# Advice sought on getting a recumbent



## foucalt (17 Sep 2010)

Hi

Looking for some advice regarding getting my first recumbent. Wanted one for 20 plus yrs yet never got around to it yet want to take plunge. Some questions:


I am 6.3 in height so what ones are likely to be more suitable as my road bike frames are usually between 58 & 60cm?
Been reading about ice and catrike trikes so are they likely to be suitable in size or would I need to go for 2 wheel recumbent?
Do like idea of fast trike so interested in catrike 700 but would that be to 'extreme' for a first recumbent? Anyone got one and is it possible to light tour on it?
How easy are trikes to store as I don't have garage so will have to place in house?
Live near Peak District so usual query as to how are they getting up steeper inclines such as 'gun hill'as imagine steady pace be ok for most hills here?
Any info/experiences appreciated as don't want to buy one unsuitable for me. Thanks.


----------



## Alf (17 Sep 2010)

foucalt said:


> Hi
> 
> Looking for some advice regarding getting my first recumbent. Wanted one for 20 plus yrs yet never got around to it yet want to take plunge. Some questions:
> 
> ...


Short stature is sometimes a limitation on 2-wheelers because you can struggle to reach the ground easily on a high racer (like the Challenge Seiran or Bachetta Giro). I don't think there is much of a problem being tall, though, so long as you avoid the special for-shorties versions.

A more fundamental choice is the number of wheels. There are strong adherents of bikes and trikes and they have big pros and cons on both sides, so it's best to sort out your own priorities first, I guess. To list a few of the more obvious ones: bikes are lighter (faster up hills - but still slower than uprights) and go through narrower gaps. Trikes are harder to fall off, especially on slippery roads, closer to the ground so feel like they go faster, make comfortable seats when you stop. 

Even when you have decided on the number of wheels you still have decisions to make that are more basic than the differences between upright bikes: size of wheel (affects tyre choice and gearing) how high off the ground (more for bikes than trikes) what luggage carrying do you need, foldability, how to mount lights, and many more.

Good luck!


----------



## Scoosh (17 Sep 2010)

Alf said:


> Even when you have decided on the number of wheels you still have decisions to make that are more basic than the differences between upright bikes: size of wheel (affects tyre choice and gearing) how high off the ground (more for bikes than trikes) what luggage carrying do you need, foldability, how to mount lights, and many more.


... including, for a bike, type of steering - Tiller; Open Cockpit; Under Seat Steering .

My suggestions also:

- have a look at the 'How many Recumbent Riders do we have' thread at the top of this section and trawl through it to see if there are 'bent riders anywhere near to you - then get in touch and go and pick their brains/prejudices  and try to scrounge a ride 

- check out the local 'bent dealers and do the same (most are real enthusiasts and great to deal with)

- invite your bank manager for a slap-up dinner 


Oh sorry, almost forgot -  foucalt and  to CycleChat  !


----------



## foucalt (17 Sep 2010)

Thanks for replies. I do need to investigate a bit more as so many options. A visit to Dtek seems to be highly recommended as others have mentioned so will have to do that and will try and find some recumbent riders in N West to see what they ride although do seem more about down south. Do want to give it a go as do seem so much fun and also like design innovations compared to 'normal' DF.




Alf said:


> Short stature is sometimes a limitation on 2-wheelers because you can struggle to reach the ground easily on a high racer (like the Challenge Seiran or Bachetta Giro). I don't think there is much of a problem being tall, though, so long as you avoid the special for-shorties versions.
> 
> A more fundamental choice is the number of wheels. There are strong adherents of bikes and trikes and they have big pros and cons on both sides, so it's best to sort out your own priorities first, I guess. To list a few of the more obvious ones: bikes are lighter (faster up hills - but still slower than uprights) and go through narrower gaps. Trikes are harder to fall off, especially on slippery roads, closer to the ground so feel like they go faster, make comfortable seats when you stop.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tigerbiten (17 Sep 2010)

From my reading, 3 wheel recumbents are around 10% slower than 2 wheel ones due to the extra resistance of the wheel, bigger frontal area so more wind resistance at speed, etc, etc.

The main advantage of 3 wheels is the stability, both uphill at slow speed and downhill/flat on loose/iffy surfaces.
Going up hill, as long as you have a low enough gear and keep traction on the back wheel, you can climb it even at 2-4mph.
If your a bit mad then snow & ice just make it more fun. Trying to power slide on corners, etc, etc ...........  

I've had my ICE Trice Q for over a year now and prob done over 8,000 miles on it.
I've found its two main disavantages over an upwrong are .....
Filtering in traffic. Due to its width you cannot.
I have to bag it to get it on a train. That take me around 20-30mins each end to colapse it enough to fit it into its bike bag and then rebuild it at the other end. Once its in its bag then it a bag not a bike, so less trouble about traveling with it bar its weight.

Luck ...........


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 Sep 2010)

Tigerbiten said:


> Filtering in traffic. Due to its width you cannot.
> I have to bag it to get it on a train.


Both depend on the circumstances, though.

I do filter on the trike. There are some gaps too narrow, of course, but I would say that about 70-80% of the situations where I'd be happy filtering on two wheels, I can also do so on three.

And I frequently take my Q on commuter (double-door) trains without any problem. Single-door trains are more troublesome, but I've done it a few times without any dismantling.


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 Sep 2010)

Tigerbiten said:


> Filtering in traffic. Due to its width you cannot.
> I have to bag it to get it on a train.


Both depend on the circumstances, though.

I do filter on the trike. There are some gaps too narrow, of course, but I would say that about 70-80% of the situations where I'd be happy filtering on two wheels, I can also do so on three.

And I frequently take my Q on commuter (double-door) trains without any problem. Single-door trains are more troublesome, but I've done it a few times without any dismantling.


----------



## foucalt (17 Sep 2010)

Tigerbiten said:


> From my reading, 3 wheel recumbents are around 10% slower than 2 wheel ones due to the extra resistance of the wheel, bigger frontal area so more wind resistance at speed, etc, etc.
> 
> The main advantage of 3 wheels is the stability, both uphill at slow speed and downhill/flat on loose/iffy surfaces.
> Going up hill, as long as you have a low enough gear and keep traction on the back wheel, you can climb it even at 2-4mph.
> ...



Many things for me to consider which is good as more interesting to get what suits.

Loss of speed with trike may not be big issue if steady pace greater than on my DF bikes at present. I do like going up hills/mountains and a matter of principle have never stopped or walked up - a stubbornessness from earlier times on racing bikes so will not be happy with a recumbent which made me do either. Trike for hills might be better and just plod up with high cadence which done when cycle touring abroad so not an issue. 

Won't have need to take on train yet would really miss not being able to filter especially as that's greatest benefit when commute as was doing 36 mile round trip into Manchester over summer and fantastic not being stuck in car - one of my pet hates is being in traffic jams!


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 Sep 2010)

foucalt said:


> have never stopped or walked up - a stubbornessness from earlier times on racing bikes so will not be happy with a recumbent which made me do either.


You'll certainly never need to walk up - you can go as slowly as you need to, and the trike is the first cycle on which I've ever made it up Ditchling Beacon without walking! Whether you need to stop is less predictable, but even on DB I only stopped once.



> would really miss not being able to filter


You won't need to give up filtering, but you'll probably do 20-30% less filtering.


----------



## knotbury (17 Sep 2010)

foucalt said:


> Hi
> 
> Looking for some advice regarding getting my first recumbent. Wanted one for 20 plus yrs yet never got around to it yet want to take plunge. Some questions:
> 
> ...


----------



## knotbury (17 Sep 2010)

You have a local manufacturer in AVD who produce the Windcheetah trike and they are based in Sale Moor just outside Manchester. A quick google will give you details. They will be happy to give you a trial spin.


----------



## Fiona N (19 Sep 2010)

knotbury said:


> You have a local manufacturer in AVD who produce the Windcheetah trike and they are based in Sale Moor just outside Manchester. A quick google will give you details. They will be happy to give you a trial spin.



I can recommend both Windcheetahs - had one now for 10 years - and AVD for service above and beyond...

There are quite a few people on the forum with both recumbent bikes and trikes, indeed I was one of them until a few months ago when I sold the bike (HPV Speedmachine) to fund a new upright - so I'm not a terminal darksider  

There are pros and cons, as others have said, but my take is that a recumbent bike is more like upright road bikes in terms of when I ride it - for fun, fast day rides. But the trike is both workhorse as I have a rear rack permanently mounted for the tail box so it's a 30 second job to add the big panniers too for shopping etc. (but the tail box is big enough alone for a errand run where I'd have to use a rucksac on an upright) and tourer par excellence. It's also a great fun day ride in it's own right but I'm more likely to take the road bike for a ride if I don't need to car anything. Although I bought it when back problems limited my upright cycling, and these have been largely sorted, I think I'll probably keep the Windcheetah till death as I can see that in one's old age having three wheels with be a big advantage.

In winter, of course, trikes really come into their own on snow and ice Last winter I mounted a knobbly mtb tyre on the back wheel (haven't found similar for the front wheels yet) and rode the uncleared lanes of South Lakes taking advantage of the pretty spectacular conditions in December and January. Although I did use a mtb similarly equipped with knobblies, it wasn't fun in the same way as there was always the chance of an unexpected fall.

Another advantage which is partly specific to the geometry of the Windcheetah is maintenance - particularly the chain. Because the 'cheetah rear wheel is offset from the chain line, you don't get the amount of road dirt and water sprayed off the road onto the chain and, of course, there's nothing from the front wheels, as on any tadpole trike. So the chain stays cleaner and lasts longer (partly also due to the longer length - wear per link is reduced pro rata with increased length) than on bikes. The drum brakes on the 'cheetah are also close to maintenance free - about once a year I take the front wheels off to check them but it's more of a habit than a necessity as I've never done anything besides give the drum a quick wipe with a dry rag. Currently we're up to more than 50,000km (I haven't had a speedo on for most of it's life so this is based on mileages for routes measured on other bikes and estimates for long tours but it's likely an underestimate as I've never included all the shopping/utility trips that I use it for) and I've yet to replace anything other than components damaged in a couple of accidents.

While I enjoyed the Speedmachine - it is absolutely fabulous downhills, feeling more solid the faster you go so that at >100kmph you're practically stuck to the road - it never really engaged me in the same way as the Windcheetah. Nor did it really fit me. We tend to gloss over fit with respect to recumbents, considering only whether the reach to the pedals is correct and whether you can easily put a foot down but the relative length of upper and lower leg and hip - knee - ankle positions can be important factors in whether you can cycle efficiently. With recumbents, the bottom bracket position is usually fixed relative to the seat for a specific leg length, unlike an upright where you can vary the saddle fore and aft to get the best position for your physiology over the pedals. This means that for some 'bent geometries, you'll not get an efficient pedalling position. This was the case with me and the Speedmachine and I reckon it cost me about 10% of my power output compared to the near perfect position on the Windcheetah. So something to bear in mind if you're interested in speed either on the flat or uphill.


----------



## Misty (19 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> I can recommend both Windcheetahs - had one now for 10 years - and AVD for service above and beyond...
> 
> There are quite a few people on the forum with both recumbent bikes and trikes, indeed I was one of them until a few months ago when I sold the bike (HPV Speedmachine) to fund a new upright - so I'm not a terminal darksider
> 
> ...


----------



## Misty (19 Sep 2010)

Fiona
You mention the near perfect fit of the Windcheetah - would you mind saying which model you have and how tall you are? I'm considering a trike & the Windcheetah is on the list as a maybe, so I'm interested.... 
I think I met you last year in Wilf's cafe in Staveley - I was on my black trek 7.9 (upright) (trying hard to resist spending a fortune in Wheelbase) and you were just back on uprights again ... I remember you talking about flying down Shap on the recumbent ~ from memory you weren't much taller than me (5'6?).
Sorry to hijack the post!


----------



## knotbury (19 Sep 2010)

Misty said:


> Fiona
> You mention the near perfect fit of the Windcheetah - would you mind saying which model you have and how tall you are? I'm considering a trike & the Windcheetah is on the list as a maybe, so I'm interested....
> I think I met you last year in Wilf's cafe in Staveley - I was on my black trek 7.9 (upright) (trying hard to resist spending a fortune in Wheelbase) and you were just back on uprights again ... I remember you talking about flying down Shap on the recumbent ~ from memory you weren't much taller than me (5'6?).
> Sorry to hijack the post!


----------



## knotbury (19 Sep 2010)

This is Colin rather than Fiona....
I too have a Windcheetah of ancient vintage (#32). The trike is normally made to fit but they each have around 3" of adjustment by moving the seat fore and aft. I dropped lucky in buying second(++!) hand but the trike fits me well. I tried out a Windcheetah at the factory (then in Altrincham) before committing myself and I found AVD to be very accommodating and informative.
Good Luck!


----------



## CopperBrompton (19 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> So the chain stays cleaner and lasts longer (partly also due to the longer length - wear per link is reduced pro rata with increased length) than on bikes.


Very true. I just had my TRICE Q serviced, and mentioned that the chain had stretched as middle to big ring took only two clicks instead of three. Went to pick it up, and he'd removed just one link ... after 3340 miles!


----------



## Fiona N (20 Sep 2010)

Misty said:


> Fiona
> You mention the near perfect fit of the Windcheetah - would you mind saying which model you have and how tall you are? I'm considering a trike & the Windcheetah is on the list as a maybe, so I'm interested....
> I think I met you last year in Wilf's cafe in Staveley - I was on my black trek 7.9 (upright) (trying hard to resist spending a fortune in Wheelbase) and you were just back on uprights again ... I remember you talking about flying down Shap on the recumbent ~ from memory you weren't much taller than me (5'6?).
> Sorry to hijack the post!



Hi Misty
I bought the Windcheetah before there was a separation of models so it's probably closest to the Clubsport (in fact, looks very much like the yellow model used on the website) but with Ultegra gears. I'm 5'6" as you suppose which meant that the standard length model was cut down for me. This has the rather amazing result that fast (non-slide) cornering is better with panniers on as the extra weight moves the centre of gravity closer to the back wheel increasing grip. 
After my session at Cyclefit in London with the Speedmachine - where they identified the position/fit issue - I looked afresh at the Windcheetah and realised that the geometry is subtly different to the Speedmachine and it's less likely to have problems with short riders. Not sure whether this was accident or design on Mike Burrows part - but I'm impressed.


----------



## Alf (23 Sep 2010)

foucalt said:


> Loss of speed with trike may not be big issue if steady pace greater than on my DF bikes at present. I do like going up hills/mountains and a matter of principle have never stopped or walked up - a stubbornessness from earlier times on racing bikes so will not be happy with a recumbent which made me do either. Trike for hills might be better and just plod up with high cadence which done when cycle touring abroad so not an issue.


I think you really need to try it out on some hills before you decide on this. My two (2-wheeled) recumbents both definitely prevent me going up hills as fast as on an upright. And, I think you also need to develop spinning more than you do on an upright. I used to be quite happy on a low gear of 42x23 even on long rides with short sections of 20% on an upright racer. I would probably have been happier with a slightly lower gear but in those days of 7-speed freewheels that would have meant spacing the gears more than I was happy with. Now, even with quite a light recumbent (10Kg or so) I need a 28 x 25 for a hilly ride, (and that's with slightly smaller - 571 - wheels). And, where I used to find I would catch people on hills, I now struggle to keep up on the recumbent. My conclusion is that you can't quite get the maximum hill-climbing power as you can on an upright. It may be that you can use the back muscles or the gluts more on an upright.

So whether you are slower or quicker on a recumbent probably depends on the ride: if it's hilly you will be slower; if it's flat you will be quicker. I would love to test this out with a power meter and prove myself wrong but they are all a bit too expensive as yet.

Alf


----------

