I've never seen one. I ride a Sun EZ-1, and it's the best $200.00 I ever spent. I hardly ever drive anymore, unless I absolutely have to. I wouldn't trade my EZ for a Harley.

I don't know why recumbents are not more popular, but that's probably the reason so many models come and go...lack of sales. I think it is all in the marketing. The traditional bike manufacturers control the market. All bike magazines and websites are full of lean, fit racers on $1000.000+ road bikes or MTBs, wearing colorful and expensive bike clothing (unnecessary on a 'bent), and the latest expensive gear. There are seldom articles on recumbents.

That being said, I am confident that anyone who tries out a 'Bent long enough to get used to it, will prefer it over a conventional bike any day of the week. 'Bents are much more practical for general use, distance, and utility riding, and way more comfortable.