How about a what if game?

What if recumbent or other shape bikes were invented first, would you still ride the DF bikes? For me getting on the bike is like being a kid again and all I ever know is DF bike. I had rode something else when I was little, I can imagine possibly that's what I would ride today too.

Thoughts? other what if?

That's a really interesting question.

I fell in love with riding as a kid, ditched the training wheels, and loved it even more. I probably would have had as much fun if it was a 'bent or even a trike, and stuck with it. Although I like my DF now...

What if nobody raced bikes? How many of us would still ride?

Of course...bahhh....moooo

If there was no racing, there would be no UCI, then I imagine bikes would look a lot different than what they are today. And I would still ride.

I don't think anything would change. When is the last time you saw a penny farthing or Velocipede?

Then we would call this place "the 37". But we'd still make fun of the triathletes

I want a recumbent penny farthing.

A recumbent tandem fixed-gear penny farthing. It's the next big thing.

I see your point. Your post made me realize that the way I stated the question wasn't exactly what I meant to ask. Since all modern velocipede are traced back to those early human-power invention so the question of what's invented first is incorrect. From what I understand the pivotal turning point seems to be the banning of recumbent from bicycle racing in 1934.

What I should ask was: if recumbent or trike were the popular bikes and that's what you rode as a kid, would you ride the DF today?

I think the DF version was inevitably the first, since pedal bicycles are descended from "Dandy Horse" striders. I can't imagine a recumbent dandy-horse.

It's not which was invented first, but what's currently allowed. A recumbent won the Paris-Limoges in '33 and was banned for having an aerodynamic advantage.

So, the question ought to be, what would you be riding if they hadn't banned recumbents?

What if humans had three legs? Would bicycles still have two pedals?

Other than cost, the advantages and disadvantages of things like frame design and wheel size don't change based on popularity.

If diamond-frame bikes really weren't working well, I expect recumbent designs would be much more popular.

UCI regs are also irrelevant to most cyclists. The average Joe who buys is blissfully oblivious of the UCI.

I mildly disagree on both points.

As far as the second point, I think you underestimate the effect the UCI rules has on the offerings. The average Joe may not care, but he certainly won't buy it if it isn't offered.

What sells has a lot that is determined by marketing, not what is really the best option for most people.
DF bikes work well for some people and not so well for other people. I don't think DF are ever going away (nor do I think they should), but there are a lot of people who would be better served by a recumbent, but have no idea what one is, etc. (Not the mention the catch-22 about recumbent prices: not as popular => high prices. High prices => not as popular.)

What if America had lost the Revolutionary War?

I've pedaled stationary bikes where you sit in the same position as a recumbent and I prefer the position I have on a DF bike. If I had an issue with my wrists or arms where I couldn't ride a regular bike I would consider switching to a recumbent.

I am pretty sure the first popular bicycles were less about the rider and more about the builder. A recumbent, built out of early 20th century materials, is a heavy monstrosity (they certainly did exist; I have a whole book of them). A diamond frame is pretty easy to build with limited materials into something that can support 200+lbs of rider and stuff.

While modern recumbents are still heavy monstrosities compared to your standard road bike, they also have other, more fundamental problems, such as not being able to balance naturally (how many recumbent riders ride no-handed with control?), and not putting the human body in an efficient position for producing power (is there such thing as a recumbent sprinter?). Basically a recumbent throws away everything that is human about controlling a bicycle in favor of aerodynamics and/or lounge comfort.

Irrelevant. It moves, therefore someone will race it.

I just enjoy being outside, pushing myself and moving under my own power. I've never ridden a recumbent but they (even the trikes) look like fun. Took out a pedal boat once and had a blast. Pretty sure I'd drive a pedal car if I could get into it and was given the chance.

I can ride my recumbent with no hands, no problem (it is true that it is easier to balance on a DF). There are many recumbents that are sub 10kg bikes, which not as light as light DF bikes, are still pretty light. And once accustomed to them, some can produce as much or more power on their recumbents as on their DF bikes.

But besides from that, you did o.k...

If you want to go faster, there are lots of things you can do. If you want to go fast, you go aero.

What if it was waterworld:

What if any STD could be 100% cured overnight by taking a single pill with zero side effects?


...hooray, this is post #500 for me! I can finally post on the Addiction thread...

I don't.

The overwhelming majority of road bike buyers have no clue what the UCI is, let alone what it has to do with their bikes. They don't give a crap about racing.

Is the guy who wants to ride to work going to look for a "UCI compliant" sticker? How about the guy who wants to ride on the beach with his girlfriend?

The only people who really care are the ones who are racing. And since it is easy for the manufacturers to accommodate the racers, without short-changing everyone else, and since the racers are likely to buy lots of bikes and swag, they might as well make the bikes UCI compliant.

Or, to put it another way: If the manufacturers believed recumbents could sell, they'd sell them. Marketing their way around the UCI would be a trivial challenge.

We see this with folding bikes, which are definitely not UCI compliant, but are a growing segment of the market regardless.

Fixed.

If you ask people why they drive SUVs or trucks, they'll usually list "being high" as one of the reasons. Hominids descended from arboreal primates like having a vantage point from above. I think this is an underestimated reason for the failure of recumbents to gain market share.