Recumbent Climbing

DIscuss anything relating to non-standard cycles and their equipment.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Post by thirdcrank »

I think a recumbent is the only form a practical bike I've never had a real go on. (I'm making a huge leap and assuming that tight-rope cycling across the Niagara Falls, Ordinaries, 10 seat tandems etc., are no longer considered practical.) I even made a unicycle in school metalwork classes but that taught me more about metalwork than cycling.

Several times at the York Rally I've seen the recumbent displays and if there had not been such a crowd, I might well have been easily persuaded to shell out for one.

I've known several (three that I can quickly think of) people who owned them but nobody who had one as their only bike.

Is there anybody on here who is a regular recumbent rider by choice, who lives in a truly hilly area, and who has not got a diamond frame bike as well?
User avatar
dkmwt
Posts: 464
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 11:02am
Location: Plymouth

Post by dkmwt »

Me, I live in Plymouth, commute 15 miles a day and ride it everywhere else in between including hills and it's the only bike/trike that I own. I could ride a DF if I wanted to but my trike is the most comfortable ride I've ever had. I've forgotten what a sore backside feels like.
Cheers, Donald
Trice "Qnt 26" 26/39/55 F 10sp 11/36 R, now with Windwrap fairing.
ICE B1 34/50 F Capreo 9/32 R.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dkmwt/78674512/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1188814973
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3413
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Post by CJ »

byegad wrote:Well, john28july we'll just have to differ.

You don't want to ride a recumbent? Well fine but don't rubbish something you simply don't understand.

What!? John says he likes the look of recumbents and wishes it had worked for him. For goodness sake he used to own one. For what they cost he surely must have given it a darned good try before taking the loss of selling it on, so you can't really say it's something he doesn't understand.

I know of several other people who were persuaded to buy recumbents (by the almost religious prostheletysing of some owners), but got rid when they found their purchase much harder work than a common bicycle in hilly country. In all cases they kept these machines for some time: long enough you would think, to become reasonably trained in a different way of pedalling.

Each and every configuration of pedal cycle has its own advantages and disadvantages. We all know and agree that recumbents have many fine qualities, but to gloss over the disadvantages only leads people like John to waste their money and come away disappointed in the whole idea. Please don't do it.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

Well I own two recumbent trikes and they are the only 'bikes' I ride (my DF stable is up for sale due to Vertigo).

My QNT is so comfortable that when out for a full day I stop for a rest and don't get off the trike. In fact I only ever get off it on a ride to commune with nature behind the nearest hedge!

My Kettwiesel has a more upright seat position and when out on it I do get off ocassionaly as there is more weight on my rear and the drop to get my feet on the floor when stopped is not comfortable.

If I didn't have Vertigo I'd still ocassionally ride one of my DFs. This would be when I need to park the bike for a while in town (the trikes attract small boys) or when I may want to use public transport for part of my journey where a folder is an advantage(I had a Dahon Speed-Pro now owned by Mrs byegad). So an upright does have some advantages, but climbing is not one I'd list. After all for every up there is a down and, while my speed range is greater on a recumbent trike, my average is no different now than it was in my exclusivley DF days.

Sadly john28july has made his mind up that 'bents are not comfortable and slow up hill and no amount of evidence seems likely to change it. I'm certain if he tried more 'bents he'd find one that was right. But because they come in far more configurations than DF and so there is a greater choice it is easy to try one and say it doesn;t suit me, and then apply this judgement to all 'bents.
Last edited by byegad on 7 Oct 2008, 2:03pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3413
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Post by CJ »

thirdcrank wrote:(I'm making a huge leap and assuming that tight-rope cycling across the Niagara Falls, Ordinaries, 10 seat tandems etc., are no longer considered practical.)

I really enjoyed my test rides on an Ordinary: the high centre of gravity made it so stable at low speed, especially compared to the tippy recumbent bicycle I was also testing! (What's the smiley for a lit firework?)
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

CJ has a good point. One of the criticisms of the Safety Bicycle made by the Ordinary Wheel men was how hard it was to balance a Safety compared to an Ordinary. The same applies now, in that, by and large recumbent bikes can be hard to learn to ride and the lower they are the more difficult the first few miles can be.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Post by thirdcrank »

The point about religious thingy mentioned by CJ is very well made. It's easy for people to lose their impartiality when recommending their own stuff (or if their favourite bikeshop is criticised :wink: ) but then their opinion carries less weight than if they mentioned both pro's and cons.

Among cyclists, Brompton owners seem to have this tendency. Extending this to cars, I once mentioned on here the problems I had had with my Berlingo (which continue) and my computer came close to catching fire with the outraged responses.
fatboy
Posts: 3477
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Post by fatboy »

thirdcrank wrote:The point about religious thingy mentioned by CJ is very well made. Among cyclists, Brompton owners seem to have this tendency.


I see several Bromptons pouring out of the station and despite all my prejudices they seem to fly (at least around town) and I wish that I had the cash to get one.

It's not just Bromptons, it's recumbents, road bikes, MTBs, audax bikes but of course you are all wrong, the best bike is of course a tourer! (Runs and hides very quickly!).
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
User avatar
Wildduck
Posts: 1161
Joined: 24 Oct 2007, 7:28pm
Location: Southampton

Post by Wildduck »

*artillary barrage*
Trice Q 2007 in inky blue (Quackers)
Bacchetta Corsa 26 ATT (The Mad Weeble)
Cube SL Team Cross (Rubberduckzilla)
Homebaked tourer (The Duck's Dream)
MTB mongrel (Harold the Flying Sheep)
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Post by Cunobelin »

fatboy wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:The point about religious thingy mentioned by CJ is very well made. Among cyclists, Brompton owners seem to have this tendency.


I see several Bromptons pouring out of the station and despite all my prejudices they seem to fly (at least around town) and I wish that I had the cash to get one.

It's not just Bromptons, it's recumbents, road bikes, MTBs, audax bikes but of course you are all wrong, the best bike is of course a tourer! (Runs and hides very quickly!).



Of course ther is the Brompton Recumbent!

Image



Image



Image
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

I saw this 'bent Brommie at York Rally. A neat job too!
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Post by thirdcrank »

Cunobelin

You never cease to amaze me. Are these yours or something you snapped earlier?

At the risk of being accused of being facetious:-

(a)That looks like a good solution to the problem of q/r seatposts and theft.
(b)Do you have a fold-up fairing as well?
:wink:
dan_b
Posts: 249
Joined: 12 Sep 2008, 2:46pm

Post by dan_b »

thirdcrank wrote:(b)Do you have a fold-up fairing as well?

I believe the word you're looking for here is "umbrella" ;-)
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Post by Cunobelin »

thirdcrank wrote:Cunobelin

You never cease to amaze me. Are these yours or something you snapped earlier?

At the risk of being accused of being facetious:-

(a)That looks like a good solution to the problem of q/r seatposts and theft.
(b)Do you have a fold-up fairing as well?
:wink:


This was a german yachtsman - the bike was ouside a pub in Fareham. I simply asked if he objected if I took photos...

It is a JUlian Neuss conversion kit, unfortuately no longer available.

As for fairings - i have three - an old Zzipper with stress cracks, a Streamer on the Street Machine,, and a Windwrap Xt on the Catrike. I am awaiting a Windwrap Rs for the winter - none fold!
Richard
Posts: 423
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 5:01pm

Post by Richard »

CJ, I cannot see why you are so indignant about byegad's post. Yes John's owned one but you are assuming he's tried one out for a suitable length of time and made an objective decision against them. Unfortunately he's not told us that.

The issue with Johns reply is the fact that it doesn't contribute anything to the debate. What was the basis of comparison? Was it a trike? Maybe a LWB bike. Perhaps a lowracer with a high stall speed totally unsuitable for the use it was put to. Maybe he just was one of those people that they don't suit.

What exactly are the disadvantages you imply recumbents have? John's post doesn't tell me and nor does yours because there's no hard evidence offered.

My original post was made to try get some evidence for and against their hill climbing abilities and I've received some useful replies for which I'm grateful. However, a post that states:

"Buy a bike or get used to walking uphill and indeed on the flat at times. A recumbent IMO is an abomination. "

is totally useless to me and those that may be looking to answer the same question in the future. Sadly this seems to be the way the CTC forum is going.
Post Reply