# Recumbents in the gym



## xpc316e (14 Oct 2009)

I have recently started going to a gym and I am surprised by the number of people who prefer to use the recumbent style exercise bikes instead of the upright kind. The recumbents seem to attract more folk, but it seems odd that it does not transfer into better recumbent sales figures when they enter a bike shop. Are they unaware that there is a different (and better) method of cycling, because 'bents do seem to have an extremely low profile in the cycling press and mainstream shops?  Is it because they are aware of 'bents, but are reluctant to stump the extra cash. Hopefully the rash of imports from the Far East will stimulate the market, but most seem to be sold only on ebay.


----------



## gaz (14 Oct 2009)

The only places i've seen them for sale on the highstreet was in a specialist recumbent shop in edinbrough. Stayed right opposite and say a few nice bikes coming out of there.


----------



## Amanda P (14 Oct 2009)

People are more comfortable on recumbent exercise bikes, but the general perception of them on the street is that they are too low to be safe.

I know that's rubbish - I ride one - but that's what puts people off, I reckon; that and not seeing them in the shops.


----------



## squeaker (15 Oct 2009)

'Sticker shock' and the resultant lack of volume (which would drive the price down), plus the lack of exposure in the media (think of the effect of a flat-ish TDF stage with 'bents in it), are the main reasons, IMHO.


----------



## Amanda P (15 Oct 2009)

I often wonder what the world would be like if the UCI hadn't banned 'bents back in nineteen-whatever-it-was.

Top pros on low racers on time trials.... Of course, there'd be no money in it. They'd be moving so fast, no-one would be able to see the advertising on their jerseys.


----------



## byegad (16 Oct 2009)

I agree Uncle Phil. 

What seems to be happening is that UCI racing is becoming a specialist field with only dedicated roadies taking care to buy a bike that would meet UCI approval and the more general cycling public buy a bike that appeals to their own tastes.

There are more and more recumbents on the road although we are still a long way from the general public seeing them as anything other than an enthusiasts ride.


----------



## Arch (21 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> People are more comfortable on recumbent exercise bikes, but the general perception of them on the street is that they are too low to be safe.
> 
> I know that's rubbish - I ride one - but that's what puts people off, I reckon; that and not seeing them in the shops.




I had the following conversation yesterday:

Colleague looking at copy of Velo Vision, sees recumbent, oohs and aahs, then comes out with the thing about it being so low, and feeling worried about close passing cars. I said "Actually, you find drivers give you more room on one of those" and she said "yeah, but on the road between X and Y, it's so twisty, they don't have time to see you and give you more room". This is, I gather, the route she cycles in on, on her upright. The fact that the same twistyness issue applies to an upright didn't seem to count. I couldn't be bothered to persue the point.


----------



## sunnyjim (21 Oct 2009)

The real reason IMO is that many -maybe most -people just can't stand the idea of doing something which isn't what everybody else does. I also do a bit of sailing, and monohull vs multihull has a lot in common with the DF-recumbent thing. Multihulls don't lean over, are faster, float in less water, are unsinkable, huge fun - yet the vast majority of yotties wouldn't contemplate sailing in anything other than the conventional monohull, rather than be seen in something which looks a bit different. Also like recumbents, low production volumes mean a few specialist buiders, higher costs, rarely seen (especially trimarans) in 'boat shops', and largely ignored by the mainstream yachting press. 'Reasons' not to try are usually similarly irrational. Also also like recumbents, this is changing slowly as numbers increase, but it's very slow progress.


----------



## byegad (22 Oct 2009)

I think you are correct there sunnyjim. 
As someone wo has always marched to my own drum rather than the crowd's I bought a recumbent as soon as I could afford one. Admittedly by then I was in my fifties but that was a money thing! The joys of grown up kids and no mortgage!!!


----------



## squeaker (23 Oct 2009)

sunnyjim said:


> I also do a bit of sailing, and monohull vs multihull has a lot in common with the DF-recumbent thing. Multihulls don't lean over, are faster, float in less water, are unsinkable, huge fun - yet the vast majority of yotties wouldn't contemplate sailing in anything other than the conventional monohull, rather than be seen in something which looks a bit different.


Erm, re: multi-hulls, you forgot about:


have huge turning circles and tend to stop when tacking, so close boat to boat racing is less dynamic
when they do fall over they are a bit of a b...... to get back up again (yes, I know modern un-ballasted ones are better than they used to be, but what about the big racing multihulls?)
take up huge amounts of room in the dinghy park
maybe not the most structurally efficient (definitely a bit like recumbent trikes)
But I do like the analogy, and I would love to have a sail on a big racing multi-hull some day


----------



## sunnyjim (23 Oct 2009)

squeaker said:


> Erm, re: multi-hulls, you forgot about:
> 
> 
> have huge turning circles and tend to stop when tacking, so close boat to boat racing is less dynamic
> ...



 Your statements aren’t incorrect, any more so than statements about recumbents being heavy, slower up hills, low, less direct feel of the road, etc 

 But..

that's the point. The case against is made from a presumption that they are an abnormality – a situation which we know well.

A multi doesn’t fit in well into a tight round-the-cans race which has been designed /evolved to exploit the handing characteristics of dinghies & keelboats any more than a recumbent bike would work in a downhill mountain race. Displacement monohulls wouldn’t fit well into a multi-centric race because it would be impossible for them to reach the same speed. Like recumbents, multis have been banned from some races because the’re too fast. The distinction is about the tool for a specific job, not the type of boat. Same applies to the ‘big racing multihull’ point- techincally true, but failures of exotic one-race machines under extreme conditions are hardly relevant to the average punter- even if the average punter isn’t able to recognise that.

Capsize is one of the favourite arguments – completely forgetting that the weather or crew behaviour leading to capsize resulting in an upside down but still floating multi is quite likely to sink a monhull. This is analagous to the potential outcomes of a collision involving a ‘low’ recumbulist compared with an upright rider going over teh bars –the argument doesn’t think the thing through.

Space taken again is related to not fitting in with a system designed around a different norm. Most marina berths are designed to take deep narrow boats rather than shallow wide ones, but the latter could be cheaper to build and maintain. Trikes don’t fit into DF-centric bike racks - but they don’t need them.

Structual efficiency relates to mass – who in their right mind would design a boat with several tons of lead in it? A multihull built using conventional monohull techniques & materials would probably break up- some have done so, but again, the starting point is the monohull standard. Polynesians could build structurally safe catamarans thousands of years ago using appropriate materials & methods (ie-bamboo & string).
This applies to bikes as well. A rear derailleur hanger an inch above the ground on a 20” wheel isn’t something anyone would have designed deliberately, but it results from applying ‘normal’upright bike solutions to a different animal. The gears pretty much can’t go anywhere else on a DF bike, but if designing a recumbent from scratch with no reference, you might well put the gears somewhere else- say, under the seat, where the chain has to change direction anyway, making the rear wheel simpler.


But you knew all that already, Squeaker – the fight isn’t between monohulls & multihulls, or uprights & recumbents, or 2 wheels & 3 wheels, its Normal vs Deviants…..


Oops- didn't mean to go on that long. Tea break's over.

(PS- my boat’s a Farrier F27 tri- cruised, not raced. Even a trike downhill has trouble matching the grin as it passes the 15 kt mark)


----------



## squeaker (24 Oct 2009)

'Horses for courses' innit? I find the most pleasurable part of my sail cruising (17' Pirate) is sailing up creeks and rivers (think Newtown River, for example) with just the sound of the water gurgling past the hull and the calls of the birds: usually need manoeverability for that  Whereas for dinghy racing its downwind on a Laser in big waves 
You're right about the evolutionary similarities though: the UCF (especially) and IYRU have a lot to answer for!


----------



## Greenbank (2 Nov 2009)

I think it's simply down to the fact that the overly-padded gel seats on the upright exercise bikes are often utterly dreadful and uncomfortable within 20 minutes of use. The bucket seats of the recumbent type exercise bikes are much more comfortable for longer periods.

Out on the road you can fit a much more comfortable seat (compared to the standard exercise bike one) to an upright and so it is less of a problem.


----------



## Auntie Helen (2 Nov 2009)

Heh, can I join the multihull conversation?

We've got a Prout 34 cat for the same reason I have a trike - comfort, safety and more suitable for someone with a disability. Like the trike it takes more room to store and has perhaps a slightly larger turning circle than a mono, but it's wonderfully comfortable and fast in the right conditions (although nothing like an F27!)

I find so many similarities between the monohull/multihull arguments on boating forums and the upright/recumbent arguments on cycling forums. It's spooky!


----------



## Arch (2 Nov 2009)

Greenbank said:


> I think it's simply down to the fact that the overly-padded gel seats on the upright exercise bikes are often utterly dreadful and uncomfortable within 20 minutes of use. The bucket seats of the recumbent type exercise bikes are much more comfortable for longer periods.
> 
> Out on the road you can fit a much more comfortable seat (compared to the standard exercise bike one) to an upright and so it is less of a problem.



Yes, but a recumbent bike/trike is more comfortable still!


----------



## sunnyjim (3 Nov 2009)

Auntie Helen said:


> Heh, can I join the multihull conversation?
> 
> We've got a Prout 34 cat for the same reason I have a trike - comfort, safety and more suitable for someone with a disability. Like the trike it takes more room to store and has perhaps a slightly larger turning circle than a mono, but it's wonderfully comfortable and fast in the right conditions (although nothing like an F27!)
> 
> I find so many similarities between the monohull/multihull arguments on boating forums and the upright/recumbent arguments on cycling forums. It's spooky!




Nice boats, Prouts. Definitely more comfortable below than an f27. OTOH, like bikes, there's a lot to be said for a folder, so I can keep it in the drive at home during the winter. 


Now, does anyone else here monoski?


----------



## Greenbank (3 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> Yes, but a recumbent bike/trike is more comfortable still!



I'd hoped I'd worded my reply carefully enough to avoid this whole debate, given that it was talking about recumbent gym machines. But, since you asked, my problem with recumbent bikes/trikes is that I simply don't like them; by which I mean:

* the riding position (too low for my personal preference)
* the pedaling motion
* the steering setup (and I've tried OSS and USS) and general "feel" of the ride
* the look of them
* the non-standard nature of parts (every bike shop will stock 700c wheels/tyres/tubes and much easier to blag spares from passing cyclists)
* the weight (or the expense of an sub-9kg recumbent)
* transport problems (I often take my bike on the train, this can be a problem with trikes or LWB recumbents)
* I predominantly ride fixed

And it's also sold as a solution to a problem I don't experience; my upright is perfectly comfortable; even for the long distance riding I do.

For me these negatives do not outweigh the benefits of being "even more" comfortable, increased aerodynamics, lower CoG and increased stability for faster descending speeds, etc.

It was also with some irony that one recumbent rider withdrew from LEL because of chafing caused by water/sweat pooling in his bucket seat. (Drain holes would have prevented this, but then normal upright saddles don't need drain holes.)


----------



## Arch (3 Nov 2009)

Um, I don't think I asked what your problem with recumbents was, did I?

Each to their own, I like them, the only reason I don't ride my trike more is a storage problem that means I have to keep it across town*. My uprights serve me perfectly well enough, although I get a sore bum and aching shoulders after more than 50 miles, which I don't get in the trike. I'm not pro or anti either type - it's all cycling! To me, to be 'against' any sort of bike is just daft. If you don't want one, don't have one. I don't care about having a fixie, but I can see why some do, I just choose not to.

I will say though:



> the non-standard nature of parts (every bike shop will stock 700c wheels/tyres/tubes and much easier to blag spares from passing cyclists)



My trike has a 26" wheel and two 20", neither of which is very odd. And all the components and nuts and bolts are standard - it's just the frame that's odd.


*I've got a chance to get a new trike as a good price, which would be light enough to carry up to the flat, so that may change. I'll have to sit in it to watch telly though!


----------



## sunnyjim (4 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> //..
> 
> 
> *I've got a chance to get a new trike as a good price, which would be light enough to carry up to the flat, so that may change. I'll have to sit in it to watch telly though!




A trike's excellent for watching telly - or just sitting with a small refreshment to hand listening to the wireless. If the front room was big enough I'd replace all the chairs with trikes..


----------



## Greenbank (4 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> Um, I don't think I asked what your problem with recumbents was, did I?



Sorry, grumpy day yesterday. You should note that I'm not anti-recumbent either, they're just not for me for the personal reasons I listed. It just seems that every time saddle comfort is mentioned then recumbents always get mentioned as if that's the only solution to the problem, whether or not the "problem" exists in the first place.

Going back to the original question, if you fitted a less hideous and less overly padded saddle to the upright exercise bikes then I'd bet they'd get used more than they do currently.


----------



## byegad (4 Nov 2009)

The point we 'bet riders make is that there is no need to 'get used to' our seats. You can get used to banging your head on the wall, but not doing so is better.

Nothing wrong with upright bikes but for distance and time on the bike a recumbent seat takes a lot of beating.


----------



## just4fun (3 Dec 2009)

sunnyjim said:


> A trike's excellent for watching telly -



thats why they are more popular in the gym.


----------



## Young Un (12 Dec 2009)

sunnyjim said:


> Now, does anyone else here monoski?




Yes


----------



## sunnyjim (14 Dec 2009)

Young Un said:


> Yes


Thought there'd be at least one.


----------

