# People calling non-recumbent bikes 'upwrongs'



## Hilldodger (26 Oct 2008)

Seems pretty pathetic to me, afterall, if the recumbent was any good we'd all be riding them.


----------



## derall (26 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> afterall, if the recumbent was any good we'd all be riding them.



And I'm sure that people said exactly the same thing about the Safety Bicycle when it first came along. How many Ordinaries do you see around now?  (other than those ridden by cycling historians, obviously...)


----------



## Hilldodger (26 Oct 2008)

derall said:


> And I'm sure that people said exactly the same thing about the Safety Bicycle when it first came along. How many Ordinaries do you see around now?  (other than those ridden by cycling historians, obviously...)



The most I've seen in one place is 131 at Spokesfet 2003 in Leicester. And I'm looking at the Guinness World Record certificate now

And that is probably more than the recumbents I've seen in one place

AND, the recumbent has been around since at least 1914, so it should have caught on by now


----------



## wafflycat (26 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> Seems pretty pathetic to me, afterall, if the recumbent was any good we'd all be riding them.



The enlightened are already there. And the enlightened love to wind-up miserable folk with no sense of humour


----------



## Hilldodger (26 Oct 2008)

wafflycat said:


> The enlightened are already there. And the enlightened love to wind-up miserable folk with no sense of humour



Exactly

Although I hardly ever ride any of our recumbents and would much prefer to ride something pre 1900


----------



## marc-triker (26 Oct 2008)

your Trice has just got back 2 Swadlincote from nice steady 60+ sunday ride, she is old and heavy but still a pleasure to ride....


----------



## gavintc (26 Oct 2008)

I think UCI killed off any prospect of recumbent becoming mainstream. They interest me, but currently I am quite happy with my 2 bikes and could not store any more.


----------



## Hilldodger (26 Oct 2008)

gavintc said:


> I think UCI killed off any prospect of recumbent becoming mainstream. They interest me, but currently I am quite happy with my 2 bikes and could not store any more.



A commonly held misconception. If recumbents were significantly better than the diamond frame bike they would be more popular.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

They are (I believe) more popular than tandems in terms of sales!

They are a speciality across a wide range of styles - I imagine that if we compared them with other "niche" markets tan the results would be more representative


----------



## bonj2 (26 Oct 2008)

well i'm thnknig about getting one so if and when I do that's when they _will_ have become oficially mainstream.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

Upwrong is OK, but I prefer ass hatchet myself. Perhaps one might be taking this all a bit too seriously? I'm sure fossyant saw the funny side even if you didn't.


----------



## domtyler (26 Oct 2008)

It's just a transparent means of justifying the large amount of money that they have spent.


----------



## wafflycat (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Upwrong is OK, but I prefer ass hatchet myself. Perhaps one might be taking this all a bit too seriously? I'm sure fossyant saw the funny side even if you didn't.



Indeed, it's just the same as referring to recumbents as 'the dark side'


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

domtyler said:


> It's just a transparent means of justifying the large amount of money that they have spent.



My upwrong (Thorn Nomad) was more expensive than two of my Recumbents!


----------



## arallsopp (26 Oct 2008)

I tend to use DF (when typing) or Wedgie (when talking).
I'm sorely tempted to add 'ass hatchet' to the vocabulary. Splendid. 

To make it a little less rude in a family situation, I'll be pronouncing it to rhyme with attaché.

_"Yes, I'm on the dark side, but that's because my assachét turned out to be a spine popper."
_


----------



## Andy in Sig (27 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> A commonly held misconception. If recumbents were significantly better than the diamond frame bike they would be more popular.



I don't know how we judge "better" but I own both types and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the recumbent is better. I'll be buggered if I know how I can prove it though.


----------



## Andy in Sig (27 Oct 2008)

arallsopp said:


> I tend to use DF (when typing) or Wedgie (when talking).
> I'm sorely tempted to add 'ass hatchet' to the vocabulary. Splendid.
> 
> To make it a little less rude in a family situation, I'll be pronouncing it to rhyme with attaché.
> ...



Just call it a donkey axe. Unless of course he meant arse hatchet.


----------



## squeaker (27 Oct 2008)

Oh alright, Victorian bicycles it is, then


----------



## Hilldodger (27 Oct 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> I don't know how we judge "better" but I own both types and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the recumbent is better. I'll be buggered if I know how I can prove it though.



I own/have daily access to/ride a wider range of bkes and pedal powered machines than anyone else on here - and I don't think they're better


----------



## Andy in Sig (27 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> I own/have daily access to/ride a wider range of bkes and pedal powered machines than anyone else on here - and I don't think they're better



Then it probably makes sense to say that the feeling which my Street Machine induces in me when I'm belting along is something which I find infinitely more pleasurable to ditto on my steel framed tourer, which is an excellent bike of its kind. I suppose the reverse applies to you.


----------



## byegad (27 Oct 2008)

gavintc said:


> I think UCI killed off any prospect of recumbent becoming mainstream. They interest me, but currently I am quite happy with my 2 bikes and could not store any more.



Certainly the 74 years since the UCI ban has damaged 'bent sales and development. I feel the Mountain Bike revolution in the 80s has helped 'bents as people have become accustomed to seeing none standard frames as normal and so are more willing to try another shape bike. Standard being the classic two triangle frame of a UCI road race approved bike.

Ask yourself this, if a second string professional rider in 1933 and 1934 could demonstrate the recumbent Velocar as, at least in some circumstances, faster than the Dfs of the day. How would the rest of the professional curcuit have driven 'bent design in the intervening 74 years?

Whether the UCI was right or wrong to try to freeze cycle development in 1934, they did not entirely stop it. They have since the 'bent ban, to my knowledge, also banned DR Moulton's small wheels, and the Lotus bike as ridden to a new hour record by Chris Boardman. But we would be kidding ourselves to say that bike development has stood still. Lance Armstrong said it's not about the bike but it is, despite the UCI's head in the sand attitude. The Tour de France rider's bike of 2008 does not compare in any way to the 1934 bikes. They are lighter, have more gears, better brakes and are more easily put back on the road following a puncture due to QR wheels. In the fifties a racing bike had butterfly nuts not a QR skewer.

It is not possible to turn the clock back but 'bents are becoming more popular and they are developing, compare a 1990's Peter Ross Trike to the latest offering from ICE. Also the decimach prize has finally been claimed by Sam Whittingham at *82.33mph!!! *over a flying 200m. Anyway the UCI will not change their mind and so the big money of the mass market will not be applied to building cheap and servicable 'bents and so they will, at least for the forseeable future, remain a small, but perhaps growing, percentage of total sales.


----------



## Andy in Sig (27 Oct 2008)

So there's obviously a need for a rival organisation to the UCI which allows any kind of bike and which just needs to run one national level event to get the necessary credence e.g. a tour of Britain. It could also go very heavy on drug testing to get it away from the current tainted version of cycling sport.


----------



## Hilldodger (27 Oct 2008)

In 1934 the UCI stopped recumbent bikes being raced against diamond frames and have continued to ban things they believe can give riders an unfair advantage. 

This didn't stop BMX bikes being invented, becoming hugely popular and becoming a sport in it's own right.

It also didn't stop the invention and development of bikes like the Brompton.

At the recent Brompton world champs there were hundreds of people taking part in the first ever event.

At the HPV world champs a month or so earlier there was a fraction of that number at an event that has been going for years.

It's time *some of* the recumbent world stopped blaming the UCI for recumbents not becoming mainstream.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence.


----------



## Hilldodger (27 Oct 2008)

OK, I've altered it


----------



## Fiona N (27 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> A commonly held misconception. If recumbents were significantly better than the diamond frame bike they would be more popular.



Cobblers - small wheel bikes are better (faster) than 27inch/700 wheeled bikes and the UCI killed them off after Moultons started to take all the track and TT records. And how many small wheeled bikes do you see which aren't folders? Like recumbents, Moultons and similar non-folders are considered eccentric niche (and expensive) products. Except for really rough terrain (and mtbs are going to 29 inch wheels for that reason), small wheels are great. 







Stir, stir


----------



## Hilldodger (27 Oct 2008)

Small wheeled bikes are awful, that's why the majority of adult bikes in the world have wheels around 26/27 inches.

And even that is too small.


----------



## byegad (27 Oct 2008)

I agree with Fiona_N, a UCI ban on any aspect of design has a tendancy to kill that advance. Without the 1934 ban I've no doubt there would be more, cheaper recumbents on the market. I'm not saying that there would be only recumbents, I'm sure there wouldn't be. Just as there are BMX, Road bikes, MTB's, track bikes, hybrids, tourers, folders and sit up and beg bikes available now, yet not all race under UCI auspices. However if recumbents had been part of the UCI mainstream since 1934 there would surely be some produced by the major manufacturers.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

byegad said:


> I agree with Fiona_N, a UCI ban on any aspect of design has a tendancy to kill that advance. Without the 1934 ban I've no doubt there would be more, cheaper recumbents on the market. I'm not saying that there would be only recumbents, I'm sure there wouldn't be. Just as there are BMX, Road bikes, MTB's, track bikes, hybrids, tourers, folders and sit up and beg bikes available now, yet not all race under UCI auspices. However if recumbents had been part of the UCI mainstream since 1934 there would surely be some produced by the major manufacturers.



+1, although I can see part of Roger's point that recumbents are not the one-fit-all solution some evangelists suggest.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> Small wheeled bikes are awful, that's why the majority of adult bikes in the world have wheels around 26/27 inches.
> 
> And even that is too small.



LOL, that's funny considering the bike in your avatar!


----------



## Hilldodger (27 Oct 2008)

That was the point of the joke


----------



## byegad (27 Oct 2008)

On topic, I feel it counter productive to give a derogatory label to other road users. So 'cager' referring to car drivers is a no no for me too. 

If it becomes an us and them situation we come off worse every time.


----------



## Andy in Sig (27 Oct 2008)

I agree with that. Verbal trench warfare is no way to convince others of your views.


----------



## byegad (27 Oct 2008)

I tend to try charm and personality...................................................................








So I'm stuffed!!!!


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

Too much seriousness. Life would be very boring and unfun if you couldn't jibe and tease.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Oct 2008)

Bikes with two sizes of wheel - ridiculous - will never catch on!


----------



## Andy in Sig (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Too much seriousness. Life would be very boring and unfun if you couldn't jibe and tease.



You're right. In my above post I was thinking more of campaigns aimed at changing the public's mind. But when it comes to Hilldodger there's nowt wrong wi' takin ' piss.


----------



## jay clock (28 Oct 2008)

for some reason I always imagine that the user of expressions like "upwrong" is also going to refer to Friday as "POETS" day or say things like "scuse I"

For that reason.....NO!!


----------



## Andy in Sig (28 Oct 2008)

That's a fair point. FWIW I just call them "normal" bikes.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

OTOH I do get Roger's point - if it were serious name calling, then I'm totally with him.


----------



## Andy in Sig (28 Oct 2008)

So we're all agreed then: the pulling of legs in good humour is OK.


----------



## arallsopp (28 Oct 2008)

As long as its done at an appropriate cadence. No point in putting anyone's knee out.


----------



## Hilldodger (28 Oct 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> That's a fair point. FWIW I just call them "normal" bikes.



That's ok then, but just don't go calling them 'Ordinary' bikes


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

arallsopp said:


> As long as its done at an appropriate cadence. No point in putting anyone's knee out.



I ride fixed you know, I won't be having any of that!!!


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> That's ok then, but just don't go calling them 'Ordinary' bikes



but "ordinary bikes" is fine then?


----------



## byegad (28 Oct 2008)

I spy an 'Oridnary'! Is it yours Hilldodger?


----------



## Hilldodger (28 Oct 2008)

One of mine, yes.

An essential part of my job as a professional penny-farthing rider


----------



## byegad (28 Oct 2008)

Looks good from what I can see. Do you find it easier to balance, once you're in the saddle that is, than a Safety?


----------



## Hilldodger (28 Oct 2008)

I ride my penny to a standstill and then ride off agin in complete control and do much longer track stands than on a boys...er..small bike.

So perhaps I do find it easier to balance a mans bike


----------



## byegad (28 Oct 2008)

That confirms what I've been told about the old Wheelmen's opposition to the new fangled Safety. 
The same thing now being said about 'bent bikes!


----------



## BentMikey (29 Oct 2008)

...but only because it's much easier to balance something very tall.


----------



## byegad (29 Oct 2008)

Exactly! 

On the other hand it's better to fall off something really low! 

Plus the lower the 'bent the less likely you are to come a cropper, something the old wheelmen did quite often by all accounts. Hence the CTC inventing roadsigns to warn cyclists to dismount on steep down hill sections to avoid going over the handlebars!


----------



## arallsopp (29 Oct 2008)

Fell off the SMGTe for the first time last night. Thames Path in the rain, heading West along the south side of the river, between the Thames Barrier and Greenwich. Its all blind corners and naff surfaces, then suddenly its a big steel disc right on a corner, taking 90% of the path, and about 3 metres across. 

Clipped in, turning, braking, leaning becomes unexpectedly laying on my side. On a DF, that'd be a very hurty wrist at least. I landed on my elbow which had I been upright would probably be extremely sore today. Instead I have a tiny little bump. Enough to say "Yes. I've fallen off it" but not enough to discourage me riding another 20 miles recreationally that night.

Eventually, it was the weather that did us in. No where to tuck your head out the path of freezing rain on an unfaired bent.


----------



## Riding in Circles (29 Oct 2008)

arallsopp said:


> Fell off the SMGTe for the first time last night. Thames Path in the rain, heading West along the south side of the river, between the Thames Barrier and Greenwich. Its all blind corners and naff surfaces, then suddenly its a big steel disc right on a corner, taking 90% of the path, and about 3 metres across.
> 
> Clipped in, turning, braking, leaning becomes unexpectedly laying on my side. On a DF, that'd be a very hurty wrist at least. I landed on my elbow which had I been upright would probably be extremely sore today. Instead I have a tiny little bump. Enough to say "Yes. I've fallen off it" but not enough to discourage me riding another 20 miles recreationally that night.
> 
> Eventually, it was the weather that did us in. No where to tuck your head out the path of freezing rain on an unfaired bent.



That would be a little slide and a grin on a trike.


----------



## arallsopp (29 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> That would be a little slide and a grin on a trike.



That's what it was on the SMGTe. 
But I got a free of charge bump on the elbow too.
Don't feel you're missing out though.
I can always give you yours on the bentkentride.


----------



## Fiona N (29 Oct 2008)

arallsopp said:


> Fell off the SMGTe for the first time last night.



I'm impressed - but maybe you're not trying hard enough - as I've fallen off the SpM nearly every time I've ridden it  Mainly while stationary but wet leaves on the corners of country lanes have been a bit of a bugger recently.

BTW, while I understand those old bikes with huge front wheels are easier to balance once you get the knack of getting on, they do seem to be reluctant to go up hill. I passed a bloke walking beside one on a gentle (compared to many in the area) incline somewhere between Leeds and Skipton. I was towards the end of a long day's touring on the SpM - with panniers and whatnot - but still sped past. Made me wonder about the bloke that tours on them - does he push up every hill too?


----------



## byegad (29 Oct 2008)

Fiona N said:


> I'm impressed - but maybe you're not trying hard enough - as I've fallen off the SpM nearly every time I've ridden it  Mainly while stationary but wet leaves on the corners of country lanes have been a bit of a bugger recently.
> 
> BTW, while I understand those old bikes with huge front wheels are easier to balance once you get the knack of getting on, they do seem to be reluctant to go up hill. I passed a bloke walking beside one on a gentle (compared to many in the area) incline somewhere between Leeds and Skipton. I was towards the end of a long day's touring on the SpM - with panniers and whatnot - but still sped past. Made me wonder about the bloke that tours on them - does he push up every hill too?



On a fixed gear, typically 54" or so IIRC, the problem on hills is easy to understand. 
It was the downhills which were dangerous, on unsealed surfaces and with the weight almost all on the front wheel a stone infront of the wheel sends the rider over the top. Which is why CTC started to label dangerous hills!


----------



## Hilldodger (29 Oct 2008)

byegad said:


> On a fixed gear, typically 54" or so IIRC, the problem on hills is easy to understand.
> It was the downhills which were dangerous, on unsealed surfaces and with the weight almost all on the front wheel a stone infront of the wheel sends the rider over the top. Which is why CTC started to label dangerous hills!



It's more to do with the bike running away from you and not being able to stop it than rough roads - with such a big wheel you can ride of some very big potholes!


----------



## byegad (29 Oct 2008)

Possibly,although I have a 1978 edition of Richards Bicycle book with some old line drawings. One shows some 'young bloods' descending a steep hill with their legs over the handle bars. I assume to a) get their feet out of the way of the pedals and  so if they do go over the top they can attempt to land feet first!

Rather them than me!


----------



## arallsopp (29 Oct 2008)

Fiona N said:


> I'm impressed - but maybe you're not trying hard enough - as I've fallen off the SpM nearly every time I've ridden it  Mainly while stationary but wet leaves on the corners of country lanes have been a bit of a bugger recently.



Thank you Fiona. I am marking your comments for the attention of my cycling buddy who spent much of last night teasing me about my fear of leaves.

Falling off stationary takes some going. I've only attempted that once, using a right turn from a T junction with unexpected traffic arriving across my path. Managed to get out of the pedals in time, but put a cleated sole onto a near frictionless surface and only managed to keep the bike upright by sacrificing every muscle on the inside of my thigh.
Ouch. Couldn't fall off as was in sight of a bus stop of kids.


----------



## Niall Estick (29 Oct 2008)

A recumbant is like a fat lass. 

Ok for a ride but you wouldn't want to be caught riding one.


----------



## Hilldodger (29 Oct 2008)

byegad said:


> Possibly,although I have a 1978 edition of Richards Bicycle book with some old line drawings. One shows some 'young bloods' descending a steep hill with their legs over the handle bars. I assume to a) get their feet out of the way of the pedals and  so if they do go over the top they can attempt to land feet first!
> 
> Rather them than me!



As a professional and long distance penny farthing rider I can assure you that the bike running away with you is the main problem.

There's a rule connected with riding pennies "If you can't see the bottom of the hill you don't ride down it"


----------



## Arch (29 Oct 2008)

byegad said:


> Possibly,although I have a 1978 edition of Richards Bicycle book with some old line drawings. One shows some 'young bloods' descending a steep hill with their legs over the handle bars. I assume to a) get their feet out of the way of the pedals and  so if they do go over the top they can attempt to land feet first!
> 
> Rather them than me!



In Jim McGurns Bicycle history book, there is a illustration from an ad for Quick release handlebars, designed to come off in your hands if you were jeerked suddenly out of the saddle, hence not trapping your legs..

I'm sure Roger's right about the 'running away with you' issue, and I can see you wouldn't want to be rounding a corner to come across an unexpected obstacle in the road....


----------



## byegad (29 Oct 2008)

Hilldodger said:


> As a professional and long distance penny farthing rider I can assure you that the bike running away with you is the main problem.
> 
> There's a rule connected with riding pennies "If you can't see the bottom of the hill you don't ride down it"



I stand corrected and thanks. 


Sighs.............. Another fine theory blown away by the facts.


----------



## Arch (29 Oct 2008)

byegad said:


> I stand corrected and thanks.
> 
> 
> Sighs.............. Another fine theory blown away by the facts.



Nah, never let facts get in the way of a good theory!


----------



## Riding in Circles (29 Oct 2008)

Niall Estick said:


> A _*recumbant*_ is like a fat lass.
> 
> Ok for a ride but you wouldn't want to be caught riding one.



A what?


----------



## arallsopp (29 Oct 2008)

Niall Estick said:


> A recumbant is like a fat lass.
> 
> Ok for a ride but you wouldn't want to be caught riding one.



LOL. I think Niall said all he needed to in the second word alone. First we're all bent, now we secretly harbour desires for stocky ladies. Are we lesbians then? Confused... All the fat lasses around this way are fully faired.


----------



## Hilldodger (29 Oct 2008)

Arch said:


> Nah, never let facts get in the way of a good theory!



Exactly.

All Penny Farthing riders are better looking than recumbent riders.

And as I ride both I must be doubly better looking than all of you.


----------



## byegad (29 Oct 2008)

Shakes head and tiptoes away..............................................


----------

