# First recumbent on my route



## goo_mason (27 Jul 2007)

Passed a bloke on a recumbent zipping along in the opposite direction this morning near the bridge over Crewe Toll. First one I've seen since I started commuting in April last year.

I really want a go on one. They look fabulous fun to ride


----------



## Andy 71 (27 Jul 2007)

I'm dead jealous.

Not only can I not afford one (which is the most significant factor) but I wouldn't be able to take it on the train either.

I wouldn't mind the stares of wonderment from passers-by, but I wonder what impact the lower riding position would have on my visibility and ability to manouver in heavy London traffic.


----------



## HJ (27 Jul 2007)

goo_mason said:


> I really want a go on one. They look fabulous fun to ride



You can rent then from the The Bicycle Works in Argyle Place (although I can't find anything about it on their web site). Also check out Laid Back Ligfiets who do a guided tour on recumbent bikes in Edinburgh.


----------



## beanzontoast (27 Jul 2007)

Never seen a single recumbent on my Derby commute all the years I've been doing it.

One passed me on the Tissington Trail this week though!


----------



## bonj2 (27 Jul 2007)

I'm sure people can probably guess/already know my feelings on recumbents, so I'll not bother to state them again.


----------



## Keith Oates (28 Jul 2007)

Now, let me guess..............................................No, give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bonj2 (28 Jul 2007)

Keith Oates said:


> Now, let me guess..............................................No, give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Well, seeing as you really want to know...they're a deathtrap.
You can't see where you're going as well as on a normal bike, not to mention the fact that you're so much lower down so people can't see you.
They're more unstable - your centre of gravity is lower down, so minor adjustments in your horizontal position don't work as well.
They're unhealthy / unergonomic: you're constantly having to bend your neck forward to see what's ahead - can't be healthy on the spine or neck. Plus, your legs are pointing forwards when doing work - making your legs work under decreased bloodflow is harder and can't possibly be healthy.
And please don't say "but you haven't ever ridden one bonj" because I have once ridden one, that a mate had inherited from somebody and was selling but before he did asked me and a few others if we wanted to come round and have a go on it for a laugh. Needless to say I fell off it several times trying to go round his yard and up and down his road, but managed to get going for a bit. Even so, I judged it to be a work of absolute crapola.


----------



## Keith Oates (28 Jul 2007)

Well in the end we get to the truth, you couldn't ride it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Well, seeing as you really want to know...they're a deathtrap.
> You can't see where you're going as well as on a normal bike, not to mention the fact that you're so much lower down so people can't see you.



Myths!

Unless you are riding a real racing one, most "street recumbents" have the head in a neutral position. In fact you are under much less strain than on a racing machine, or mountain bike where the neck is much further back.Your field of view is much more open and natural

Visibilty is again a unfounded worry. I am taller on my street machine than many children an a few women riders on DFs. What is important is sensible riding. Providing you are not undertaking artics and other silly antics, you will have no problems.

Most drivers should be looking a hundred yards ahead for road markings, bollards etc, all of which are lower. At the distances drivers should be looking height is not a factor.

The ones who "don't see you" are the same ones who don't see ANY bike!




> They're more unstable - your centre of gravity is lower down, so minor adjustments in your horizontal position don't work as well.



As with any bike it is simply acquiring the skills. A recumbent handles as well in most cases as a DF. If you have problems "nipping through a gap" then shouldn't one be querying the wisdom of the move rather than the ability of the machine?

I have no more problems with maneoverability or stability than with any other machine In fact the Trike is outstanding in both cases.

Also don't forget a lower CoG will make the bike safer in a fall as there is less distance and hence less impact!




> They're unhealthy / unergonomic: you're constantly having to bend your neck forward to see what's ahead - can't be healthy on the spine or neck. Plus, your legs are pointing forwards when doing work - making your legs work under decreased blood flow is harder and can't possibly be healthy.



Again myths...

You don't need to bend your neck anywhere on a street designed machine. Even on my Hurricane this is not he case and that is a "low rider". As above, you are under far less strain with flexion than with the extended neck required on a mountain bike or racing machine.

As for the leg position, this is a benefit. That is why all gyms have recumbent cycling machines!. The fact that you can use bigger muscles as you can lock your hip into the seat makes the potential power output greater.

Like with any development in fitness the body will compensate, and there is no problem with the legs adapting to this position. The resultant increased blood flow actually makes this position more efficient - again try and find a gym without a recumbent machine!



> And please don't say "but you haven't ever ridden one bonj" because I have once ridden one, that a mate had inherited from somebody and was selling but before he did asked me and a few others if we wanted to come round and have a go on it for a laugh. Needless to say I fell off it several times trying to go round his yard and up and down his road, but managed to get going for a bit. Even so, I judged it to be a work of absolute crapola.



Which machine was this, there area number of formats some easier than others. Personally I have 4, :
Street Machine GT - Shopping, commuting, touring
Catrike Expedition - as above
Linear - Normally shows etc now due to it's age and status
Challenge Hurricane - fast days out without luggage



Each one is completely different in design, handling, use and comfort. Using a single one to decide that it is "Crapola" is like driving a 1970's Skoda and then declaring that a modern luxury car is rubbish.

PS - they even go off road on hill tracks across the Pennines!


----------



## HJ (29 Jul 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Personally I have 4, :
> Street Machine GT - Shopping, commuting, touring
> Catrike Expedition - as above
> Linear - Normally shows etc now due to it's age and status
> ...



So which one are using off road?


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Jul 2007)

*Off roading recumbent*

That is the Street Machine, dual suspension and a comfortable hard seat.

The Hurricane is too low (not for safety, but because your buttocks get stung by nettles) and the Catrike too wide for some tracks. As I said above the Linear is now 25 years old and comes out fro the occasional rally rather than a daily use machine.


----------



## Cab (30 Jul 2007)

Last week I passed two recumbents and three unicycles. Haven't seen the rowing machine bike man in a while, hope he's okay.


----------



## Arch (30 Jul 2007)

Cab said:


> Last week I passed two recumbents and three unicycles. Haven't seen the rowing machine bike man in a while, hope he's okay.



Had a go on a rowing trike the other day! Too big for me, so I couldn't really test it, but it would certainly zing along for the right rider. The steering took a while to get used to, but with a bit of practice, I guess it would be fine...

Why is is that some of us see something new and think "Cool!" and some others automatically crawl back under their rock muttering...?


----------



## bonj2 (30 Jul 2007)

Arch said:


> Had a go on a rowing trike the other day! Too big for me, so I couldn't really test it, but it would certainly zing along for the right rider. The steering took a while to get used to, but with a bit of practice, I guess it would be fine...
> 
> Why is is that some of us see something *new* and think "Cool!" and some others automatically crawl back under their rock muttering...?



According to wikipedia they've been around since the mid 19th century - I wouldn't call that 'new'. Still haven't taken off.


----------



## Arch (30 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> According to wikipedia they've been around since the mid 19th century - I wouldn't call that 'new'. Still haven't taken off.



Apologies. By 'new' I meant 'new to our personal experience', but you are right, they've been around a while.

Not taken off eh? What exactly do you mean by taken off? I mean we all know the world has to bend to your logic, so what do recumbents have to do to 'take off'. One owned by every cyclist? One in every household? Why not just admit that some people like them and have them - either exclusively or together with uprights, a lot of people would like one, but can't afford one, or don't have space for more than just one bike, and a lot of people who've never seen one look at them and say "That's cool!". 

You stick to what you like, and stop telling other people what's good and what's bad, especially on subjects you know nothing about.


----------



## goo_mason (30 Jul 2007)

Regardless of Bonj's opinions, I'd still love to try one so I'll perhaps pop up and see if I can get on a tour when I'm off for two weeks soon.

(In my head, I see Bonj looking somewhat like Victor Meldrew, and living in a house with a big black cloud permanently over it  )


----------



## TimO (30 Jul 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> The ones who "don't see you" are the same ones who don't see ANY bike!


...and a lot of those who "don't see you", do see you on a recumbent. They are generally so unusual that car drivers who would otherwise look straight through you, just registering you as another bit of scenery, have no choice but to notice the strange machine.

Where I used to live, I pulled out from a driveway onto a fairly main road (A40 through Cheltenham), I stopped pulling out onto the footpath, because there were so many near misses by car drivers looking at me and not watching the road ahead. Behind the wall of the drive, I could see the cars over the wall, but they couldn't see my Trice.

They only reason I don't have it any more are (i) Not enough room to store a Trice in London and (ii) Recumbent trikes aren't really suitable for heavy traffic and congested narrow streets, not because of safety, just because they don't fit very well, not being as narrow as a bike.



Andy 71 said:


> ...but I wouldn't be able to take it on the train either.


I remember a few years back, someone produced a conversion kit for Bromptons that made a folding recumbent Brompton! It don't think it folded as fast or as compactly as a traditional Brompton, but it was quite a clever idea.


----------



## Cab (30 Jul 2007)

Arch said:


> Why is is that some of us see something new and think "Cool!" and some others automatically crawl back under their rock muttering...?



I think I fall into a third category. I see something new and different and think 'thats new and different', I don't always think 'cool', but I don't react badly to things just 'cos they're different.

I don't have any problem with recumbents, they have some obvious advantages and some disadvantages too, and I can see why some people would choose to ride one even though I don't fancy it. I think that unicycles are an insane way to commute, though.


----------



## gavintc (30 Jul 2007)

Someone chains one to a lamp post at the bottom of my block of flats during the working day. I have not seen him/her and only see the recumbent if I come home from work early. It looks quite a nice one - but I have not a clue about recumbents.


----------



## squeaker (30 Jul 2007)

*Train?*



Andy 71 said:


> but I wouldn't be able to take it on the train either.


Is that 'cos your RailCo doesn't 'do' bikes? My HPV Grasshopper takes about the same space as a DF bike and fits fine (when Southern see fit to allow bikes on, that is ...). A trike would be a different fish kettle, though


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jul 2007)

There is only one company (GNER) that specifically bans recumbents. 


But then again they ban everyhing apart form Bromptons painted a specific shade of pink, adorned with a flying pig motif and manufactured on the third Tuesday of the month!


----------



## Arch (31 Jul 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> There is only one company (GNER) that specifically bans recumbents.
> 
> 
> But then again they ban everyhing apart form Bromptons painted a specific shade of pink, adorned with a flying pig motif and manufactured on the third Tuesday of the month!




To be fair, that's not true - I take my normal bike on GNER at least twice a year, York to Berwick, no problem (I always reserve though) And a big hello to the station staff at Berwick, who are consistently very helpful and friendly.


----------



## gavintc (31 Jul 2007)

I have used GNER to move my bike between Glasgow and York to good effect. Indeed, I am happier putting my bike in the GNER goods van than hanging in the entrance way on a Virgin train. On my last trip south on GNER, the train driver and I got chatting about bikes as I was loading in Glasgow. He certainly was pro the idea of carrying bikes.


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

Arch said:


> Not taken off eh? What exactly do you mean by taken off?


Become popular.


Arch said:


> I mean we all know the world has to bend to your logic, so what do recumbents have to do to 'take off'.


They don't have to satisfy me that they've taken off. Some people like them, some people don't. I personally don't, but if you do - go and ride one, it's no skin off my nose.



Arch said:


> One owned by every cyclist? One in every household?


One in every city might be a start...
But those two criteria you've listed above can pretty much both be said about upright bikes.
Again, it all boils down to the same old question as with that dodgy "Airnimal" thing - if they were _that_ good, then why haven't more people got one?
When I say 'good', as in '_that_ good', I mean 'good' for the human race as a whole in the sense that the bike is 'good' in that it's a global transport phenomenon, not 'good' in the novelty sense that, say, the telescope is 'good' in that it can see stars and planets at night but not much else.




Arch said:


> Why not just admit that some people like them and have them - either exclusively or together with uprights...


Yep, I'll admit that...



Arch said:


> ...a lot of people would like one, but can't afford one, or don't have space for more than just one bike


According to the wikipedia article on them, they only cost 10%-15% more than the equivalently-specced upright bike, so I think that 'can't afford one' is an excuse given by people who don't think they could ride one/can't ride one/are too scared to ride one. 'Don't have space for one' is a similar excuse.



Arch said:


> and a lot of people who've never seen one look at them and say "That's cool!".


Yes, exactly. They look at them and think 'that's cool', rather than 'that's how I want to get to work every day.'



Arch said:


> You stick to what you like, and stop telling other people what's good and what's bad, especially on subjects you know nothing about.


That's fine - I don't want to come over all like I'm condemning them and that I think all recumbents should be rounded up and burnt at the stake, I don't. But I think these people should know their place - these 'special interest' groups don't seem content with being a novelty and it's when they start trying to come over all mainstream that it gets my goat - it's just a pretence! As far as I'm concerned, recumbents fit in the same category as unicycles and roller skates. They require skill, and yes, they may be fun - but they're never going to be a viable mainstream means of day-to-day transport.
Why are the people who have these weird bikes not content with having something a bit eccentric - why do they have to put on this pretence of being 'the enlightened ones'? It really doesn't help what with the fact that their ego is constantly boosted by all the people who look starry-eyed up at them in awe, saying "ooooooooooh - I wish I had one of those!"
Nope - they're just not stable. Sorry.


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Myths!
> 
> Unless you are riding a real racing one, most "street recumbents" have the head in a neutral position. In fact you are under much less strain than on a racing machine, or mountain bike where the neck is much further back.Your field of view is much more open and natural
> 
> Visibilty is again a unfounded worry. I am taller on my street machine than many children an a few women riders on DFs.


What's a "DF" when it's at home? Please understand that not everybody understand your jargon, contrary to what you may like to believe.



Cunobelin said:


> What is important is sensible riding. Providing you are not undertaking artics and other silly antics, you will have no problems.
> 
> Most drivers should be looking a hundred yards ahead for road markings, bollards etc, all of which are lower. At the distances drivers should be looking height is not a factor.


But the point is if I'm on my normal bike, I can be seen over most normal-height cars, possibly with the exception of 4x4s. A recumbent can't even be the other side of the _bonnet_ of a car.




Cunobelin said:


> As with any bike it is simply acquiring the skills. A recumbent handles as well in most cases as a DF. If you have problems "nipping through a gap" then shouldn't one be querying the wisdom of the move rather than the ability of the machine?


Well if a certain move is possible on an upright bike but not on a recumbent, then surely that's one reason the upright bike is better?! I didn't know that was a problem of recumbents, but thanks for pointing that out.



Cunobelin said:


> I have no more problems with maneoverability or stability than with any other machine In fact the Trike is outstanding in both cases.


But surely the fact that it needs to be a trike in the first place is due to the fact it's less stable? Why else has it got 3 wheels rather than 2?



Cunobelin said:


> As for the leg position, this is a benefit.


So what about the fact that more blood pressure is required to pump oxygenated blood to the horizontal legs, as opposed to being helped by gravity?



Cunobelin said:


> That is why *all gyms have recumbent cycling machines!*


Er.. no they don't. I've never seen one and I've been to quite a few gyms. They might have them in your particular poncy part of London. And anyway in gyms, they have things that are deliberately engineered to be difficult to give you a workout.




Cunobelin said:


> The fact that you can use bigger muscles as you can lock your hip into the seat makes the potential power output greater.


The way I read it on wikipedia was that you _need_ to lock your hip into the seat to generate the _same_ power output that you would be able to achieve on an upright bike anyway, but if you think you know better - fair enough...



Cunobelin said:


> Like with any development in fitness the body will compensate, and there is no problem with the legs adapting to this position. The resultant increased blood flow actually makes this position more efficient - again try and find a gym without a recumbent machine!


Never seen one with one.



Cunobelin said:


> PS - they even go off road on hill tracks across the Pennines!


Now the TPT is probably one of the places I would imagine is a good place to enjoy one - as you can see the scenery and it doesn't matter if you fall off, and it's a nice relaxed ride in the country without the urge for it to become physically strenuous exercise. And I can't _quite_ work out why your'e wearing a helmet in that picture, I'm presuming there was some road riding involved aswell...

Is there such a thing as a .... _downhill recumbent_?


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

goo_mason said:


> Regardless of Bonj's opinions, I'd still love to try one so I'll perhaps pop up and see if I can get on a tour when I'm off for two weeks soon.
> 
> (In my head, *I see Bonj looking somewhat like Victor Meldrew*, and living in a house with a big black cloud permanently over it  )




Well you're a fine one to talk! pot/kettle...


----------



## Arch (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> That's fine - I don't want to come over all like I'm condemning them and that I think all recumbents should be rounded up and burnt at the stake, I don't. But I think these people should know their place - these 'special interest' groups don't seem content with being a novelty and it's when they start trying to come over all mainstream that it gets my goat - it's just a pretence! As far as I'm concerned, recumbents fit in the same category as unicycles and roller skates. They require skill, and yes, they may be fun - but they're never going to be a viable mainstream means of day-to-day transport.
> Why are the people who have these weird bikes not content with having something a bit eccentric - why do they have to put on this pretence of being 'the enlightened ones'? It really doesn't help what with the fact that their ego is constantly boosted by all the people who look starry-eyed up at them in awe, saying "ooooooooooh - I wish I had one of those!"
> Nope - they're just not stable. Sorry.



Not viable as mainstream transport eh? Dear me, does that mean that all the people who do actually use them as mainstream transport are imaginary? Pity, that means a lot of my friends and people on this forum don't exist....

Do you ever actually listen to yourself? Why are you so threatened by the idea of recumbent riders thinking they're onto a good thing? I don't recall anyone ever suggesting recumbents had to take over the world, or that you had to have one, so why don't you just shut up, and stick to what you like, and stop trying to put down other people's choices? Because actually, although you are irritating enough to make a lot of us ride to your bait in the deluded hope of teaching you something, in the end, we don't actually care what you think, since you usually prove yourself to be ill-informed and narrowminded.


----------



## Amanda P (31 Jul 2007)

Steady on, Arch. Take some deep breaths.


... and relax...

It's only Bonj.


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

Arch said:


> Do you ever actually listen to yourself? Why are you so threatened by the idea of recumbent riders thinking they're onto a good thing?


But they're _not_ 'onto a good thing'!
You're not grasping the reason I'm for this rant about them - the reason they annoy me is not because I feel threatened by them but because the riders and proponents of them just annoy me with their false pretences - the very phrase "onto a good thing" suggests some notion of 'enlightenment' - there's _no_ enlightenment, no 'greater awareness' that these people possess - it's just a little gang of people who feel they should be looked up to (and for some reason completely unbeknown to me, are!) for having a weird and wacky fundamental design variation for variation's sake.



Arch said:


> I don't recall anyone ever suggesting recumbents had to take over the world, or that you had to have one, so why don't you just shut up, and stick to what you like, and stop trying to put down other people's choices? Because actually, although you are irritating enough to make a lot of us ride to your bait in the deluded hope of teaching you something, in the end, we don't actually care what you think, since you usually prove yourself to be ill-informed and narrowminded.


It's not their particular choice that I'm putting down in itself, it's just the attitude of these loons. You reserve the right to have a rant about the attitude of 'all' car drivers, so I reserve the right to tar recumbent riders with the mad brush.


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

Do you wear one of those japanese umbrella-hats when you go out in the rain? No? God, you're so _ill-informed_ and _narrow-minded!_ You need to see the light!


----------



## goo_mason (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Well you're a fine one to talk! pot/kettle...



I don't belieeeeeeve it 

Is my photo really that bad ? Can't see any resemblance myself and I live in Sunny Leith Sur Mer, where the sun always shines and the Proclaimers keep singing about it....


----------



## Peyote (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> But surely the fact that it needs to be a trike in the first place is due to the fact it's less stable? Why else has it got 3 wheels rather than 2?



I would've thought recumbents would be more stable than upright bikes because of their lower centre of gravity. Don't many of them also have longer wheelbases too? Again more stablility. Maybe the choice of trike is for carrying capacity, or stability at lower speeds? that's why one of my friends rides an upright trike anyway.



bonj said:


> So what about the fact that more blood pressure is required to pump oxygenated blood to the horizontal legs, as opposed to being helped by gravity?



I'm slightly confused by this too, surely the amount of energy used is going to be the same either way? The blood has still got to get to the muscles, on an upright it is aided by gravity, then hindered on the way back. On a 'bent it is neither aided or hindered, hence energy consuption shouldn't be any different either way, should it?


----------



## Peyote (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> But they're _not_ 'onto a good thing'!
> You're not grasping the reason I'm for this rant about them - the reason they annoy me is not because I feel threatened by them but because the riders and proponents of them just annoy me with their false pretences - the very phrase "onto a good thing" suggests some notion of 'enlightenment' - there's _no_ enlightenment, no 'greater awareness' that these people possess - it's just a little gang of people who feel they should be looked up to (and for some reason completely unbeknown to me, are!) for having a weird and wacky fundamental design variation for variation's sake.
> 
> 
> It's not their particular choice that I'm putting down in itself, it's just the attitude of these loons. You reserve the right to have a rant about the attitude of 'all' car drivers, so I reserve the right to tar recumbent riders with the mad brush.




So you're ranting about 'bent riders on the basis that you percieve them to have some kind of 'superiority complex'? Not really something I've noticed from these forums, and I don't recall anyone else ever airing such feelings either. 

Are you sure it isn't just because you personally feel threatened by them for some reason? Just seems an odd group to pick on that's all.


----------



## goo_mason (31 Jul 2007)

Peyote said:


> So you're ranting about 'bent riders on the basis that you percieve them to have some kind of 'superiority complex'? Not really something I've noticed from these froums, and I don't recall anyone else ever airing such feelings either.
> 
> Are you sure it isn't just because you personally feel threatened by them for some reason? Just seems an odd group to pick on that's all.



Maybe he was beaten up by a gang of hippy recumbent riders during his formative years.....


----------



## Peyote (31 Jul 2007)

goo_mason said:


> Maybe he was beaten up by a gang of hippy recumbent riders during his formative years.....




Oh great. Well done Goo, go and rub salt into that (obviously still raw and open) emotional wound why don't you!


----------



## Amanda P (31 Jul 2007)

goo_mason said:


> beaten up by a gang of hippy recumbent riders



Now there's an interesting idea.

But where could we find a gang of hippy recumbent riders?...


----------



## Arch (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> But they're _not_ 'onto a good thing'!



er, they enjoy riding them and percieve them to have benefits. That's 'onto a good thing' in my book.. 


> You're not grasping the reason I'm for this rant about them - the reason they annoy me is not because I feel threatened by them but because the riders and proponents of them just annoy me with their false pretences - the very phrase "onto a good thing" suggests some notion of 'enlightenment' -



'Onto a good thing' in no way implies a superior level of enlightenment, it just means making a good personal choice.



> there's _no_ enlightenment, no 'greater awareness' that these people possess - it's just a little gang of people who feel they should be looked up to (and for some reason completely unbeknown to me, are!) for having a weird and wacky fundamental design variation for variation's sake.



Who said recumbent riders demand to be looked up to? You seem to be the only person thinking this. 



> It's not their particular choice that I'm putting down in itself, it's just the attitude of these loons. You reserve the right to have a rant about the attitude of 'all' car drivers, so I reserve the right to tar recumbent riders with the mad brush.



I don't believe I've ever tarred all car drivers with the same brush. I don't happen to own a car, but I've frequently driven one, and most of my friends drive them, and a lot of the people I see out on the road drive them perfectly sensibly. If a driver happens to endanger me, or someone else, I'll have a go at them. But you are having a go at recumbent riders for the simple reason that they enjoy something you don't. 

Ok, Uncle Phil, I'm breathing....


----------



## HJ (31 Jul 2007)

This place really is beginning to feel just like the old C+ forum, all sweetness and light


----------



## mosschops2 (31 Jul 2007)

Surely recumbents have not been popular / mainstream, as they were essentially banned from all race / olympic / world records / championships etc etc.!

If that had not been the case, their popularity would have been much greater - maybe 50% of all bikes on the road???


----------



## Arch (31 Jul 2007)

mosschops2 said:


> Surely recumbents have not been popular / mainstream, as they were essentially banned from all race / olympic / world records / championships etc etc.!
> 
> If that had not been the case, their popularity would have been much greater - maybe 50% of all bikes on the road???



That's the theory. Banned for being too fast. Since trends and equipment in mainstream cycling all filter down from racing, recumbents have remained a niche market - most people just don't know they exist.


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

Peyote said:


> I would've thought recumbents would be more stable than upright bikes because of their lower centre of gravity. Don't many of them also have longer wheelbases too? Again more stablility. Maybe the choice of trike is for carrying capacity, or stability at lower speeds? that's why one of my friends rides an upright trike anyway.


Well you'd have thought wrong. In this wikipedia article on them it lists the main disadvantage as being balance. On a traditional bike you stay balanced because you can make minor adjustments to the position of your centre of gravity more easily because you have weight on the pedals, and you need a much lesser lateral adjustment to achieve the same balancing effect, because you are higher up hence the moment about the pivot point is more magnified.




Peyote said:


> I'm slightly confused by this too, surely the amount of energy used is going to be the same either way? The blood has still got to get to the muscles, on an upright it is aided by gravity, then hindered on the way back. On a 'bent it is neither aided or hindered, hence energy consuption shouldn't be any different either way, should it?


Maybe, although I think it requires more power to get it there than to get it back. Hence why arteries are bigger than veins, because they need to carry more blood and at greater pressure.


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

Arch said:


> That's the theory. Banned for being too fast. Since trends and equipment in mainstream cycling all filter down from racing, recumbents have remained a niche market - most people just don't know they exist.



Oh right, so _that's_ why most people don't have them, course! It's not because they can't afford one or they haven't got enough space in their garage, but because they don't know they exist! Silly me, for thinking it's because they wouldn't be able to ride one...


----------



## Peyote (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Well you'd have thought wrong. In this wikipedia article on them it lists the main disadvantage as being balance. On a traditional bike you stay balanced because you can make minor adjustments to the position of your centre of gravity more easily because you have weight on the pedals, and you need a much lesser lateral adjustment to achieve the same balancing effect, because you are higher up hence the moment about the pivot point is more magnified.



Interesting article, I guess that explains why there seem to be more 'bent trikes than upright trikes then. Thanks for enlightening me Bonj!




bonj said:


> Maybe, although I think it requires more power to get it there than to get it back. Hence why arteries are bigger than veins, because they need to carry more blood and at greater pressure.



Another good point! I neglected to consider the pressure differences, be interested to know if this makes that much of a difference because it does seem to be often sited as a positive aspect of 'bents. Any Cardiologists (or similar) on the forum give an opinion, just for the sake of curiosity?


----------



## mosschops2 (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Oh right, so _that's_ why most people don't have them, course! It's not because they can't afford one or they haven't got enough space in their garage, but because they don't know they exist! Silly me, for thinking it's because they wouldn't be able to ride one...



Actually that is correct. Since they were banned from competition 70-odd years ago, they have not had the popularity which they otherwise would have had. Imagine if instead of watching Chris Boardman on a bent rather than a recumbent in the 1996 Olmpics. You can't tell me that they would not be up there as an genuine option: do I go for a road, a hybrid, a MTB or a recumbent?


----------



## mosschops2 (31 Jul 2007)

Link which I forgot is here re history

http://www.bikefix.co.uk/index.php?get_ol_id=4&get_bsm_id=21


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

mosschops2 said:


> *Actually that is correct*. Since they were banned from competition 70-odd years ago, they have not had the popularity which they otherwise would have had. Imagine if instead of watching Chris Boardman on a bent rather than a recumbent in the 1996 Olmpics. You can't tell me that they would not be up there as an genuine option: do I go for a road, a hybrid, a MTB or a recumbent?



You see there you go again with the arrogant superiority complex. You _choose to assume_ that most people don't know about them, when you've no idea what most people know about or what they don't. The fact is you choose to assume that because you think that if people knew about them they would ride them - does it just not _occur_ to you that people do know about them and think they look a bit silly, or have thought about the mechanics of them and thought they seem a bit unstable? You then let yourself get a bit carried away and go on to assume that I only ride a particular type of bike because that's what Chris Boardman rides.


----------



## mosschops2 (31 Jul 2007)

Not at all Mr B!!

I'm talking about in my experience, people I've spoken to, when discussing the fact that I sold my car and ride to work, and bikes I'm thinking of getting etc etc, I'd say that about 10% of people are even aware of them. 

And given that I don't own a road bike, and have no real interest in bike racing, _even I_ watched Chris Boardman in the olympics. I'm not saying it would make me get one, but it would have increased my awareness of them!!

Is that fair enough??!!

I'm impressed that you've tried one though.... I recall with warm memories a thread about fixed bikes, which you in the beginning didn't know what they were, and by the end had dismissed them as a pointless fashionable fad!!!!!!!


----------



## bonj2 (31 Jul 2007)

mosschops2 said:


> Not at all Mr B!!
> I'm talking about in my experience, people I've spoken to, when discussing the fact that I sold my car and ride to work, and bikes I'm thinking of getting etc etc, I'd say that about 10% of people are even aware of them.


10% of _people_ might be aware of them, but what percentage of _cyclists_ would you think are aware of them? Compare that to the percentage of cyclists that have actually got one or would choose to have one?



mosschops2 said:


> And given that I don't own a road bike, and have no real interest in bike racing, _even I_ watched Chris Boardman in the olympics. I'm not saying it would make me get one, but it would have increased my awareness of them!!


It would increase my _awareness_ of them, but there's a difference between being 'aware' of them, and them "being up there as a genuine option" when I'm thinking of what bike to buy...



mosschops2 said:


> I'm impressed that you've tried one though....


Well, no - I haven't actually, it was a lie. But it seems to have worked. How likely would it have been that my claims that they're less stable would have been palmed off with "but you haven't ever ridden one so how do you know?" - _even though_ the people that would have been saying that are riders of them themselves and they _know_ they're less stable.
Only now that this has been accepted do I feel I can admit for argument's sake that I never have ridden one. In other words I _had to_ lie to prevent _you_ lying on the grounds that you might as well have done because I supposedly wouldn't have known any different.



mosschops2 said:


> I recall with warm memories a thread about fixed bikes, which you in the beginning didn't know what they were, and by the end had dismissed them as a pointless fashionable fad!!!!!!!



Well the comparison proves my point doesn't it - it's not so much _me_ doing the dismissing of a particular type of bike, it's _you_ doing the dismissing of my opinions just because I don't happen to have much experience in the field, despite most of my points being valid.


----------



## goo_mason (31 Jul 2007)

Little did I realise that my innocent post at the start would bring about a return to the old C+ forum spirit....

Bonj, your comment about never having ridden one is a timely reminder to me of those people who rail against some of the Fringe shows here in Edinburgh, denouncing them as filth or blasphemous and then being forced to admit they've never seen the show. They always come out with that classic line about "I don't need to see it to know that it's disgusting and an affront" etc etc.

However, don't let me interrupt - do carry on, everyone ! This is great entertainment


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> What's a "DF" when it's at home? Please understand that not everybody understand your jargon, contrary to what you may like to believe.



A DF is diamond frame. The term upwrong is an alternative.




> But the point is if I'm on my normal bike, I can be seen over most normal-height cars, possibly with the exception of 4x4s. A recumbent can't even be the other side of the _bonnet_ of a car.



So you never ride where there are vans, lorries or buses then?
Most recumbents are visible to a competent and awake driver. My Street Machine, Linear and Catrike are all higher than many sports cars- are they a liability in the same way?

Visibility is not an issue providing you ride sensibly, as with any bike, don't put yourself where you can't be seen.





> Well if a certain move is possible on an upright bike but not on a recumbent, then surely that's one reason the upright bike is better?! I didn't know that was a problem of recumbents, but thanks for pointing that out.


You have missed the point. In competent hands a recumbent will do anything a DF can, the suggestion is that if you are worried about making it through the gap on *ANY* bike you should query the wisdom of the move. I apply no different rules on my Trike, Brompton, Street Machine, Airnimal mountain or touring bikes.




> But surely the fact that it needs to be a trike in the first place is due to the fact it's less stable? Why else has it got 3 wheels rather than 2?


Because its fun!

It doesn't "need" to be a trike - In the same way as you get motorcycles with different formats, each has its own advantages. A trike with hydraulic front brakes downhill at 60 mph is more fun that any two wheeled bike at the same speed!

Are we suggesting that the existence of three wheeled motorcycles proves that two wheeled ones are unsafe - after all why else would three wheeled ones exist?

Horses for courses. 




> So what about the fact that more blood pressure is required to pump oxygenated blood to the horizontal legs, as opposed to being helped by gravity?



Surely by this argument - riding an upright bike requires more blood pressure to pump oxygenated blood to the heart, lungs and brain as they are higher?
The body adapts, and will increase the efficiency of the vessels. Arguably a benefit in cardiovascular fitness.



> Er.. no they don't. I've never seen one and I've been to quite a few gyms. They might have them in your particular poncy part of London. And anyway in gyms, they have things that are deliberately engineered to be difficult to give you a workout.









The point is that exercise bikes etc are supposed to make you work. Strange that most fitness equipment and manafacturers have apparently got this so wrong!

You quote Wikipedia. Look at the list of Exercise manafacturers they list - All have recumbents - simply because they have advantages.
Wikipedia - Exercise Cycle

In fact 4 chosen at random have recumbents listed before "ordinary" models 

As for poncy parts of London - I have never needed to go to a gym. Cycling does all I need in the way of fitness, but then again commuting from Portsmouth to London would probably be overkill



> The way I read it on wikipedia was that you _need_ to lock your hip into the seat to generate the _same_ power output that you would be able to achieve on an upright bike anyway, but if you think you know better - fair enough...



Both occur. I certainly only "lock" when pushing above 30. Most riding is simply comfortably seated. It certainly isn't necessary - think of it as standing on the pedals.




> Never seen one with one.



Fairly basic gyms then




> Now the TPT is probably one of the places I would imagine is a good place to enjoy one - as you can see the scenery and it doesn't matter if you fall off, and it's a nice relaxed ride in the country without the urge for it to become physically strenuous exercise.



Just as it would be on any bike....... The advantage is that with less strain on neck, arms and wrists you can travel further for the same effort and in more comfort.



> And I can't _quite_ work out why your'e wearing a helmet in that picture, I'm presuming there was some road riding involved aswell...



Off road riding such as this where the speeds are low, loose surfaces prevail and there is a chance of being "boardmanned" are were the performance characteristics of a helmet are best suited. 

Add to this the decreased impact due to falling from a lower height and there is a possible benefit.

On road riding a helmet is less likely to benefit and I do not always wear one.



> Is there such a thing as a .... _downhill recumbent_?



Yes Several!

Anyone who has ridden a trike down a fire road or similar will know what I mean, There are also the Haluzak and "Crankit" models:










Finally - to illustrate Arch's point. I believe that Recumbents actually outsell tandems most years!


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> The wearing of helmets is such a contentious and variable issue that I don't think you can use them to say anything about the stability of recumbents. There are too many confounding variables for a direct correlation.



Hmm... but I'm just confused as to why Cunobelin says that he _does_ wear a helmet off-road, but _doesn't_ on-road - where I would have thought the consequences of falling off would be greater, as the ground is harder and you're going faster.
I personally wear a helmet on road because of the potential of being knocked off by someone else and because the road's hard, I also wear one off-road because I like to ride trails that are technical enough to push my skill level, so by definition there is always a fair chance I will fall off (i.e. if there's not even a vague chance, then it's not difficult enough!) - but I wouldn't have thought that would be the case with a recumbent. Hence my jibe about 'do you get a downhill recumbent'.


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Well, no - I haven't actually, it was a lie.



Oh, I'm going to bookmark this for future use..

As for: 

"Well the comparison proves my point doesn't it - it's not so much me doing the dismissing of a particular type of bike, it's you doing the dismissing of my opinions just because I don't happen to have much experience in the field, despite most of my points being valid."

'Opinions' being the operative word I think. I could have all sorts of opinions about ballroom dancing, but since I have bugger all experience of it, they'd be pretty invalid. I'm not sure where we've agreed that 'most of' bonji's opinions are valid...

"What 'performance characteristics' does a helmet have?"

A cycle helmet is designed to protect the head in a fairly low speed fall from a fairly low height, as I recall. So just the sort of circumstance possible in the situation described.


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Oh, *I'm going to bookmark this for future use*..
> 
> "Well the comparison proves my point doesn't it - it's not so much me doing the dismissing of a particular type of bike, it's you doing the dismissing of my opinions just because I don't happen to have much experience in the field, despite most of my points being valid."
> 
> 'Opinions' being the operative word I think. I could have all sorts of opinions about ballroom dancing, but since I have bugger all experience of it, they'd be pretty invalid. I'm not sure where we've agreed that 'most of' bonji's opinions are valid...



Do bookmark it Arch - it'll save me the bother!!

And the truth of the matter Mr B is not that I'm dismissing your "valid points", rather I'm disagreeing with your opinions. If that's ok!!

This time around, I'm (sort of) impressed that you owned up to the white lie, no big deal, more amused than anything, but once more you are simply claiming to have the majority view of something that you have no experience of.... I am genuinely interested in *your *opinion - seriously - as the points you raised are genuine areas for discussion, but you're credibility is only the same as the next bloke on the street...

It's hard to come up with an analogy which is as ridiculous... suggestions welcomed!!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Aug 2007)

Are recumbents meant to be faster on average than "DFs"? I'd imagine they would certainly SEEM faster, being closer to the ground.

I think if I won the lottery I'd have one, but too much of a departure from what I know to replace my normal bike. Would love to have a shot of one. Hairy, you wouldn't happen to know how much they (Bikeworks) rent them out for would you? Can't find that info on their website.

ps Bonj you are entertaining.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> "What 'performance characteristics' does a helmet have?"
> 
> A cycle helmet is designed to protect the head in a fairly low speed fall from a fairly low height, as I recall. So just the sort of circumstance possible in the situation described.



But riding a recumbent off road, if you fall off you're not going to hit your head very hard (because it's from a low height) on anything that hard (grass). You're probably not going to hit your head at all, because the low speed involved means you're going to know the crash is occurring or is going to occur before you have actually fallen that far, and will be able to put your arm out to save yourself.
The amount of effort you normally put into precautionary measures usually are proportional to the consequences of something happening AND the likeliness of it happening, one multiplied by the other. If something's very unlikely (e.g. getting struck by lightning), then you still don't take much precaution even if the consequences are disastrous. For something such as falling off a two-foot high bike going fairly slowly onto soft ground to take a precaution such as wearing a helmet, falling off must be pretty bloody likely even for an experienced rider such as I'm guessing Cunobelin is!


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> The amount of effort you normally put into precautionary measures usually are proportional to the consequences of something happening AND the likeliness of it happening, one multiplied by the other. If something's very unlikely (e.g. getting struck by lightning), then you still don't take much precaution even if the consequences are disastrous. For something such as falling off a two-foot high bike going fairly slowly onto soft ground to take a precaution such as wearing a helmet, falling off must be pretty bloody likely even for an experienced rider such as I'm guessing Cunobelin is!



Er, no... I wear a helmet pretty much everytime I ride my upright bike (but not so often on my recumbent trike, obviously). I don't often fall off (I think once in the last three or four years, when I swerved suddenly to avoid something). The 'effort' required to wear a helmet is so minimal to me, that I wear it anyway, despite not being all that concerned about falling off. 

The wearing of helmets is such a contentious and variable issue that I don't think you can use them to say anything about the stability of recumbents. There are too many confounding variables for a direct correlation.

TDLC - it depends a bit on what upright and what recumbent you compare - just like comparing a knobbly MTB and a tourer and a TdF racer. But generally yes, a recumbent will be faster than an upright of a similar type, assuming riders of similar strength. I won't be faster on my trike (a touring type) than one of my much fitter stronger mates on an upright, but in a group of similar abilities and machine types, the recumbents will be faster. On the sort of mixed social rides I go on, recumbents are often in front, or taking it easy, to allow the rest to keep up.

Once you add a fairing, the difference is even more noticable.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

mosschops2 said:


> This time around, I'm (sort of) impressed that you owned up to the white lie, no big deal, more amused than anything, but once more you are simply claiming to have the majority view of something that you have no experience of.... I am genuinely interested in *your *opinion - seriously - as the points you raised are genuine areas for discussion, but you're credibility is only the same as the next bloke on the street...


Well if you want my honest opinion, I think the concept of a recumbent is interesting. The possible comfort benefits, aswell as the unarguable aerodynamic benefits (even though I'm not sure how _much_ of an advantage that is), make it an interesting concept. However. I simply cannot see how they can possibly be stable. Doing MTBing makes you realise exactly HOW you balance a bike by transferring your weight, and making minor adjustments from side to side - as opposed to commuting on my roadie where I just get on it and pedal. I just can't imagine how it could be possible to do this on a recumbent, so I look up information on them on the internet to find out if there's some magical alternative, but then I find articles like that wikipedia one confirming what I thought, that yes, they _are_ harder to balance, for the exact reason that I imagined.
It's for this reason that I find it very difficult to believe that the reason they're not more popular is anything else. I don't suspect it's because they fundamentally don't work, or because of some loony left-wing sandal-wearing guardian-reading donkey-felching conspiracy of recumbent riding mince boilers, but just because of the fact that they're a lot harder to ride because of the fact they're more difficult to balance. Obviously there's a lot of people who have mastered it, and they would think it's easy because they can do it - but the physics of it suggests it's not as easy, the fact that some people can do it just means they have the skill to overcome the difficulties, not that it's as easy to do in the first place.
I wouldn't mind having a go on one, but certainly wouldn't replace my normal bike for one. The sort of thing they seem ideal for is these country parks where you can hire bikes and ride them round a lake.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> The wearing of helmets is such a contentious and variable issue that I don't think you can use them to say anything about the stability of recumbents. There are too many confounding variables for a direct correlation.



Hmm... but I'm just confused as to why Cunobelin says that he _does_ wear a helmet off-road, but _doesn't_ on-road - where I would have thought the consequences of falling off would be greater, as the ground is harder and you're going faster.
I personally wear a helmet on road because of the potential of being knocked off by someone else and because the road's hard, I also wear one off-road because I like to ride trails that are technical enough to push my skill level, so by definition there is always a fair chance I will fall off (i.e. if there's not even a vague chance, then it's not difficult enough!) - but I wouldn't have thought that would be the case with a recumbent. Hence my jibe about 'do you get a downhill recumbent'.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Anyone who has ridden a trike down a fire road



Riding 'downhill' does not mean riding 'down a fire road'.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Aug 2007)

Isnt it like riding a bike?

My question was indeed assuming riders of equal ability and similar spec. bikes! Haven't got onto other comparisons yet, eg a mammoth on a bent vs an elephant on a DF.

Cheers, I thought I'd imagined that somewhere.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Isnt it like riding a bike?
> 
> My question was indeed assuming riders of equal ability and similar spec. bikes! Haven't got onto other comparisons yet, eg a mammoth on a bent vs an elephant on a DF.
> 
> Cheers, I thought I'd imagined that somewhere.



What are you whittering on about?


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Hmm... but I'm just confused as to why Cunobelin says that he _does_ wear a helmet off-road, but _doesn't_ on-road - where I would have thought the consequences of falling off would be greater, as the ground is harder and you're going faster.



I would assume that he feels that off road, where the surface is loose or uneven, there is more chance of a spill than on tarmac. He may feel, as many do, that in the 'knocked off by a car' scenario, a helmet is less useful against the possible consequences and not worht his own percieved disadvantages (which I think we all know, having had the discussion several times before in other places).

Once again, it's a matter of personal choice, which is hugely variable. I know plenty of people who wear a helemt the whole time, and plenty who never do, whichever type of bike they are riding. You cannot base the relative safety of either type of bike on the helmet wearing choice of one rider. It's a basic statistics issue of small sample size and confounding variables.

You said before:

"but just because of the fact that they're a lot harder to ride because of the fact they're more difficult to balance."

Personally (and my opinion is at least as valid as anyone else's) I don't think recumbent bikes are harder to ride due being harder to balance - yes, I know what you've read on wiki, but I'm stating my opinion here remember. I think they are possibly harder to _learn_ to ride (although many people can just get on one and go), especially if riding an upright is deeply ingrained. Once you've learnt, you can do it perfectly easily, just like any bike. Due to the various geometry, some are more stable than others, but that applies equally to uprights.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> I would assume that he feels that off road, *where the surface is loose or uneven*, there is more chance of a spill than on tarmac. He may feel, as many do, that in the 'knocked off by a car' scenario, a helmet is less useful against the possible consequences and not worht his own percieved disadvantages (which I think we all know, having had the discussion several times before in other places).


Yes, BUT - the chances of falling off _shouldn't_ be greater just due to 'loose or uneven' surfaces! For me, anyway, the only thing that would cause me to fall off is taking the wrong line on a technical trail, OR, an idiot motorist. But, without wanting to belittle it or to scoff at trekking in any way which I wouldn't do as it IS extremely enjoyable, the trail that Cunobelin pictured himself riding (indeed any of the TPT) isn't terribly what I would call technical. In other words, if I was riding that on an upright bike - the chances of falling off would be _zero_! So if the chances of falling off on a recumbent _aren't_ zero, then they _must_ be less stable.



Arch said:


> Once again, it's a matter of personal choice, which is hugely variable. I know plenty of people who wear a helemt the whole time, and plenty who never do, whichever type of bike they are riding. You cannot base the relative safety of either type of bike on the helmet wearing choice of one rider. It's a basic statistics issue of small sample size and confounding variables.


What you shouldn't do however is wear a helmet just because it's "what cyclists do", like a sheep, without really knowing _why_ you're wearing it, or what you're wearing it to protect against.



Arch said:


> Due to the various geometry, some are more stable than others, but that applies equally to uprights.


Well uprights are more stable BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHER, and thus self-correcting moments applied by shifting weight can be made more easily.
Do you understand this principle? It's to do with how much of an effect moving the body x centimetres to the right or left has on the moment about the pivot point with the road, i.e. the contact patch of the tyres.



Arch said:


> Personally (and my opinion is at least as valid as anyone else's) I don't think recumbent bikes are harder to ride due being harder to balance - yes, I know what you've read on wiki, but I'm stating my opinion here remember. I think they are possibly harder to _learn_ to ride (although many people can just get on one and go), especially if riding an upright is deeply ingrained. Once you've learnt, you can do it perfectly easily, just like any bike.


Well the laws of physics appear to contradict your opinion, as apparently do the opinions of lots of recumbent riders (the ones who wrote the wiki?), but you're still entitled to your opinion - you might personally find it easy, hence why it's a matter of opinion and not fact.
Have you ever ridden a two-wheeled recumbent Arch? Do you ride on regularly? Have you got one?


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Well uprights are more stable BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHER, and thus self-correcting moments applied by shifting weight can be made more easily.



That's not actually correct. Recumbent are more stable because they are lower.

However it is harder to correct a recumbent, as shifting weight is more difficult.


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Have you ever ridden a two-wheeled recumbent Arch? Do you ride on regularly? Have you got one?




You can't actually be serious??

You're questioning someone's opinion, and question whether Arch in this case has had any experience??

Whilst you have none?? 

That's made my lunchtime!!!!!!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> What are you whittering on about?



Riding a recumbent would be just like riding a bike I think, in that once you learn you never forget.

What are you whittering on about?


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Yes, BUT - the chances of falling off _shouldn't_ be greater just due to 'loose or uneven' surfaces! For me, anyway, the only thing that would cause me to fall off is taking the wrong line on a technical trail, OR, an idiot motorist. But, without wanting to belittle it or to scoff at trekking in any way which I wouldn't do as it IS extremely enjoyable, the trail that Cunobelin pictured himself riding (indeed any of the TPT) isn't terribly what I would call technical. In other words, if I was riding that on an upright bike - the chances of falling off would be _zero_! So if the chances of falling off on a recumbent _aren't_ zero, then they _must_ be less stable.



Well, you say you do a lot of dowhill technical riding. Therefore, you must be quite experienced at riding on that sort of surface and it seems like child play to you and you are very unlikely to fall off. Jolly good for you - very impressive. Personally, I don't ride on gravelly or uneven surfaces a lot, so I don't have the practice, I don't enjoy them very much, I would be more likely to come a cropper. I can't speak for Cunobelin, but if he happens to ride more on tarmac, he may feel that it's wise to take precautions on a less smooth surface. IF you learned to ride a recumbent, and took to going off road on it, you'd probably feel that your chances of falling off on that trail were zero on a recumbent or an upright.

My recumbent is a trike, so I have no worries about stability at all. If I had a bike, I think my worries about surfaces would be the same for the upright and the recumbent.



> What you shouldn't do however is wear a helmet just because it's "what cyclists do", like a sheep, without really knowing _why_ you're wearing it, or what you're wearing it to protect against.



Yes, I know. What's your point?



> Well the laws of physics appear to contradict your opinion, as apparently do the opinions of *lots of recumbent riders *(the ones who wrote the wiki?), but you're still entitled to your opinion - you might find it easy.



Can you tell me how many recumbent riders collaborated to write that article? I mean, I don't know, but if it is the work of one person, why is it more valid than my opinion...



> Have you ever ridden a two-wheeled recumbent Arch? Do you ride on regularly? Have you got one?



Yes, no and no.

Yes:
I've ridden, ooh, at a rough guess, six or seven different recumbent bikes, maybe more. Some I found perfectly easy to handle, some (more like racing machines) I had more trouble with - often because the one available to try is too big for me. I would probably be a bit twitchy on an all-carbon roadbike with drops, if it was too big for me.

No: 
Because I don't own one. Sometimes I get to try-out others, but many of my friends are taller than me, so their bikes often don't fit me.

No:
Because I have limited money to buy luxuries, I already have three bikes and a trike, and I currently live in a flat with limited storage. If I had the money and the space, I'd have one. I have a trike because I fancied one of those more, and got a chance to get one very cheaply.


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Riding a recumbent would be just like riding a bike I think, in that once you learn you never forget.



Exactly.



> What are you whittering on about?


----------



## mmoo (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> I simply cannot see how they can possibly be stable.



and yet they are, even ones we build ourselves! I did 1000 miles on mine over the year it was roadworthy and despite it being noisy, hard to lug up stairs and an apparent magnet for stupid coments it was the most fun I'd had on a bike and it was a revelation to get off after 40 miles and be buzzing rather than aching.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Well, you say you do a lot of dowhill technical riding. Therefore, you must be quite experienced at riding on that sort of surface and it seems like child play to you and you are very unlikely to fall off. Jolly good for you - very impressive.


Well, I wouldn't strictly call what I do 'downhill', but it's a lot more _like_ downhill than say the TPT is. And I wouldn't say I'm 'very unlikely' to fall off - that's why I wear a helmet.



Arch said:


> Personally, I don't ride on gravelly or uneven surfaces a lot, so I don't have the practice, I don't enjoy them very much, I would be more likely to come a cropper. I can't speak for Cunobelin, but if he happens to ride more on tarmac, he may feel that it's wise to take precautions on a less smooth surface.


But I dispute the fact that anyone would be 'likely to come a cropper' _at all_ on an upright bike on the TPT, unless they were blind raving drunk, or a child who didn't know how to ride a bike at all without stabilisers (or both).
If _you_ rode the TPT, you wouldn't 'come a cropper' - why would you? You might not enjoy it as much as something smooth that you normally like riding on, and you might not be used to it and might not go that fast, but you wouldn't fall off just because it's a bit of an uneven surface.




Arch said:


> IF you learned to ride a recumbent, and took to going off road on it, you'd probably feel that your chances of falling off on that trail were zero on a recumbent or an upright.


Well Cunobelin obviously doesn't! That's my point...



Arch said:


> bonj said:
> 
> 
> > What you shouldn't do however is wear a helmet just because it's "what cyclists do", like a sheep, without really knowing why you're wearing it, or what you're wearing it to protect against.
> ...


_You_ said, if you took to going off road on a recumbent (as Cunobelin has), then you'd probably feel your chances of falling off would be zero. So for that to be true, the only other possible reason Cunobelin is wearing a helmet while doing that is due to him blindly following others like sheep, as protection from injury due to falling off can't be the reason as apparently the chances of that are zero. So in other words, you've effectively called Cunobelin a sheep. I'm sure he'll like that.




Arch said:


> Can you tell me how many recumbent riders collaborated to write that article? I mean, I don't know, but if it is the work of one person, why is it more valid than my opinion...


Probably lots. I would imagine one person started it and others added bits to it. It's only stayed in wikipedia because it's the general consensus of lots of people's opinions, if it wasn't, then people would edit it out wouldn't they?
If you think your opinion that they're just as stable as upright bikes is valid, then why don't you put something to that effect in the wikipedia article?



Arch said:


> Yes:
> I've ridden, ooh, at a rough guess, six or seven different recumbent bikes, maybe more. *Some I found perfectly easy to handle*, some (more like racing machines) I had more trouble with - often because the one available to try is too big for me. I would probably be a bit twitchy on an all-carbon roadbike with drops, if it was too big for me.


So if some are perfectly easy to handle, why have you got three wheels on your own one rather than two? You wouldn't dream of having three wheels on an upright, so why on a recumbent?


Arch said:


> I have a trike because I fancied one of those more, and got a chance to get one very cheaply.


So why did you 'fancy it more'? I put it to you, that you got a recumbent trike rather than a recumbent bike because you find recumbent bikes harder to balance on. Because they ARE harder to balance on. But feel free to disagree...


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Riding a recumbent would be just like riding a bike I think, in that once you learn you never forget.



Probably. But that's not the issue. The issue is not whether it's _possible_ to remain balanced, but how _likely_ it is you'll remain upright, how easy it is to stay balanced.
To sum it up, it seems like I'm correctly pointing out that recumbents are harder to balance, and the recumbent brigade appear to be trying to sweep that under the carpet by saying that it's at least _possible_ to stay balanced, so it doesn't matter that it's harder. But I don't get why there's this pretence. It doesn't _matter_ that it's harder, people just don't seem to want to admit that this is the reason they're less popular than proper bikes.


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

Fair stance - I can see what you're saying.

But I don't agree!! I don't think that the fact they are harder to balance is disputed (which I agree with - although apparently from a completely different basis from you - as you think higher means more balanced - but we'll ignore the semantics for now).

But - I do not believe that this is the single biggest reason that they are unpopular.


How about this then.

In my experience of road bikes, they are more difficult to balance than mountain bikes (having owned and ridden both btw!).

On this basis, road bikes _must_ be much less popular, as they are less stable.

(Clearly that's a terrible argument!!! But hey!!!)


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Probably. *But that's not the issue.* The issue is not whether it's _possible_ to remain balanced, but how _likely_ it is you'll remain upright, how easy it is to stay balanced.
> To sum it up, it seems like I'm correctly pointing out that recumbents are harder to balance, and the recumbent brigade appear to be trying to sweep that under the carpet by saying that it's at least _possible_ to stay balanced, so it doesn't matter that it's harder. But I don't get why there's this pretence. It doesn't _matter_ that it's harder, people just don't seem to want to admit that this is the reason they're less popular than proper bikes.



Just giving clarification where asked for.


----------



## Cab (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> It doesn't _matter_ that it's harder, people just don't seem to want to admit that this is the reason they're less popular than proper bikes.



Whether its harder to balance on a recumbent or not, your claim that this is why less people ride recumbents is pure speculation.

I don't ride a recumbent because I don't fancy the lower position, I don't want to have to store it, I don't fancy the idea of leaving it locked at work. It has nothing to do with it being harder to balance on. 

Frankly, I don't see the purpose or the direction of your argument. Whats this all about Bonj?


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

mosschops2 said:


> Fair stance - I can see what you're saying.
> 
> But I don't agree!! I don't think that the fact they are harder to balance is disputed (*which I agree with - although apparently from a completely different basis from you - as you think higher means more balanced* - but we'll ignore the semantics for now).


My reasoning is based on physics, if you disagree - please state which part of my reasoning you think is wrong or irrelevant.



mosschops2 said:


> In my experience of road bikes, they are more difficult to balance than mountain bikes (having owned and ridden both btw!).


They are slightly, but not much.



mosschops2 said:


> On this basis, road bikes _must_ be *much* less popular, as they are less stable.


They are less popular, but not much less. They're not MUCH less stable, only a bit.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Aug 2007)

Cab said:


> Whether its harder to balance on a recumbent or not, your claim that this is why less people ride recumbents is pure speculation.


 Yes, it is speculation - but correct speculation.


mosschops2 said:


> I don't ride a recumbent because I don't fancy the lower position


Fair enough...


mosschops2 said:


> I don't want to have to store it, I don't fancy the idea of leaving it locked at work.


These aren't disadvantages _compared to normal bikes_.



mosschops2 said:


> Whats this all about Bonj?



It's not about hatred of recumbents, I don't hate them - it's just that I'm bemused at the pretence by the recumbent brigade that they're just as worthy of being mainstream as normal bikes and it's almost comical the way it's banded about that the only reason they're not more popular is because most people 'aren't enlightened' or because they're 'not aware of them'. Not the case!


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Well, I wouldn't strictly call what I do 'downhill', but it's a lot more _like_ downhill than say the TPT is. And I wouldn't say I'm 'very unlikely' to fall off - that's why I wear a helmet.



I was talking about your assertion that you wouldn't fall off on the track in Cunobelin's picture.



> But I dispute the fact that anyone would be 'likely to come a cropper' _at all_ on an upright bike on the TPT, unless they were blind raving drunk, or a child who didn't know how to ride a bike at all without stabilisers (or both).
> If _you_ rode the TPT, you wouldn't 'come a cropper' - why would you? You might not enjoy it as much as something smooth that you normally like riding on, and you might not be used to it and might not go that fast, but you wouldn't fall off just because it's a bit of an uneven surface.



Not having seen the TPT, I don't know. If it was uneven, I would be more likely to worry about falling off, which might make me tense, and therefore less in control. I'm quite happy to admit that I'm not physically confident, and take a long time to learn any new physical skill involving the risk of a fall. 



> _You_ said, if you took to going off road on a recumbent (as Cunobelin has), then you'd probably feel your chances of falling off would be zero. So for that to be true, the only other possible reason Cunobelin is wearing a helmet while doing that is due to him blindly following others like sheep, as protection from injury due to falling off can't be the reason as apparently the chances of that are zero. So in other words, you've effectively called Cunobelin a sheep. I'm sure he'll like that.



Firstly, when are the chances of falling off ever 'zero'? You are so supremely confident. Your logic is, as always twisted. I said (and I'm happy for him to tell me I'm wrong) that Cunobelin might be less experienced at off road than tarmac and percieve that he was more likely to have a spill. You're saying, 'well, if he had taken to off-road (and was as experienced as you, bonj, are), his chances of falling off are zero'. That's two different things - in my case, he's less experienced at off road, in yours, he's more experienced. 



> So if some are perfectly easy to handle, why have you got three wheels on your own one rather than two? You wouldn't dream of having three wheels on an upright, so why on a recumbent?



Who said I wouldn't dream of three wheels on an upright? Would be quite fun to own an upright trike, but as I said before, lack of space and money...



> So why did you 'fancy it more'?



Because it makes me feel more confident cornering at high speed (I don't like high speed cornering on two wheels, upright or recumbent) and it allows me to crawl up big hills in a very very low gear. Also, as I said, it was available for a low price. If the first thing I'd been offered cheap had been a Kingcycle for example, I'd have bought that, and simply restricted my cornering speed to what I feel comfortable at.



> I put it to you, that you got a recumbent trike rather than a recumbent bike because you find recumbent bikes harder to balance on. Because they ARE harder to balance on. But feel free to disagree...



Ooooh, get you, with your 'I put it to you... Did you always want to be a barrister then?


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

Hey Mr B - you're misquoting me there!!! I think you got me and Cab mixed up!!


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

Like the "I don't ride a 'bent, don't fancy the lower position". Wasn't me your honour!


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> My reasoning is based on physics, if you disagree - please state which part of my reasoning you think is wrong or irrelevant.



It's just that you said somewhere, a road bike (inferred) is more stable than a 'bent, as it is higher. Whereas I'm preeeetty sure, that in theory, a 'bent should be more stable as it has a much lower centre of gravity.

The instability is therefore not the key issue, rather the difficulty in correcting instability. That was all!!


----------



## mmoo (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> the only reason they're not more popular is because most people 'aren't enlightened' or because they're 'not aware of them'. Not the case!



But most people havn't heard of them (you have only recently come across DF and HPV, both common terms in the human power scene) and admitted you havn't even riden one so you can see what predjudice there is against anything different!

Advocates of different bike styles have a small but growing choice of manufacturers, for people keen to utilise their own mobility there are a wealth of alternatives not just what you get down halfords.


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

mmoo said:


> But most people havn't heard of them (you have only recently come across DF and HPV, both common terms in the human power scene) and admitted you havn't even riden one so you can see what predjudice there is against anything different!



Absolutely. I worked for a company for 4 years, which took loads of different bikes out to the public to try - not to sell any specific bike in any way, but to promote cycling generally. Very few people had ever seen a recumbent, and most who had a go loved them. Even the people who turned up on bikes often had no idea they existed. 

In fact, a great many members of the general public, even those who ride bikes, have no idea about a huge number or things that 'we' take for granted. Folding bikes, hub gears, trailers, loadbikes... If you can't generally get it in Halfords, they don't know about it. We would have people who'd struggled for years on an uncomfortably stretched out MTB in the wrong size, overjoyed after trying a nice upright city bike, because it doesn't hurt their wrists and back so much. But they just never knew to find out... Usually, once you show them something and they have a go, if they have a need or a desire for that thing, they'll want to get one.

Due to small manufacturing numbers, recumbents have had relatively high prices (compared, certainly, with a Halfords bog standard). But they're getting more popular and cheaper and more and more people ARE going to get them. Maybe never as many as ride uprights, but it doesn't matter. If it suits the person buying it, that's the important thing.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Aug 2007)

*Just to clarify.*

I average 18 - 22 mph on a recumbent on road, way out of the performance specifiation of even a Snell certified helmet. Hence there is no point in wearing a helmet in these conditions.

As for the "technical trails" anyone who has done the TPT will inform you that it is not "smooth trails". We abandoned due to flooding and blockage. The moorland areas are muddy . slippery and you are unable to gauge what is in the puddles. Hence experienced or not one should recognise the risk and assess whether a helmet might help. I would have worn a helmet on these strtches on any of the bikes including the MTBs.

I have ridden recumbents on and off road for some twenty years. I have competed the English / Welsh coasts and part of Scotland's. I have ridden the "Old Coach Road" on the C2C on a recumbent and in my younger days spent lots of time on the hills and moos of Dartmoor and Exmoor.

I am less experienced off road these days as I am putting in 100 - 160 miles a week of commuting on road as my main cycling. 



PS

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


----------



## Cab (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Yes, it is speculation - but correct speculation.



You have no evidence, nor reasoning, to back up that claim. Yet it is the entire premis of your argument; an argument that seems entirely needless.



> It's not about hatred of recumbents, I don't hate them - it's just that I'm bemused at the pretence by the recumbent brigade that they're just as worthy of being mainstream as normal bikes and it's almost comical the way it's banded about that the only reason they're not more popular is because most people 'aren't enlightened' or because they're 'not aware of them'. Not the case!



Yet your counter argument is just batty. They're wrong because you say so. Give it a rest.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Yes, it is speculation - but correct speculation.






That's my favourite part so far.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Aug 2007)

*Mr Picky!*

Can I be really picky and point out that I don't "ride" or "steer" any of my recumbents..........................









































I "PILOT" them!


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

mosschops2 said:


> Hey Mr B - you're misquoting me there!!! I think you got me and Cab mixed up!!


Possibly, sorry - I must have had an old quote tag in the clipboard and not re-copied.



mosschops2 said:


> It's just that you said somewhere, a road bike (inferred) is more stable than a 'bent, as it is higher. Whereas I'm preeeetty sure, that in theory, a 'bent should be more stable as it has a much lower centre of gravity.
> 
> The instability is therefore not the key issue, rather the difficulty in correcting instability. That was all!!



NO - you're either deliberately simplifying the physics analysis, or else you're too slow to keep up. I'm not sure which I suspect. But to reiterate it _again_, an upright bike is easier to balance because you've got your weight on the pedals, and thus it's much easier to make adjustments by shifting your body left and right, e.g. if you start to topple left, you shift your weight right to counteract this.
Physics states that an object will topple if its centre of gravity is not directly above its base. With a bike, the 'base' of the object is the contact patch of the tyres - only an inch or two. Thus it doesn't really matter how high the centre of gravity is, its lateral position is the only thing that matters - and this is easier to adjust on an upright bike. Maybe I should be using the term 'easier to balance' rather than 'more stable', but this is essentially the crux of it.



Arch said:


> Not having seen the TPT, I don't know.


Well, it's a trekking trail. i.e. it's for families. Hence, easy to ride.



Arch said:


> If it was uneven, I would be more likely to worry about falling off, which might make me tense, and therefore less in control. I'm quite happy to admit that I'm not physically confident, and take a long time to learn any new physical skill involving the risk of a fall.


Don't get me wrong - the above is true of me aswell. Some days I can't ride for toffeem, like today, for instance - had a right mare today, but sometimes I really impress even my critical self.
It's just that your definition of 'uneven' is probably slightly different to my definition of 'uneven'. (But in turn my definition of 'uneven' will be completely different again to some other people's definition of 'uneven'.)



Arch said:


> Firstly, when are the chances of falling off ever 'zero'?


When you're on a really easy trail. e.g. the TPT, when there's not really any serious obstacles or other vehicles/bikes.



Arch said:


> Your logic is, as always twisted. I said (and I'm happy for him to tell me I'm wrong) that Cunobelin might be less experienced at off road than tarmac and percieve that he was more likely to have a spill.


That might be the case. But the reason for that perception might be due to the fact that he's riding a recumbent, not an upright bike.



Arch said:


> You're saying, 'well, if he had taken to off-road (and was as experienced as you, bonj, are), his chances of falling off are zero'.


Well the point is if he's riding on easy terrain then the chances of falling off _should be_ zero - as they are on an upright bike. The point I'm trying to make is that they're only not zero because of the fact he's riding a recumbent, not a normal bike.



Arch said:


> That's two different things - in my case, he's less experienced at off road, in yours, he's more experienced.


I don't know how experienced he is, probably best to wait till he offers up his own explanation.



Arch said:


> Because it makes me feel more confident cornering at high speed


But surely if it's got three wheels you can't lean?



Arch said:


> it allows me to crawl up big hills in a very very low gear.


Hmmm.. that's true I suppose, granted...




Cunobelin said:


> I average 18 - 22 mph on a recumbent on road, way out of the performance specifiation of even a Snell certified helmet. Hence there is no point in wearing a helmet in these conditions.


that's a ridiculous stream of logic. Surely if you crash and you're wearing a helmet when you hit your head on something at 18mph, then you're going to be less injured than if you weren't wearing a helmet, even if it doesn't mitigate injury as well as the Snell performance criteria specify?
It's like saying there's no point wearing a seatbelt on the motorway because if you crash you're going to die anyway.



Cunobelin said:


> As for the "technical trails" anyone who has done the TPT will inform you that it is not "smooth trails". We abandoned due to flooding and blockage. The moorland areas are muddy . slippery and you are unable to gauge what is in the puddles. Hence experienced or not one should recognise the risk and assess whether a helmet might help. I would have worn a helmet on these strtches on any of the bikes including the MTBs.


Hmmm....I still don't think it counts as 'technical' just 'cos it's a bit wet sometimes. But still, if you say that's why you wear a helmet then I believe you.
I still think your logic of thinking you're too fast for a helmet on road is ridiculous though.



Cab said:


> Yet your counter argument is just batty. They're wrong because you say so. Give it a rest.


Recumbents have a flaw in that they're harder to balance, and this is why they're not as popular as normal bikes - but the people that have learnt to balance them or proponents otherwise seem to want to claim that it's because people aren't aware of them. I just think that's a fairly self-congratulatory viewpoint.


----------



## Cab (2 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Recumbents have a flaw in that they're harder to balance, and this is why they're not as popular as normal bikes - but the people that have learnt to balance them or proponents otherwise seem to want to claim that it's because people aren't aware of them. I just think that's a fairly self-congratulatory viewpoint.



Maybe they're harder, maybe they're not. Doesn't matter, as most people haven't tried them so most people have no idea whether they're harder to balance your claim is irrelevent. 

If ease of balance was the biggie in choosing what to ride, most people would be riding tricycles. Your stance is absurd, your position pointless.


----------



## squeaker (2 Aug 2007)

*Proper bikes?*



bonj said:


> It doesn't _matter_ that it's harder, people just don't seem to want to admit that this is the reason they're less popular than proper bikes.


Doubtless I'll regret asking this, but what's a 'proper' bike then? 2 wheels, but what size? Drops, straights, mary's, choppers? Rider inclined forwards, upright, or backwards. Diamond frame, open frame, Y-frame, ladies frame, mono-tube? Rigid, front suspension, rear suspension, sprung seat post, sprung handlebars? Single speed, fixie, hub gears, dérailleurs? 
And FWIW, I'd never heard of, or seen, a recumbent bike until a few years ago, despite having cycled most of my life: UCI have a lot to answer for


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> When you're on a really easy trail. e.g. the TPT, when there's not really any serious obstacles or other vehicles/bikes.



So you rule out the possiblity of a deceptive patch of loose gravel? An animal running across the trail? A sudden puncture caused by a flint? What a wonderful world of certainty you live in...


> Well the point is if he's riding on easy terrain then the chances of falling off _should be_ zero - as they are on an upright bike. The point I'm trying to make is that they're only not zero because of the fact he's riding a recumbent, not a normal bike.



And the point I'm making is that the recumbent has nothing to do with it. Which is what Cunobelin seems to think himself. But of course, you know what's inside his own mind better than him, don't you...?



> But surely if it's got three wheels you can't lean?



You've never ridden a trike have you, of any sort, since you were a toddler perhaps? 

No, you can't lean like on a bike. But at high speed the rider leans to keep the inside wheel down, as the forces tend to tilt the trike outwards. If you ever watched upright trike racing, you'd see the riders leaning like this, the same as is done on motorbike-and-sidecar racing... If you want to show off and ride a trike on two wheels for a bit, you throw it into a turn and don't lean in, throwing the inside wheel up, and then control the balance as you ride. But I digress, that's just a party trick.

The reasons I corner faster on a recumbent trike are:

Being nearer the ground, I feel less precarious and more confident. Having three wheels and therefore having a wide total footprint and a low CoG, I am very very unlikely to tip over, whereas on two wheels, I have a greater fear of the wheels slipping out from under me as I lean, so I tend to slow down for corners. 

One of the things people tend to do first when they get a go on a recumbent trike is test its cornering - which is much sharper than a bike of either sort. You can throw the trike at high speed into a sharp turn and the worst that happens is generally the rear wheel skidding out a little across the turn. When kids tried out something like the KMX on roadshows, our main task was to stop them doing it too much, because it gets expensive in tyres. People love the feeling - it makes you feel like you are driving in a Hollywood car chase. 

On the road of course, that sort of acute turn isn't often necessary, but I can confidently let a much greater speed build up before a turn than I can on a bike. 



> Recumbents have a flaw in that they're harder to balance, and this is why they're not as popular as normal bikes - but the people that have learnt to balance them or proponents otherwise seem to want to claim that it's because people aren't aware of them. I just think that's a fairly self-congratulatory viewpoint.



Um... If we were being self-congratulatory, and we believed they were harder to ride, wouldn't we say "Well, the reason they aren't ridden is that they're harder to ride, and only we, the clever ones, have learnt?" Wouldn't we want to keep the secret to ourselves?


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

squeaker said:


> Doubtless I'll regret asking this, but what's a 'proper' bike then?



In bonji's view, one like what he rides, innit?


----------



## Amanda P (2 Aug 2007)

Blimey, are you lot still at it in here? 

Haven't you noticed that the sun is shining?


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> So you rule out the possiblity of a deceptive patch of loose gravel? An animal running across the trail? A sudden puncture caused by a flint? What a wonderful world of certainty you live in...


yadda yadda yadda, yeah yeah yeah. It boils down to the same old "but you could get struck by lightning so you might aswell stay in bed all day" argument. What risk assessment means to me is that once the risk becomes so improbable as to be insignificant, you don't consider it as a risk.





Arch said:


> One of the things people tend to do first when they get a go on a recumbent trike is test its cornering - which is much sharper than a bike of either sort. You can throw the trike at high speed into a sharp turn and the worst that happens is generally the rear wheel skidding out a little across the turn. When kids tried out something like the KMX on roadshows, our main task was to stop them doing it too much, because it gets expensive in tyres. People love the feeling - it makes you feel like you are driving in a Hollywood car chase.


Yes, you can get the back end to step out - and yes it is fun. You can do it with go-karts, which are a lot of fun, but - I don't know whether this is the same with trikes, but when I last went go-karting the first few laps I was wrenching the wheel round at top speed and steering back into it when the back end stepped out and it was tremendous fun doing that, but after having done it for a few laps I realised that it was acutally not as fast if you do that, and if you brake late and take the racing line at the correct speed with all the wheels planted then you gain a bit on the guy in front who's been sliding.



Arch said:


> Um... If we were being self-congratulatory, and we believed they were harder to ride, wouldn't we say "Well, the reason they aren't ridden is that they're harder to ride, and only we, the clever ones, have learnt?" Wouldn't we want to keep the secret to ourselves?


Yes, I really don't know why you're not doing that. This is why it completely bemuses me that people want to seem to pretend that they're some way mainstream.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Yes, you can get the back end to step out - and yes it is fun. You can do it with go-karts, which are a lot of fun, but - I don't know whether this is the same with trikes, but when I last went go-karting the first few laps I was wrenching the wheel round at top speed and steering back into it when the back end stepped out and it was tremendous fun doing that, but after having done it for a few laps I realised that it was acutally not as fast if you do that, and if you brake late and take the racing line at the correct speed with all the wheels planted then you gain a bit on the guy in front who's been sliding.



Absolutely. But that's not what we're talking about is it - I'm just saying that you can corner faster on a recumbent trike than on a bike, because you have better grip and less chance of slipping over.



> Yes, I really don't know why you're not doing that.



Perhaps because it (telling people we are cleverer because the bikes are harder to ride) isn't true?



> This is why it completely bemuses me that people want to seem to pretend that they're some way mainstream.



What IS mainstream, again? And why does it matter anyway? Can you tell us of the time you've been disadvantaged in anyway by not being interested in recumbents? So what's your problem with whether thay are 'mainstream' or not and whether people believe it or not?


----------



## gavintc (2 Aug 2007)

This must rate as one of the most bizarre threads I have come across. Recumbents are not mainstream and never will be. They satisfy a niche specialist market. I am sure they suit many people, but not all. I certainly find them interesting, but not interesting enough to buy one. To me, visibility is a significant negative factor and I am told that they do not climb hills as well as a normal bike. So, I will stop and look at one, wonder what it would be like to ride, but would not be tempted to buy.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

gavintc said:


> This must rate as one of the most bizarre threads I have come across. Recumbents are not mainstream and never will be. They satisfy a niche specialist market. I am sure they suit many people, but not all. I certainly find them interesting, but not interesting enough to buy one. To me, visibility is a significant negative factor



That's common perception. Although people who do ride them will testify that you are far more noticable, if that's the aspect of visibility you mean.



> and I am told that they do not climb hills as well as a normal bike.



Who by? In my experience, it's the rider that climbs the hill, not the bike. I'll often be beaten up hills by a recumbent rider, when I'm on the upright. And on three wheels, you'll conquer any hill, with a suitable low gear. 



> So, I will stop and look at one, wonder what it would be like to ride, but would not be tempted to buy.



Fair enough. But you haven't come here and ranted on about recumbent owners having some sort of superiority complex, have you? Because you're a grown up...

BTW, if you ever get the chance, do at least have a go on one, especially on a trike, where you have no learning curve to cope with. It's great fun!


----------



## Amanda P (2 Aug 2007)

> BTW, if you ever get the chance, do at least have a go on one, especially on a trike, where you have no learning curve to cope with. It's great fun!


... and Arch _isn't _saying this because she feels superior, or because she is desperate for recumbents to become mainstream...

... but because she enjoys riding one, and being the generous soul that she is, wants you to experience that enjoyment too.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Absolutely. But that's not what we're talking about is it - I'm just saying that you can corner faster on a recumbent trike than on a bike, because you have better grip and less chance of slipping over.


Maybe.



Arch said:


> Perhaps because it (telling people we are cleverer because the bikes are harder to ride) isn't true?


OK. I think they're harder to ride, and I've stated a logical explanation for why, which is backed up by wikipedia - which incidentally I hadn't read before I thought of the reason they would be harder to balance.
You think they're NOT harder to ride, despite the fact that even though you're so happy with two wheels on an upright bike you've got 3 of them but not so with a recumbent, you haven't really got any counter argument to my/wikipedia's logical explanation, and the fact that recumbent riders in this thread have admitted that they don't think anyone would dispute that they're harder to balance.
I think one thing, you think the opposite. Nothing wrong with that.



Arch said:


> What IS mainstream, again?


Well, wikipedia defines it as
* something that is ordinary or usual;
* something that is familiar to the masses;
* something that is available to the general public.
All of those I would say are true of upright bikes (ignoring the clash with the term 'ordinary bike' which is no longer ordinary).



Arch said:


> And why does it matter anyway?


It _doesn't_ matter! The way the recumbent brigade try to make false pretences about them being mainstream just annoys me. Nothing more than that.



Arch said:


> Can you tell us of the time you've been disadvantaged in anyway by not being interested in recumbents? So what's your problem with whether thay are 'mainstream' or not and whether people believe it or not?


I just get annoyed by smugness.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Maybe.
> 
> You think they're NOT harder to ride, despite the fact that even though you're so happy with two wheels on an upright bike you've got 3 of them but not so with a recumbent



I think I've told you at least twice now that I have a trike partly because it was the recumbent that was available at a price I could afford. If someone had offered me a recumbent bike for the same price, I'd have bought that.

I still think, if anything, they are harder to learn to ride, rather than harder to ride. Once you have the skill, just like on a bike, you get on with it. If I'm in a minority, fair enough. I'm just judging on personal experience.



> I just get annoyed by smugness.



I'm still wondering when anyone has been 'smug' about it all?


----------



## Amanda P (2 Aug 2007)

I suspect that if someone _first _learned to ride a bike on a recumbent, they'd find an upright bike quite hard to learn when they came to it.

We only think recumbents are harder to get used to because we all learn to ride upright bikes first, and have to _un_-learn some things to get the hang of 'bents.

I merely throw in this observation to muddy the water a bit more.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

Uncle Phil said:


> I suspect that if someone _first _learned to ride a bike on a recumbent, they'd find an upright bike quite hard to learn when they came to it.
> 
> We only think recumbents are harder to get used to because we all learn to ride upright bikes first, and have to _un_-learn some things to get the hang of 'bents.
> 
> I merely throw in this observation to muddy the water a bit more.



Quite correct. It's the same with upright bikes/trikes. People who ride bikes a lot often find riding a tricycle very difficult, because it's a different technique. People who don't ride a bike much are usually fine - fewer ingrained habits.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Quite correct. It's the same with upright bikes/trikes. People who ride bikes a lot often find riding a tricycle very difficult, because it's a different technique. People who don't ride a bike much are usually fine - fewer ingrained habits.



How can riding a trike _possibly_ be difficult? It's like riding a horse. You just sit on it, and pedal - and it goes. Simple as.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Once you have the skill, just like on a bike, you get on with it. If I'm in a minority, fair enough. I'm just judging on personal experience.



Yes but your experience isn't OF riding a two-wheeled recumbent, so how can you 'judge on personal experience'?


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> How can riding a trike _possibly_ be difficult? It's like riding a horse. You just sit on it, and pedal - and it goes. Simple as.



An upright trike? When did you last ride one?

No, really. Many bike riders find an upright trike quite difficult to get used to, because of the different turning dynamics. Like you said before, you don't lean in the same way, and that can really confuse your brain and inner ear, because you think you ought to be leaning to turn and you're not. Don't argue this one, _please_, I've seen it happen hundreds of times, and many cyclists who try a tricycle have found out about it. 

(My theory is that because you aren't leaning, your brain, expecting you to lean, makes you think you are leaning the other way - almost like an optical illusion, but in the inner ear. So, many people start to turn one way, and end up swerving the other way, trying to correct for something that isn't happening.)

I've seen really experienced cyclists give up trying to handle an upright trike, because it seems to want to make them turn the wrong way. I've also seen a gran who couldn't ride a bike get on and pedal off, happy as anything. Because she didn't have anything to unlearn.

As for horses, I guess you haven't ridden one of those recently either. I mean properly, not a donkey on a beach.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Yes but your experience isn't OF riding a two-wheeled recumbent, so how can you 'judge on personal experience'?



But I have ridden two wheel recumbents, I just don't happen to own one. I told you that before too, when you asked me how many I'd ridden.


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricycles

"Adults may find upright tricycles difficult to ride due to familiarity with the counter-steering required to balance a bicycle. The variation in the camber of the road is the principal difficulty to be overcome once basic tricycle handling is mastered"


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> An upright trike? When did you last ride one?
> 
> No, really. Many bike riders find an upright trike quite difficult to get used to, because of the different turning dynamics. Like you said before, you don't lean in the same way, and that can really confuse your brain and inner ear, because you think you ought to be leaning to turn and you're not. Don't argue this one, _please_, I've seen it happen hundreds of times, and many cyclists who try a tricycle have found out about it.


I'm not sure _I personally_ would find it difficult, but I won't argue with your assertion that a lot of people do.



Arch said:


> (My theory is that because you aren't leaning, your brain, expecting you to lean, makes you think you are leaning the other way - almost like an optical illusion, but in the inner ear. So, many people start to turn one way, and end up swerving the other way, trying to correct for something that isn't happening.)


That makes sense, I can see how that would happen. I think if I was trying to ride one my take on it would be to start off slowly and speed up as the way it moved through a corner became more ingrained...



Arch said:


> As for horses, I guess you haven't ridden one of those recently either. I mean properly, not a donkey on a beach.


Now don't get me started on horses, _please_ - unless you _really do_ want an argument. Remember this recumbent thread is an argument about something I _don't_ particularly hate...


----------



## classic33 (2 Aug 2007)

Going to confuse some people with this bit. 
Where would I fit in to this argument over the number of wheels on a recumbent. Own & ride a Brox, ridden a ZEM 4 & ZEM 2. All have four wheels. 
Also own & use a standard! upright(DF). Three wheels ridden on as well both upright & recumbent. Try a search on username & Pashley for one three wheeler owned & ridden.

Having read some of the posts it seems that what a person is unfamilar wuth frightens them. Or is that just me.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

This is the probably experience of most of the population trying to ride a recumbent bike: 

Or alternatively: 

he finally learns, but is still a bit wobbly: 


"Oi! Naaow! The _back_ wheel's supposed to land first!":


----------



## bonj2 (2 Aug 2007)

Just a question: The trike in that last video i posted has 2 wheels at the FRONT, and ONE at the BACK. I thought it'd be the other way round. Are they all like that, or do they vary? Which is better?


----------



## Arch (2 Aug 2007)

classic33 said:


> Going to confuse some people with this bit.
> Where would I fit in to this argument over the number of wheels on a recumbent. Own & ride a Brox, ridden a ZEM 4 & ZEM 2. All have four wheels.
> Also own & use a standard! upright(DF). Three wheels ridden on as well both upright & recumbent. Try a search on username & Pashley for one three wheeler owned & ridden.
> 
> Having read some of the posts it seems that what a person is unfamilar wuth frightens them. Or is that just me.



Yup, I think that's highly likely...

What about a Conference Bike? Four wheels, but with the rear two so close together as to act as one, making it in effect a tadpole trike. And seven seats... 

http://www.conferencebike.com/

<sits back and waits for far-off sound of bonj exploding>


----------



## classic33 (2 Aug 2007)

Never ridden one of those, but I did get a go on thirty seater.
Hartshead, up above Brighouse.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Aug 2007)

Question?

Is this:








more stable than this:


----------



## goosander (2 Aug 2007)

I don't know, but wow it hadn't even occurred to me that you could get tadpole upright trikes and that one has drop bars to boot!


----------



## squeaker (3 Aug 2007)

gavintc said:


> This must rate as one of the most bizarre threads I have come across. Recumbents are not mainstream and never will be. They satisfy a niche specialist market. I am sure they suit many people, but not all. I certainly find them interesting, but not interesting enough to buy one. To me, visibility is a significant negative factor and I am told that they do not climb hills as well as a normal bike. So, I will stop and look at one, wonder what it would be like to ride, but would not be tempted to buy.


Or alternatively:


> Folding bikes _(substitute your own favourite here)_ are not mainstream and never will be. They satisfy a niche specialist market. I am sure they suit many people, but not all. I certainly find them interesting, but not interesting enough to buy one. To me, discomfort and lack of speed is a significant negative factor and I am told that they do not go down hills as well as a recumbent. So, I will stop and look at one, wonder what it would be like to ride, but would not be tempted to buy.


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Question?
> 
> Is this:
> 
> ...




Good question. I understand tadpoles are generally more stable than deltas, but that tadpole is a more racy machine, whereas the delta is designed more for stability and load carrying. So I suspect they are about equal - taking into account the probably relative skill of the riders and the conditions in which they might be ridden... As always, it isn't black and white, is it?

Squeaker, good point. I really do wonder what a mainstream bike is? A £59 garage special with double-boing for no reason? A nicely set up city bike? A hybrid? A downhill MTB? A dropbar racer? All utterly different, and all suited to a niche (respectively: cheap; sensible; versatile; off-road; fast). As are folders and recumbents and tricycles and load carriers and...


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Question?
> 
> Is this:
> 
> ...



I can just see the point in the first one, it may be nice for grannies to go shopping on. But that second one is just absolute nonsense. What, actually, is the point in it?


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

What is the point of you, bonj?


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

It's obviously been made by someone with a LOT more money AND time than sense.
Literally, what IS the point in having two wheels at the front when you only need one. It doesn't enable it to corner faster, fact. And your 'useful for a granny going shopping' excuse doesn't really work on this one 'cos it's a drop handlebar'd road bike. So there _literally_ is no point to it whatsoever. It's like a dog with two arses and two tails but no head! It's a travesty, a complete abomination!


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

Suppose someone with a balance problem wanted to be able to go out on runs with their fast cycling mates? What is someone didn't want to be bothered with putting a foot down to balance when they stopped, maybe because they had joint problems? What if someone just wanted to ride something a bit different occasionally, because they were open to all sorts of experiences and liked the different riding style?

What _is_ the point of you, bonj?


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> It's obviously been made by someone with a LOT more money AND time than sense.
> Literally, what IS the point in having two wheels at the front when you only need one. *It doesn't enable it to corner faster, fact*. And your 'useful for a granny going shopping' excuse doesn't really work on this one 'cos it's a drop handlebar'd road bike. So there _literally_ is no point to it whatsoever. It's like a dog with two arses and two tails but no head! It's a travesty, a complete abomination!




Fact? Really? Is it? Can you tell us why?

What IS the point of you, bonj?


----------



## Christopher (3 Aug 2007)

I've seen the trike with two wheels at the back (the delta?) used at a big factory in the US. Itinerant fitters use them with a huge toolbox, and security patrol on them as well - useful as they can get places a car cannot and you can't hear them coming (apart from the wheezing of the guard).


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

Yes, two wheels behind is 'delta'...


----------



## Tynan (3 Aug 2007)

there's a three wheel scooter made by Piaggio that looks absurd

benefits are increased stability in corners and increased braking effectiveness

and for people that have balance issues I guess

this thread is absurd too, how can it run to 13 pages about something as dull as recumbants


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

Tynan said:


> there's a three wheel scooter made by Piaggio that looks absurd
> 
> benefits are increased stability in corners and increased braking effectiveness
> 
> ...




Without knowing anything about the scooter in question, but based on your post:


So... it has safety benefits, and also allows possibly access to this sort of transport for people who might not be able to ride a scooter...

but...

you happen to think it looks 'absurd'.

Which might be more important, do we think?


And I notice you've felt the need to post on this 'absurd' and dull thread... I guess that's why it's kept going then...


----------



## Tynan (3 Aug 2007)

it 'looks' absurd to someone used to a normal scooter, and it does too because it has some mad apparatus to let the scooter and wheels lean over into bends







I didn't say which was more important, I was in fact at pains to proffer the advantages, especially the braking/stability improvement

and you know full well that a 14 page thread arguing about recumbents is absurd by definition

whatever


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Fact? Really? Is it? Can you tell us why?



It can't corner as fast as a two-wheeled bike. If it could, more people would have those than two-wheeled bikes. FACT. That's not something that needs proving, it's obvious.
It might not be obvious to _you_, but with all due respect, you're in the "fan of weird bikes" category, which makes you different from normal A-to-B or just-ride-for-the-fun-of-riding cyclists. You like it _just because_ it's weird - that's fine, but don't pretend it's because it's just as good engineering-wise or performance-wise as a normal bike. We've had this argument TWICE before about different bikes, and you keep coming up with an even more ridiculous bike each time - this being the THIRD, and yet you STILL seem to want to persist with insisting that it's just as good as a normal bike, despite not being able to come up with any good reason why it's not more popular.



Arch said:


> What IS the point of you, bonj?


The point of me is that I'm slightly more interesting than people who are so boring they constantly feel the need to rehash the same tired old argument time after time again.
The point of me is to provide input to the forum that at least makes a lot more sense than idiots who will stand there open-mouthed swearing blind that black's white or that a square wheel's better than a round one just because it was invented my a mad hungarian scientist who happens to be able to prove that he's got a hundred and eighty six PhDs and won the nobel prize for engineering back in 1642.
You might be (are) a nice person and you are interesting to debate with but you do anger me at times Arch.


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

Tynan said:


> I didn't say which was more important, I was in fact at pains to proffer the advantages, especially the braking/stability improvement



Apologies, I was a little harsh there, I didn't mean to aim that at you personally, I was trying to highlight the fact that a single person's taste might not matter in the face of safety benefits. Sorry.



> and you know full well that a 14 page thread arguing about recumbents is absurd by definition



Why more absurd than any other thread on this forum? I think the Girls in Lycra is pretty pointless, so I just stay out of it. If you're not interested, beyond offering a pertinant example, just stay away...


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

bonj;32716][QUOTE=Arch said:


> Fact? Really? Is it? Can you tell us why?
> 
> It can't corner as fast as a two-wheeled bike. If it could, more people would have those than two-wheeled bikes.



Right. Because EVERYONE out there buys a bike on the basis of how fast it corners do they?

I see what you've done. You made the mistake of thinking that sales figures cause the laws of physics...


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

But what other advantages could a three-wheeler have, GIVEN that it's an UPRIGHT RACING BIKE?


----------



## mosschops2 (3 Aug 2007)

I go away for a couple of days.... strewth. It's taken me half an hour to catch up!!!


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> But what other advantages could a three-wheeler have, GIVEN that it's an UPRIGHT RACING BIKE?



You mean apart from the balance ones I mentioned before?

Actually, looking at that rack, it might be a tourer anyway...


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

But people that would have a racing bike / touring bike don't have a problem balancing a two-wheeled upright bike so three wheels wouldn't be any advantage to them.


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> But people that would have a racing bike / touring bike don't have a problem balancing a two-wheeled upright bike so three wheels wouldn't be any advantage to them.



So no-one who might have a balance problem would ever want to go racing or touring then?


----------



## Tynan (3 Aug 2007)

fill your boots, then you two argue until you're sick, forget my on topic input

there's very few 14 pages threads on here and where there are they about topics that appeal to lots of people and have lots of people contributing


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

Arch;32810][quote name= said:


> But people that would have a racing bike / touring bike don't have a problem balancing a two-wheeled upright bike so three wheels wouldn't be any advantage to them.



So no-one who might have a balance problem would ever want to go racing or touring then?[/QUOTE]

The only reason (bar a few rare exceptions) people might have a balance problem with riding an upright bike is because they've never learnt. The only reason they never would have learnt is if they have no interest whatsoever in cycling or riding a bike.


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

Sorry Tynan, I really don't understand your problem? Yes, your post was on topic, and I realise I replied clumsily, for which I apologised, and your point was perfectly valid and useful. So either continue to contribute, or ignore us, surely?

If you see people you don't really know arguing in the street, do you wade in and tell them their argument is absurd? Or just walk by?


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> The only reason (bar a few rare exceptions) people might have a balance problem with riding an upright bike is because they've never learnt. The only reason they never would have learnt is if they have no interest whatsoever in cycling or riding a bike.



So even if balance problems are so rare (and I bet they're more common than you think - inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries etc), those people don't matter?

And that's just the 'special needs' case. As I pointed out before, some people actually like to try different things. Riding any trike is a different feeling to riding a bike. Just like eating curry is different to eating a traditional roast dinner. Neither is 'better', they are just different and add variety.

There's a saying you know, variety is the spice of life...


----------



## Tynan (3 Aug 2007)

your apology was rather reduced in effect by the invitation to stay away from what presumably is 'your' thread

you two are going round and round in circles, get a room and get it over with


----------



## classic33 (3 Aug 2007)

Well throwing in my thoughts on the subject. 
It started as a simple observation about having seen a recumbent whilst out cycling, on a bike. Developed into the old argument about why anyone would want to ride one, let alone actually own one.
Someone has problems seeing the difference between a trike & a bike & is unable to put forward any actual reason for not riding one. Presumably because they do not ride one. 
*That which they know little or nothing about frightens them.* 

Its since developed into an argument about why any other form of cycle than the type most seen, upright, two wheels.

As someone who has ridden a few odd cycles (2,3,4 & more wheels,one three & half wheeled trike) would anyone like to tell me into which class this falls
http://www.encycleopedia.com/index.cfm?pid=23&edID=216
& would they ride it. Bear in mind that legs are behind the rider when giving any reason


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Aug 2007)

By Bonj's arguments:

















Are all failures on the grounds that they haven't taken off by his criteria?


I can't get the link to work, but was it this:




The "Cool Breeze" prone?

If so then I have ridden it!


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

Tynan said:


> your apology was rather reduced in effect by the invitation to stay away from what presumably is 'your' thread
> 
> you two are going round and round in circles, get a room and get it over with



Stop demanding attention. You posted a picture of a three-wheeled scooter, great. Despite the fact it was on-topic, no-one's that interested and it wasn't a point of the question. Get over it.
This argument has only continued so far because there are two distinct sides each with their own diifferent, strongly-held beliefs, if you don't understand either of them - as you haven't shown any evidence of, then don't expect to be specifically replied to.


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> By Bonj's arguments:
> [pictures of cars]
> 
> Are all failures on the grounds that they haven't taken off by his criteria?


Er... no. I don't know how you get from anything i've been saying to there.






Cunobelin said:


> The "Cool Breeze" prone?


it looks a bit uncomfy to be honest. What supports your head?!
And from looking at the article about it, it's only been made like that in order to win races where you're not allowed a fairing.


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> So even if balance problems are so rare (and I bet they're more common than you think - inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries etc), those people don't matter?


No, they're just different types - not numbers of people. (Well, I'm not exactly sure they're all 'different', in the sense of being distinct, but still...)

They're not more common than I think. I think they're rare, and they ARE rare.




Arch said:


> And that's just the 'special needs' case. As I pointed out before, some people actually like to try different things.


Yes, but only _for the sake of trying different things._ Have you ever heard of the expression 'novelty value'?
Novelty value alone isn't a good enough reason for something to exist. So basically it's a rehabilitation aid for people with balance problems. Which is ok in itself, but don't pretend it's anything else! Just don't pretend it's... well, _sensible_, or normal....

To be fairly honest, a recumbent actually seems pretty logical and attractive compared to that shitter. In fact you've actually won me over on the recumbent front - and what a good way of doing it, just show me something 10 times worse.




Arch said:


> Riding any trike is a different feeling to riding a bike. Just like eating curry is different to eating a traditional roast dinner. Neither is 'better', they are just different and add variety.


No, it's a completely wrong analogy. A curry and a roast are both popular, a large proportion of the population like, and consume regularly, both of them. Not the case with trikes. I honestly cannot see the point in trikes, other than to get up hills really really slowly.


Arch said:


> There's a saying you know, variety is the spice of life...


yes but it should be variety in _where_ you ride, not _what_ you ride...


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Aug 2007)

*Slightly OT*

Actually I have a theory that applies to all bikes.

You need a good advocate and / or a good bike shop locally to trigger off interest.

If you have a high end LBS then you will see high end bikes more often. We had lots of folders around, but once a local shop started with Bromptons, they took over within months as the most frequent. All it needs is for people to see the quality, use and example set by owners.



Same with recumbents - at my places of work we have a Challenge Hurricane, a Catrike expedition, two Street Machines, a Linear, a Windcheetah and two Trices (S and Q)

There is also a Grashopper, PDQ3, a PDQ another Windcheetah and a Vision locally.


----------



## bonj2 (3 Aug 2007)

It's probably true Cunobelin. I must admit I wouldn't mind having a go on a recumbent just to see what speed advantage you actually get from aerodynamics, especially downhill with a fairing. But I still don't understand why if it's that good they're not more popular? I suppose my main beef why I keep condemning them for not being very good is mainly based on the fact that they _can't_ be, otherwise they'd be a LOT more popular. Any theories on this?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Aug 2007)

> I suppose my main beef why I keep condemning them for not being very good is mainly based on the fact that they can't be, otherwise they'd be a LOT more popular. Any theories on this?



Exactly why those cars should b condemned?

There are many reasons, the main one probably being availability.


----------



## bonj2 (4 Aug 2007)

not those cars, recumbents!


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> not those cars, recumbents!



Why not?

The criteria are the same......

Small manufacturing run, high specification, high end specialist machines.

The comparison is fair, appropriate and justified.

If the proof of a recumbent engineering and performance is popularity and the fact that there aren't a lot more around" then the same criticism applies.


----------



## Andy in Sig (4 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> It's probably true Cunobelin. I must admit I wouldn't mind having a go on a recumbent just to see what speed advantage you actually get from aerodynamics, especially downhill with a fairing. But I still don't understand why if it's that good they're not more popular? I suppose my main beef why I keep condemning them for not being very good is mainly based on the fact that they _can't_ be, otherwise they'd be a LOT more popular. Any theories on this?



They're probably not more popular because:

a. They are relatively expensive. Given that Joe Public seems to begrudge spending more than £100 on a bike he's hardly likely to want to splash out more than a grand, is he? That means their use tends to be confined to people who are serious about cycling who have convinced themselves that they offer significant advantages over DFs.

b. Conservatism. Some people just don't like different things and perhaps don't want to riske being perceived to be eccentric.

And FWIW, no they are not more difficult to ride than DFs, they're just as easy but are ridden in a different way. Effectively you steer a recumbent with your bum whereas you steer a DF with your shoulders.

In my opinion and experience recumbents are, in most areas, simply a better ride than DFs but I am sure that there will be somebody with equal experience of both who will take the opposite view.


----------



## NickM (4 Aug 2007)

Andy in Sig said:


> ...In my opinion and experience recumbents are, in most areas, simply a better ride than DFs but I am sure that there will be somebody with equal experience of both who will take the opposite view.


Oh, I doubt that - all the cyclists I know who have extensive experience of recumbents prefer riding recumbents. I don't use my recumbents for commuting (heavy traffic is not their ideal milieu, and they would be wasted), but even with 20-odd years' experience of uprights I now _never_ ride one for pleasure when a recumbent is available.

As for bonj, Keith had him banged to rights on page 1


----------



## col (5 Aug 2007)

Id love a go on one,i watched a race some years ago in my local park,there were upright races too,but the recumbents race had me fascinated,i liked the look of them,but i havnt seen one on the road at all?


----------



## Arch (6 Aug 2007)

bonj;33117][QUOTE=Arch said:


> So even if balance problems are so rare (and I bet they're more common than you think - inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries etc), those people don't matter?


No, they're just different types - not numbers of people. (Well, I'm not exactly sure they're all 'different', in the sense of being distinct, but still...)
[/quote]

What are you going on about?



> They're not more common than I think. I think they're rare, and they ARE rare.



Well, that's alright then. bonj thinks not many people have those problems, so obviously that's correct. All those people must just be figments of society's imagination...




Arch said:


> There's a saying you know, variety is the spice of life...





> yes but it should be variety in _where_ you ride, not _what_ you ride...



Why should it? Because you think so. Right, well, I think something else. So until you can explain why your opinions are more valid than mine or anyone else's (oh, I'm looking forward to this...), variety can be in whatever you like...

Oh, and Tynan, sorry, in effect you walked in, threw down your point and then said "This is a stupid place to be". I think in that case most people's responce would be "well, if you think that, why hang around?"

Col - there are more and more recumbents about - they are, despite bonj, growing in popularity. It may be something to do with where you live - as Cunobelin says, interest grows around a keen recumbent owner, or a good shop.


----------



## Amanda P (6 Aug 2007)

Bonj looks like he's on the road to Emmaus (look it up...).

If you're anywhere near me, Bonj, you're welcome to have a go on my recumbent - two wheels, I hasten to add.


----------



## bonj2 (6 Aug 2007)

Arch;33938][QUOTE=bonj said:


> Well, I'm not exactly sure they're all 'different', in the sense of being distinct, but still...



What are you going on about?
[/quote]
You said, "inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries" as reasons why people might have balance problems. You obviously made an attempt to make the list as long as possible by listing as many possible reasons as you could think of why people might have balance problems, but some of them are the same thing! For instance, an 'inner ear problem' often _is_ a congenital physical disability. So they're not distinct things...



Arch said:


> Well, that's alright then. bonj thinks not many people have those problems, so obviously that's correct. *All those people must just be figments of society's imagination...*


I didn't say they didn't exist, did I... just that they were rare. Would have thought better of you to use a straw-man argument. Are we having a blond day today Arch?





Arch said:


> bonj said:
> 
> 
> > Arch said:
> ...


Yes, because I think so.



Arch said:


> Right, well, I think something else.


Great, think that. Doesn't bother me.



Arch said:


> So until you can explain *why your opinions are more valid than mine *or anyone else's (oh, I'm looking forward to this...), variety can be in whatever you like...


They're not. They're just my opinions. Doesn't mean I can't post them though does it.



Arch said:


> Col - there are more and more recumbents about - they are, despite bonj, growing in popularity.


Nope. Popularity is not really a matter of opinion. Do you _know_ for a fact that they're growing in popularity? Have you got any evidence, such as statistics published accurately reporting the number of recumbents used nationwide year on year?
And don't think the "well they keep getting produced and sold so somebody must be riding them" argument won't do, as old ones will fall by the wayside or simply lie unused in a shed, the fact that they exist doesn't mean they're being used, which you would think would be the measure of how popular they are, not simply how many exist.



Arch said:


> It may be something to do with where you live - as Cunobelin says, interest grows around a keen recumbent owner, or a good shop.



It may be. In some little villages where they all know each other and eat scones on a sunday one eccentric geezer might have got a load of the villagers to have a go on his recumbent, and they decided they liked it and they got one aswell for a laugh. But you don't really see them in cities much, presumably because they aren't very good in traffic?


----------



## col (6 Aug 2007)

Col - there are more and more recumbents about - they are, despite bonj, growing in popularity. It may be something to do with where you live - as Cunobelin says, interest grows around a keen recumbent owner, or a good shop.


We have a Halfords,a bike shop just up from queen street,and an iron horse shop i think its called,and one opposite station road,now i havnt been in the iron horse shop for a long time so couldnt say what they have,but the other three dont have anything about recumbents at all,which is a bit dissapointing


----------



## Dayvo (6 Aug 2007)

I saw my first recumbent in Sweden (after nearly 13 years) today!
It was blue!


----------



## Keith Oates (6 Aug 2007)

Must be the cold weather!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bonj2 (6 Aug 2007)

col said:


> We have a Halfords,a bike shop just up from queen street,and an iron horse shop i think its called,and one opposite station road,now *i havnt been in the iron horse shop for a long time so couldnt say what they have*,but the other three dont have anything about recumbents at all,which is a bit dissapointing




probably iron horses I would imagine...


----------



## Arch (6 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> You said, "inner ear problems, strokes, congenital physical disabilities, injuries" as reasons why people might have balance problems. You obviously made an attempt to make the list as long as possible by listing as many possible reasons as you could think of why people might have balance problems, but some of them are the same thing! For instance, an 'inner ear problem' often _is_ a congenital physical disability. So they're not distinct things...



But they often _are_ distinct things, so my list stands. My point is that you think there are very few people with a balance problem, and I also suspect that there are many more than you think. 


> Arch said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's alright then. bonj thinks not many people have those problems, so obviously that's correct. *All those people must just be figments of society's imagination...*
> ...



Alright, that was slightly sloppy language on my part. But if you think such people are 'rare' and they are in fact much more common than you think, what about the disparity? Do you think those are all made up?



> Nope. Popularity is not really a matter of opinion. Do you _know_ for a fact that they're growing in popularity? Have you got any evidence, such as statistics published accurately reporting the number of recumbents used nationwide year on year?



I know that I know more people with them each year. I suspect the figures you want don't exist because as you know full well, no-one surveys how many of what type of bikes are on the road. Even figures for the total number of 'normal' cyclists out there are usually based on the sales figures you will refuse to accept.



> And don't think the "well they keep getting produced and sold so somebody must be riding them" argument won't do,



I assume you mean "don't think the "well they keep getting produced and sold so somebody must be riding them" argument *will* do", or that's a double negative, and therefore means the opposite....


----------



## bonj2 (6 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> But they often _are_ distinct things, so my list stands. My point is that you think there are very few people with a balance problem, and I also suspect that there are many more than you think.
> 
> 
> > Yes, ok - great, but you suspect wrong.
> ...


----------



## Arch (6 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> And what do you mean 'what about the disparity' - what about what disparity? disparity between what...?
> I don't think anything's 'made up' - you're the only one that's brought made up into the conversation.



The disparity between the number of people you think have problems, and the number who really do...



> Yes well that's probably because you know more _people_ each year!



No, the number of people I know stays pretty constant year to year... I don't have the sort of wild social life you do, I expect...



> Arch said:
> 
> 
> > I assume you mean "don't think the "well they keep getting produced and sold so somebody must be riding them" argument *will* do", or that's a double negative, and therefore means the opposite....
> ...



Pedantry works well enough for you though. Well, except you're the only pedant I know who often manages to be a pedant and wrong...


----------



## bonj2 (6 Aug 2007)

Arch;34357][quote name= said:


> what about what disparity?



The disparity between the number of people you think have problems, and the number who really do...
[/quote]
There isn't any such disparity.




> No, the number of people I know stays pretty constant year to year... I don't have the sort of wild social life you do, I expect...


Well if you know more people with recumbents yet you don't know any more people in total, then it must be because the ones you already know have gone out and bought recumbents. And that's probably because _you've_ persuaded them to. Because you like recumbents, and are fairly evangelical about them. So it's not really a good indicator of the popularity of them in general.





Arch said:


> Pedantry works well enough for you though. Well, except you're the only pedant I know who often manages to be a pedant and wrong...



Yes but I don't use pedantry when it's obvious that the person meant something else. If they're being ambiguous, then I'll pick them up on it, but where I draw the line is, a muddled argument that they don't really know how to put into words, I'll pick up on. But an obvious typo, then I won't. Typing 'won't' do instead of 'will do' was an obvious typo.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Aug 2007)

Dayvo said:


> I saw my first recumbent in Sweden (after nearly 13 years) today!
> It was blue!



That's no good.....

Red ones are faster, and silver ones more comfortable!


----------



## Arch (7 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Well if you know more people with recumbents yet you don't know any more people in total, then it must be because the ones you already know have gone out and bought recumbents. *And that's probably because you've persuaded them to.* Because you like recumbents, and are fairly evangelical about them.



Not really. I'm a follower of trends, not a leader. I don't know of anyone who's bought one because I have one. They've bought them because they've seen them, read about them, tried them and liked them.



> So it's not really a good indicator of the popularity of them in general.



Silly me, I thought more people owning them was a measure of greater popularity. How could I be so wrong?


Incidentally, I do know someone who's thinking of selling his Trice, to get something easier to take on the train to Audaxes. <bonj puffs up with righteous bile> He's thinking of getting an Airnimal instead. <bonj explodes in shower of incomprehension>


----------



## BentMikey (7 Aug 2007)

Laughing at bonj! Really, what a bundle of insecurities!


----------



## bonj2 (7 Aug 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Laughing at bonj! Really, what a bundle of insecurities!



I do so admire the spirited, considered conviction with which you stick up for your cause Mikey.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (7 Aug 2007)

Is there an award for the most boring thread in cycling history?


----------



## mosschops2 (7 Aug 2007)

bonj;34722][quote name= said:


> Laughing at bonj! Really, what a bundle of insecurities!



I do so admire the spirited, considered conviction with which you stick up for your cause Mikey.[/QUOTE]

IMHO I think Mikey gives the debate about as much conviction as it is due!!!


----------



## aulda (7 Aug 2007)

beanzontoast said:


> Never seen a single recumbent on my Derby commute all the years I've been doing it.



beanzontoast, I passed one last week on my way home up the A6. He was just leaving Duffield and had a couple of panniers so I am not sure whether he was touring or commuting.

Either way, I gave him a cheery wave.


----------



## goo_mason (12 Aug 2007)

Funnily enough, after HairyJock mentioned the fact that I could go on a recumbent tour in Edinburgh, the local rag does a story on it. Strangely, it failed to draw the usual rabid anti-cycling crowd and only had two comments.

Bonj - now's your chance.....


----------



## Chuffy (12 Aug 2007)

I don't know. You have an idle hour and choose to while it away truffling through threads that you've previously ignored and you chance upon this little gem. Wonderful! 

I've ridden a racing trike (borrowed from the estimable Greta, fastest granny I ever met) and yes, it's a sod to learn how to steer one. Most people end up going in a straight line because leaning don't work.
The conference bike was a hoot and the three wheeled recumbent trike was hilarious and very fast.

Arch - PM me your postal address. I've got a pea and the address of a very steep mountain for you. I'd like you to give up trying to talk sense into Bonj and spend your time pushing the pea up the mountain with your nose. It will be easier, more successful and probably more rewarding.

FWIW - I have friends with bents. Some people _do_ gravitate to them because they are a bit different. I have a pet theory that says that techy types (ok, geeks. Don't complain, some of my best friends etc etc) tend to like them because they are, in some ways, better than 'normal' bikes while also being more challenging to work on. It's a bit like the Betamax/VHS or the PC/Mac split. The downsides to 'bents (bulk, cost, unfamiliarity etc) will always keep them as a niche product but there is still scope for that niche to grow.

Yup, Keith nailed it on page 1, but hey, it's been fun!


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Aug 2007)

*That's a new one!*



> In most foreign countries the driving is on the right, plus the tourists in their "recumbent" position will not be able to see normal road signs



Never heard of that one before!

Edited - quote marks sorted


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Aug 2007)

> Arch - PM me your postal address. I've got a pea and the address of a very steep mountain for you. I'd like you to give up trying to talk sense into Bonj and spend your time pushing the pea up the mountain with your nose. It will be easier, more successful and probably more rewarding.



When you mentioned a Pea.....................


I know that Arch is a "Princess", but no recumbent trike is *that*comfortable

The Princess and the Pea


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Aug 2007)

> Arch - PM me your postal address. I've got a pea and the address of a very steep mountain for you. I'd like you to give up trying to talk sense into Bonj and spend your time pushing the pea up the mountain with your nose. It will be easier, more successful and probably more rewarding.



When you mentioned a Pea.....................


I know that Arch is a "Princess", but no recumbent trike is *that*comfortable

The Princess and the Pea


----------



## Arch (13 Aug 2007)

Chuffy said:


> Arch - PM me your postal address. I've got a pea and the address of a very steep mountain for you. I'd like you to give up trying to talk sense into Bonj and spend your time pushing the pea up the mountain with your nose. It will be easier, more successful and probably more rewarding.



 LOL!

I know, I know...


----------



## Arch (13 Aug 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> I know that Arch is a "Princess", but no recumbent trike is *that*comfortable




Flatterer!


----------



## roshi chris (14 Aug 2007)

Where are you Bonj?? I'm thinking of buying a new vehicle at the moment through my companies cycle2work scheme, and I need your advice.

Should I get a recumbent; a fixed wheel track bike; a handbike (get arms like arnie); a moulton; or a unicycle? I think they're all great, what I really need is a breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages of each..


----------



## bonj2 (14 Aug 2007)

roshi chris said:


> Where are you Bonj?? I'm thinking of buying a new vehicle at the moment through my companies cycle2work scheme, and I need your advice.
> 
> Should I get a recumbent; a fixed wheel track bike; a handbike (get arms like arnie); a moulton; or a unicycle? I think they're all great, what I really need is a breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages of each..



I thought you'd already decided you're getting a recumbent...


----------



## roshi chris (14 Aug 2007)

No, still weighing options..


----------



## classic33 (16 Aug 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> The "Cool Breeze" prone?


it looks a bit uncomfy to be honest. What supports your head?!
And from looking at the article about it, it's only been made like that in order to win races where you're not allowed a fairing.[/QUOTE]


Not that bad. Like anything you get used to it after a while. Whether others get used to seeing you ride it is another matter. As for supporting your head what supports it anywhere else?
You can get a fairing for it, but I think that would restrict rider visibilty a bit.
As for racing, not my intended use. M62, junction 24, Ainley Top to Elland. Nearly a two mile run, downhill. 
On the same stretch of road passing cars, speed cameras present, on a Brox. So that puts me doing over fifty MPH on a four wheel recumbent.

As I said before, what is unknown to a person frightens them.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Aug 2007)

classic33 said:


> As for supporting your head what supports it anywhere else?


Nothing, but you don't have to bend your head backwards so much on anything else. You have to bend your head back on that, due to your body being almost horizontal in order not to be looking downwards at the road. I know from lying in bed reading a book like that, that it isn't particularly comfortable.


----------



## Arch (20 Aug 2007)

As I understand it, the prone is primarily a racing machine for sprinting, so you wouldn't expect to be in that position for hours and hours - just like a sprint racer on an upright wouldn't be - and their aero position requires them to have their head pretty tilted back...


----------



## classic33 (20 Aug 2007)

bonj;45277][quote name= said:


> As for supporting your head what supports it anywhere else?


Nothing,[/QUOTE]

What lies between your shoulders & head or is your head seperate from the rest of you body.


----------



## Blonde (21 Aug 2007)

Andy 71 said:


> I'm dead jealous.
> 
> I wonder what impact the lower riding position would have on my visibility..



I spotted one this morning. Very easily, despite the fact that is was a super low speed machine. I went 'Ooh look, a recumbent!' which is exactly why drivers don't run you over when you're in one!

Seriously, if a driver is directly behind you, or a way off with no other vehicles in between you and them, they can see you as well as any other vehicle. It's only when a driver overtakes another vehicle that is directly behind you that they may not see the 'bent until they are level with you, but I'm not sure if this would impact on your safety anyway. I guess if you're on a 'bent, you shouldn't use another vehicle as a 'shield' when pulling onto a roundabout, as drivers t'other side of it wont see you at all. But then, you probably oughtn't do be doing that anyway...ahem..


----------



## Arch (21 Aug 2007)

Blonde said:


> It's only when a driver overtakes another vehicle that is directly behind you that they may not see the 'bent until they are level with you, but I'm not sure if this would impact on your safety anyway.



Someone once said to me "I saw a recumbent today, it was in front of a van in front of me, and the van pulled out to overtake, and I was really close, so I didn't see the recumbent until I was nearly on top of it."

Out of politeness I refrained from pointing out that a) he was obviously driving too close to the van and  in that situation, he'd not have been able to see an upright bike through the van anyway. 

Sadly, I seriously doubt that a lot of people look ahead to the extent of seeing a bike in front of the car in front of them...


----------



## mosschops2 (21 Aug 2007)

roshi chris said:


> No, still weighing options..



You forgot that you're also thinking of an Airnimal (sp??) - another area of Bonj-expertise!!


----------



## Blonde (21 Aug 2007)

Arch;45976][QUOTE=Blonde said:


> It's only when a driver overtakes another vehicle that is directly behind you that they may not see the 'bent until they are level with you, but I'm not sure if this would impact on your safety anyway.



Someone once said to me "I saw a recumbent today, it was in front of a van in front of me, and the van pulled out to overtake, and I was really close, so I didn't see the recumbent until I was nearly on top of it."

Out of politeness I refrained from pointing out that a) he was obviously driving too close to the van and  in that situation, he'd not have been able to see an upright bike through the van anyway. 

Sadly, I seriously doubt that a lot of people look ahead to the extent of seeing a bike in front of the car in front of them...[/QUOTE]

Neither do they signal to indicate they are going to pull out to get around something, which means the driver behind does not register that they are going to have to do this too. Instead they often accelatrate to fill the gap left behind by the overtaking vehicle, then slam the brakes on when they see the 'obstacle' and realise they need to either slow down behind or overtake it, then 'cos they cant slow down enough in time, they swerve out wildy.. Every single driver behind then does the same, until one brighter spark actually puts the indicator on to give those behind a chance to react and get ready to slow down/pull out early.


----------



## HJ (21 Aug 2007)

goo_mason said:


> Funnily enough, after HairyJock mentioned the fact that I could go on a recumbent tour in Edinburgh, the local rag does a story on it. Strangely, it failed to draw the usual rabid anti-cycling crowd and only had two comments.
> 
> Bonj - now's your chance.....




So have you tried one yet then Goo?

Looking down the comments there was one familiar name, look to see you are helping to bring up the quality of debate in the Evening News.


----------



## goo_mason (22 Aug 2007)

Hairy Jock said:


> So have you tried one yet then Goo?
> 
> Looking down the comments there was one familiar name, look to see you are helping to bring up the quality of debate in the Evening News.



Sadly not - was so skint after paying for a new boiler on the first day of my hols and then £100 for an entryphone repair (which I wish my neighbours would hurry up and cough up their shares for) that I didn't see any Fringe shows or go anywhere when I was off for two weeks. Sigh.


----------

