So which is really the more effective bike for covering ground? 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. Someone showed me a velomobile and I found it fascinating which also got me more interested in bents in general.

'Bent designs are still evolving. The climbing performance of a select few (e.g. MetaBikes MetaPhysic and the carbon high racers offered by Carbent and Bacchetta), is starting to rival that of uprights while still keeping a considerable aero advantage for the flats. It's worth noting that it takes some time for your body to train to the specific way in which your muscles are taxed on a ben compared to an upright; that competitive climbing performance phenomenon is not experienced immediately. I believe some will always find uprights to still be faster up hills, even after training. It may depend partly on individual physical differences and riding style differences.

Stretch the time scales, and comfort advantages start to play a role in speed. A comfortable cyclist is a faster cyclist. And sometimes in ultra races and brevets, 'bents keep the riders on the bike more consistantly too. Seems like some folks dilly dally at stops because they dread getting back on the bike, and the clock doesn't stop ticking because you needed to stop to put cream on your nether regions and change shorts.

Ultimately though, you already seem to realize that there is no one right answer. 'Horses for courses', and all that. There is nothing wrong with riding both and choosing the machine you prefer based on the day's course, whether or not its in a group or solo, the length of the ride, etc.

One random data point: After an unpleasant 1000k 4 years ago (problems mostly due to a bad saddle choice and poorly-fitting shoes), I borrowed a 'bent to keep riding while I healed. After two weeks on the borrowed 'bent, I rode it in a hilly, windy 200k, and turned the third fastest time of the day (out of about 20 riders), and my second fastest 200 EVER. And the bike was a VRex - not exactly high-performance hardware. 3 'bents later (always looking for the "perfect" one), I'm still as mid-pack as I ever was, DF or 'bent, and having a lot more fun. I'll be doing PBP this year (assuming my 600k is successful) on my 'bent, taking advantage of the earlier start for "special bikes" so that I can avoid the crowds at the controls.

In the end, I ride my 'bent not because I'm not comfortable on a df, but because I'm MORE comfortable on the 'bent, have more fun, and don't pay any performance penalty.

SP
Bend, OR

ps - Yeah, the 'bent is slower up hills, but handles headwinds much better. And headwinds have always bothered me more than hills, so...

Steamer hit the nail on the head. It is the recumbents comfort that always comes to the fore. More and more long distance riders are turning to bents. While almost anyone can stand the seat of a DF for short rides, when it comes to day long rides, or touring day after day the bent shines. Also another advantage of bents is that almost all "on board" energy can be directed to the legs. Since that the upper body doesnt need to be supported by hands arms and shoulders no energy is used there.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "covering ground." Speed, or ability to do distances?

As I like to tell people, bents don't always have an aero advantage. Sure, racer-types like mine do, but a lot of the more common models have next to no advantage. For them, the ergonomics have more effect on speed than the reduced frontal area. I've found that people buying recumbents solely for the expected speed are usually disappointed. Either they get a model that doesn't have the speed capability they want, or they don't realize that speed is *never* free, even if the bike is labeled "fast."

In the comfort area, give me a seat over a saddle every time. There are some people, even here in the recumbent forums, who claim their uprights are perfectly comfortable for any distance; but my personal experience is totally at odds with that assertion. On one level, I can accept that they're telling the truth; but my brain cannot register the concept of a comfortable upright bike.

Well by covering ground I mean I like to use my bike for practical purposes in leau' of my car whenever possible. Going to a retreat center a 100 miles away. Had a great ride going to jury duty 28 miles away, commuting etc. I know that I'll never be as fast as a car, (well on second thought in NYC sometimes I was faster then a car!) but that is what I mean by covering ground. I am well aware that the main thing for speed and distance is me! - After much searching my sole bike is still my old'78 Raleigh which I have owned all this time.

Guess I am a fan of new ideas. When shopping for a kayak and saw ones that are leg driven via "flippers" I knew that was for me. Had the same reaction when seeing velomobiles/Bents. They look efficient and fun. However being in Berkeley hills are a good part of the game for me.

i did a 100 mile on my highracer that i would never wanna do on a DF !
so for covering ground....bents all the way !

My V-Rex is like that. I can't go quite as fast on it, but I can ride it forever. With the racers, the bike is always egging me to go faster. One more group of bikes to pass, one more hill to attack, just one more minute in the big gear. So I always burn out by the end of the ride. On the 'Rex there was always something left at the end. So what if it took an extra hour to finish the century?

Well that looks like a lot of fun, I want to test ride one!

If you're in Berzerkely, look up Zach Kaplan. He's in Alameda, and works by appointment only, but he's been around 'bents for ages so he knows what to tell a newbie.

Thanks for the tip Jeff!

The last I knew, Zach also charged for his time. So, although he's a fount of information, it would require being a bit more than idly-curious to justify seeing him.

Bents are far more comfortable for going long distances, but everybody doesn't ride distances long enough for that to be useful.
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.
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.

Generalizations: Most 'bents will have an aero advantage over most upright bikes, but that's only of value starting at about 15-20mph. Spend much time at those speeds or faster and that's a significant benefit. The comfort benefit is a constant.
I am riding farther and faster than I was before taking up with recumbents but can't claim that is entirely because of any perceived benefits of recumbents.

When people talk about aero advantage only taking place at higher speeds, I always think of head winds, if one is battling a head wind while going slower, with air speed is still quick.

There is always the secondary effect: If you are more comfortable on the bike, you'll be encouraged to ride more. If you ride more, you'll get stronger. If you're stronger you'll be able to go faster and ride more. Which makes you stronger...

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/2401079172.html

This looks interesting to me because it is not quite as extreme reclining but still appears quite aero.

Easy Racer bikes are great bikes- they're not superb in any one area, but (IMO) the best all-around recumbent. Several of my friends have toured across the US on them, and I use mine in the local 10-mile time trial.

Easy Racers is also close-ish to you, in Watsonville. Talk to them about frame fit- there's 7 different sizes of that style (they've since changed the design to fit more riders on fewer sizes) and getting it wrong can be painful.

FWIW: the Craigslist bike is a medium-large. My wife rides a medium-large and her inseam is 35"... long legs, blonde hair, beautiful smile:

I own a few recumbents but my all time favorite bike is my Tour easy.

The bottom bracket being lower than the seat makes it a great bike to learn on, it's just so easy to ride. The center of gravity is nice and low yet you're basically sitting up with an excellent view of your surroundings. Mine is a mix between the SS and the EX model...I'm running a 406 up front, a 700 X 35 in back with 24-42-52 rings and an 11-34 8-sp. cassette.

It's comfortable, it's very stable, and it's plenty fast enough for me. I can easily ride along at 18+mph in the 42 tooth ring with plenty of more speed available without going to the big ring. (not that riding in the big ring is bad...I just find that my speed range in the middle ring meets almost all my needs)

That sure looks like fun. It must be kind of hard to climb in it?

"recumbent vs. regular" Do you mean "recumbent vs. ordinary"?

I don't think it would be a very fair contest.

Not sure what you mean by ordinary instead of regular, I guess diamond frame is the tech term. Anyway I am not presently in the position to by any new bikes right now. My long term wish list is for a Velomobile Quest, or an Easy Racer.

A comfortable bike will allow more distance in the long run. A bent is the more comfortalbe option for most I'd imagine.

+1000
Now that's probably the best answer I have read in a loooong time! I points out the differences and makes no false promises and most importantly it sais the two can coexist, and be enjoyed for their differences!

It was a joke.

An "ordinary" bicycle was the name given to high wheelers back in the days when "safety bicycles," which had a chain drive and 2 equal sized wheels, came out.

Lots of DF riders take exception to our calling them DFs. I'm thinking that I, quite properly, may start using the terms "ordinary" and "safety bicycle" more frequently. A SWB recumbent is my "regular" bike.