Holy bottom bracket! I read the whole thread and I think Steamers post says it best. If your not having fun why bother? I own three really great 'wedgie' bikes and one fine recumbent. I mostly ride my Haluzak these days as it is far more enjoyable, read comfortable, than the others. If we ride trails it's on the MTB, tarmac or gravel the recliner is the go to ride. Steep hills require a wedgie. If I had acquired a recumbent years ago I would have those "bent legs" and the wedgies would not have seen as much use. Having worked in sawmills for 30 years, riding dirt bikes and snow skiing for fun has left me a bit beat up to say the least. I ride to share my faith, stay in shape and have way more FUN than I deserve!

Cheers, MAC
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b88db8f5a2.png
Scenic Drive, Trinidad CA

As Steamer says, YMMV. My M5 gives up very little to the uprights in my group on climbs. I got it specifically because its height lets it blend in with the group better than my lowracers, which are admittedly a bit anti-social.

Well, I believe in diversity. I have SEVEN recumbents. The only kind I do not have is a MBB Cruzbike type. NEVER do I get the desire to haul out one of my two uprights to ride.

My fastest so far is a Rapbobike FWD low racer. But fast often means twitchy and punishing ride. I would never ride the Rapto on a century.

For long distance I would use my LWB faired Goldrush with Rotor crank.

The most comfortable so far is my old Vision R-40 USS, although my Barcroft Dakota with Tweener bars and Rans seat comes close.

My Rans V-Rex with suspension fork is not fast, but is a good errands around town bike, smoothing out the bumps.

My latest is a used Challenge Serian SL with USS. But like the Raptobike, it is twitchy and demands attention. I wrecked 2nd time out with it and broke a vertebra. I am going to fatter tires!

So I agree that variety is nice, and there is an optimum bike for every task. Don't have any desire for a trike, though. They are not practical for driving on the road and are hard to transport, heavier, and more expensive.

I think a trike with an aerodynamic cover would be a wonderful touring machine out West in cooler months but would be a bear in Appalachia.

Horses for courses.

I'd guess my preference would be 75% bents for touring and 25% uprights. Alps? Upright. Anywhere west of the Mississippi (except southern Misery), give me a good climbing bent.

Don't understand most of these comments. What is the big deal about rear view mirrors? Easy to mount except on USS bikes. Better than turning your head around anyway. Do you not use rear view mirrors in a car?

I have ridden my bents in Atlanta downtown traffic for 25 years. Get noticed more than upright bikes, especially with my high-end day taillights. Easy to put my feet down on both sides while still on the seat when stopped.

I have been hit identically by passing car mirror on upright bikes and bents. MUCH less damage on a recumbent, because your butt takes the impact. On uprights, it is over-the-handlebars your head goes. So many upright cyclists end up paralyzed in Shepherd Spinal Center in Atlanta. That being said, HighRacers are my least favorite bent because of the higher distance for your butt to fall.

Can't understand the comment of lack of tire sizes. Maybe not at your local shop, but there are all sorts of 20" tires from slim to fat available. Rear is usually 750, 26", or rarely 650. No shortage of tires there either. Schwalbe is my fav for puncture resistance.

You can never climb as fast on a bent because:

1. You cannot stand up and apply your weight to the pedals.
2. With the exception of MBB bents, you cannot utilize your arms to get the pedals down.

Bents win on flats and downhills every time, but lose on the uphills. But some bents like Cruzbike come close on uphills.

Bikes would be different if the notorious International Cycling Federation had not banned them from competition when a French cyclist started winning on one in 1934.

How about up hill into a really bad wind?

The more the headwind, the more advantage recumbents have, as they are usually more aerodynamic, especially low racers.

But again, one cannot stand on the pedals, so you are at a disadvantage going uphill.

Saying that recumbents have a speed advantage is ignoring the sheer variety of recumbents. Some are more aero than upright, some are worse. A Bike-E or a ReBike will never be faster than a road bike. Neither will most trikes. The bents that can actually beat a road bike are few and far between.

You have a point. There might be 3 people in the USA that still ride their Rebikes. Never made any claims for trikes.

ON AVERAGE, the average recumbent is faster than the average road bike. Add a partial or full fairing and there is no contest.

But you are right, speed depends on the design of the bike. A low racer like the M5, Nocom, or my Raptobike FWD are the fastest, although the Cruzbike Vendetta with its reclined rider position may be almost as good.

If recumbents are not competitive speed wise, why did they bother banning them from competition? If you can't beat them, ban them, I guess.

Yes back in the early 30s a second level racer was beating all the level one racers. The old fools in the UCI probably encouraged by money under the table by DF bike manufacturers decided to declare that recumbents were not bikes.