This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A picture would be helpful. - Frecklefoot
Isn't it possible to exert more force while peddling a recumbent bike, as you are able to brace against the seat, whereas in a normal bike the force you exert can never be greater than your weight? --Neil
I noticed a discrepancy betweent this page and the bike page. The bike page quotes a much higher speed record for a rcubet bicycle set by a Canadian. I don't know enough to determine who is right but maybe the discrepancy should be addressed? -- Fred
Recumbent bikes sound cool! - a guy
Expanded a bit, removed some probable vandalism, structured a bit. More needed on recumbent culture (and, IMO, on the competition scene) Just zis Guy, you know? 12:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] RecumbentReCycler ( talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I am working on expanding the History section; I will also incorporate some more info from Gunnar Fehlau's "The Recumbent Bicycle" which is a pretty good authority. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I am post polio with strong upper arms but weak legs in need of exercise. I simply need a low cost multispeed ratio to allow both leg and armpropulsion. Is there any available?? jbaum12@msn.com
82.143.162.72 11:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC) There are references to the 'disadvantage' of not being able to stand when going up hill. Should there be something in these sections that mentions that it is not energy-efficient to stand when riding an upright? Try doing it when there is snow on the ground and you will feel how little of your pedalling is turned into forward movement and how much is turned into wheel-spin.
See the reference in the cycling page to comparative studies on standing vs sitting techniques - more power standing, just as efficient. Standing also move weight off the rear wheel onto the front, and may produce a more pulsing power stroke unless you have pretty good technique. -- 203.59.191.106 (05:09, 2 March 2007)
There is a lot of nonsense going about on 'pushing harder against the seat back' than is possible when 'pushing against gravity'. At a 60 or higher cadence, you are not going to push your weight up into the air as you pedal an upright. You will alleviate a little of the weight that is on the saddle is all. - 203.59.191.106 (05:09, 2 March 2007)
Witness the lack of verticle movement as a road bike rider passes by. Standing up on the pedals does not alter the gravity effect, but allows you to pass some of the pushing effort from the leg alone over to the rest of the body, which it does by rocking the hips slightly to aid the stoke and reduce the legnth of the stroke as experienced by the leg so the knee is less bent at the apex of each stroke and is postioned to handle the extra power.
If you see that logic, then you also understand why new bent riders struggle uphills. It also explains the trend to shorter cranks. Its because the upper body is isolated and cannot be invoked as it can on an upright bike. Bent riders compensate by spining higher (although not higher than other good riders do) and by building more leg mass.
There is a lot of talk of the extra weight of a recumbent accounting for the poorer hill performance - a factor, but not an explanation - if the model I've suggested is right. - 203.59.191.106 (05:09, 2 March 2007)
I have another problem with this part: "On an upright bike, the maximum force a rider can exert on a pedal is a function of their own body weight and how hard they can pull up on the handlebars." In the clipless pedal age, this is irrelevant. Pushing the pedal is not the only means of turning the cranks, it's also possible to pull the pedal on the upstroke, and this applies to recumbents as much as uprights. Also, swinging the frame from one side to another is another means by which upright riders can invoke extra muscle groups to transmit more power. Recumbent riders, by pushing back against the seat, are surely doing the same thing by invoking the muscle groups in their back? -- Eamonnca1 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would think that this wiki page would be better served by discussing the safety implications of being involved in an automobile accident in a recumbent. While it's important to promote the pros of riding recumbent, it's a disservice to readers to not openly discuss the cons.
When a car hits an upright bicycle, generally the impact will be at the riders lower leg level, 2-3 feet below the riders centre of gravity. This will likely throw the rider up and over the vehicle. However on a recumbent bike, the impact will be at the riders legs, hip, and torso, directly at the centre of gravity. This will cause the rider to absorb more of the impact energy and there is a greater chance of being run over by the vehicle.
Further, it's a valid point to recognize that, with the head closer to the ground, there is less visibility over cars, bushes, newspaper boxes at intersections, etc... Temple 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I know of two stories reported to me where people have come off their recumbent. Each one was fearful of how much worse they'd have been if they had been on an upright bike. But this is an encyclopedia, it does not contain stories.
If you like userboxes (userboxen?), you can give recumbent riding some loooove with this one: Template:User bentcycling. - FlyingOrca 14:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me if I am dearly wrong but shouldn't that read 2.2 Health
The article seems very much like it was written from an apologetic standpoint in favor or recumbent bicycling--it refers to upright bicycles as wedgies instead of their traditional name, and in the disadvantage section even tries to explain away at least one quantitative disadvantage (price). There are also several non-encyclopedic phrases, especially the things that appear in parantheses "(Test ride... test ride... test ride...)" - Mance 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made some contributions to the existing injuy sections of the page. I noticed that mention of the "leg-suck" roll-over injury had been removed. I have reinserted it but freely admit that there may be no citable source for information about this type of injury. At most I can vouch as a participant on several recumbent discussion groups, that leg-suck is one of the most often described injury types effecting novice and experienced bent riders alike. The spiral femur fracture injury class which stood unchallenged in the article is much less common. Ironically, I have direct (unverifiable I know) knowledge of at least three cases of this devastating injury. While I am myself a bent fan, I would appreciate it if we could find a way to keep these safety warnings in the article while somehow meeting Wikipedia's verifyability standards. Both injury types come up in periodic discussions on the widely respected Bent Rider Online message forums.-- RZech 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Are recumbent bikes more difficult to ride over obstacles? On an upright bike you can lift the front wheel over obstacles and redistribute weight for the back wheel, or if you want to clear an obstacle at speed just bunny hop straight over it. I ride a lot around the city I live in and find I am always going up curbs, over ditches, over medium strips etc. Riding a recumbent bike would be very inconvenient for me.
Those darn Humans: File:Trial bent.jpg-- RZech 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the persons with the most knowledge in riding in urban environments would be messengers.... perhaps we could get one to comment on what bike is most appropriate for the urban riding, as they seem to do more riding in the major cities than anyone else.
ROBO
I removed an anonymous addition: "Recumbents are also harder for motorists to spot, making accidental collisions more likely; for this reason many recreational recumbents sport an easily-seen banner on a pole attached to the back (though this increases air resistance)."
This is unsourced. I know of no research basis for this, anecdotal evidence suggests that recumbents are sufficiently unusual that they get noticed very easily (the "wtf? factor"). That siad, as this is WP:OR I think we wait for a credible source first. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
A researcher in the UK found that traffic gave him a wider berth when he dressed as a woman wearing a wig. That study may supports the claim that the way you look influences how traffic in general flows around you. There is no doubt that in the mind of the general public, nearly everyone I meet says this to me "those low bikes look dangerous, someone might not notice you". I think its fair to mention that many people think this, it may be true but there is no clear study either way. Being so low does seem to result in accidents, at least its not hard to find someone report they were hit on the trike by someone who didn't see them. Also not mentioned is the difficulty of riding defensively if you have less information about where the traffic is moving.
There has to be some research that says as much. Common sense dictates it. I don't know about your locale, but in the major cities I've lived in (and in the city, not the suburbs) you will never see recumbents in bike lanes or in city traffic. Ezweave80 ( talk) 22:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Even though this is as unsupported as everything else, I have to chip in. Most recumbents are as high as or higher than children's bikes and this particular criticism is rarely made with children's bikes. I ride a low rider which indeed is quite low commuting 35km each way; I have never been overlooked. Still, this is anecdotal. Thniels ( talk) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"Handling. Because of its low center-of-gravity, the recumbent bicycle can handle sharper turns at greater speeds than a traditional upright bicycle."
Having a low CoG means you can change direction faster, because the mass has a lesser distance to move for a given amount of lean, but also adjustments will be less fine (all things being equal which they never are).
"Stability. Because of a lower center of gravity and a more aerodynamic design, recumbent bicycles enjoy greater stability than traditional upright bicycles. In addition, panniers can be mounted low, under the rider, which gives good handling and stability when loaded."
A longer wheel base brings stability, in that steering corrections more slowly alter that balance. Low racers have longer wheelbases than normal bikes. Bill Patterson's book Lord of the Chainring may be helpful resource. In fact, he might be enticed to help here. Is there a bicycle handling wiki page yet? - 124.168.109.248 05:29, 5 March 2007
I cleaned up some manufacturers from the External Links section. These shouldn't really be in a wikipedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not a commercial directory. One of them, "Red Rim cycles", has even added themselves back in almost immediately. Before this goes into an edit war, I think there should be concensus from other editors. Wikipedia:External links -- Vgedris 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The current article mentions
All unsourced, of course, and to which I would add:
On the other hand here are some citable points:
Anyone else have any data points that can be referenced? - AndrewDressel 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph mentions the land speed record for human powered vehicle, but no link or citation is given. There seems to be no pae for it on Wikipedia. stib 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Several editors have added the claim recently that recumbent riders can generate more pedal force by pushing against the seat back than upright riders. While this may sound obviously true (This doesn't need a citation. It's just simple physics. When you push against something, it pushes back.), reality is far more complicated, and this claim definitely needs a reference.
This is especially so since the one reference already cited in the Riding position section confirmed "that there was no significant difference in power output between recumbent and conventional bicycling." (Drela, 1998)
Reasons why this claim may be false or irrelevant include, but are not limited to:
Even recumbent competitors tend towards the extreme supine position, presumably giving up whatever advantage they could have from pressing against their seat back in favor of better aerodynamics. - AndrewDressel 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the entire section "Other" because:
-- Theosch 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the section regarding unique recumbent injuries as they are a discriptive part of the recumbent experience. I'm not certain what "too long" of a sentence is. Also reinstated is the section describing the debate about the use of clipless pedals on recumbents. Their widespread use among avid upright bicycle enthusiasts does not automatically transalte to the recumbent. Some mention of this difference seems instructional and appropriate. Raz711 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any. I hope a clear picture can be provided of the Steering Under Seat arrangement. Jim.henderson ( talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Safety A type of injury characteristic of recumbents called "leg suck" occurs when a foot touches the ground and the bike runs forward over the contact point, causing ligament damage and in some cases ankle fractures. The use of clipless pedal reduces this possibility by preventing the foot from slipping off of the pedal. But with clipless pedals, remaining clipped in during a front tire or wheel failure at high speeds can result in the recumbent rolling over the rider and taking a clipped in leg or legs with it. This scenario, although very rare, can create severe spiral fractures of the femur rarely seen with upright bicycles. Except for these injury classes, recumbents are generally considered safer than upright bicycles. Many upright bicycle accidents involve the rider going over the handlebars with resultant head injuries. Recumbent riders are less prone to these types of injuries."
There are systems which keep the feet in place on the pedals but also have a mechanism by which you can easily detach the feet if necessary. You can adjust the strength which is needed to relaese your feet and your feet will only detach from the pedals when you put the force in specific directions (to the side). So, as long as you are normally cycling the feet will stay on these pedals, when you have an accident then the feet will be released from the pedals.
Another big advantage is that you can generate a higher speed when you can also pull the pedal up in stead of only pushing the pedal down (racing bike vs. ordinary bike). Pieter pietersen ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Many newcomers to recumbents find that high racers are the most difficult recumbent to ride initially, due to the rider's stationary and high center of gravity and the bike's short wheelbase."
BikeZen.org ( talk) 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Constant position. While the riding position is comfortable and removes stress from the arms, it cannot easily be varied during a ride (as upright riders might stand for a hill)"
I rode my recumbent today, and I can shift around in the seat just fine. You put your weight on the pedals and your shoulders, and then shift your butt to where you want it. You can skooch around the seat no problem. 89.240.148.165 ( talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are reasons to adjust position, but at least some of them aren't going apply as much on a recument, if at all. Tired wrists wouldn't apply as much since much less pressure is applied (arms generally are weight bearing on recumbent). Sore sit bones are unlikely to occur due to different mechanics of the seat. Saddle chafe is unlikely to occur, again because of mechanics of the seat. Tired back is also less likely to occur since it is generally in a relaxed position on a recumbent. So why is this even a disadvantage if the reasons prompting a change in position aren't even valid on a recumbent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.139.34 ( talk) 08:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"Safety. Particularly with the lower designs, the recumbent bicycle's low center-of-gravity and short distance from the ground significantly reduce the consequences of a fall for the rider. It is also possible to cycle very close to the curb without risking a pedal-curb collision. A fall from a recumbent may be less harmful than from an upright bike due to the feet-first orientation ensuring that the rider never goes over the handlebars. The low center of gravity greatly increases braking and stopping capabilities."
1. While it can be argued that the energy at impact due solely to the fall will be less for a bike with a low CM, it says nothing about the orientation of the body upon impact and the damage done due to the impact at that orientation or the subsequent skid along the pavement at that orientation. Without an appropriate reference, which is currently lacking, this article cannot state anything about the consequences of a fall.
2. The feet-first orientation does not ensure that the rider never goes over the handlebars. The location of the rider with respect to the front wheel is the largest factor. SWB recumbents with the front wheel behind the feet may be just as likely to perform an endo or stoppie as an upright bike.
3. The low center of gravity does not guarantee any better braking or stopping capabilities. As noted above, endos are still possible. On the other hand, LWB recombents may skid the front tire under hard braking resulting in loss of directional control and balance.
- AndrewDressel ( talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is what Sheldon Brown had to say about recumbent safety: "Crash-worthiness
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/recumbents.html
Now Sheldon was "da man" so you aint allowed to argue with his opinion ;) As for a little original research, it is physically impossible for me to do an endo on my Short Wheelbase recumbent. I can fully lock the wheels at speed, and the most that has ever happened is doing a little "stoppie" where the back wheel lifts off the ground slightly. It is so weighted that it just falls right back down again. 78.148.165.71 ( talk) 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The little edit war between 75.156.75.40 and Thumperward caused me to take a look to see which version of English we should use, per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English The topic has no strong national ties to either, and the current article has
The original stub used "centre", but the current Bicycle article is in American English. At this point, I'd say the article "has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety." I suggest we alter the two British English words I can find to match the rest of the article. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow! PEHowland makes an edit based on what he freely describes as his own original research: as a recumbent owner this is definitely not the case.
He then dismisses the reference to Sheldon Brown's website, whose knowledge of bicycles The Times describes as encyclopaedic and who is cited by over 40 other Wikipedia articles, as an unsubstantiated blog instead.
Well, how about this by Gretchen Konrady, Group Health staff writer at Group Health Cooperative:
Or this by Paul K. Nolan, M.D. in Medical Benefits of Recumbent Bicycles reprinted from Recumbent Cyclist News at Cycle America:
Without any, let alone comparabale, real references to the contrary, the detail should remain. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the "advocates claims"/"critics counter" wording. Neither are really the best people to listen to. Best to listen are those who acknowledge that there are both advantages and disadvantages, and that both types are useful for different purposes and different people. And that different recumbent designs have different sets of advantages and disadvantages.
I guess it depends somewhat on whether the list of advantages is a complete list of anything people say, factual or false, or whether it's a list of verifiable facts. It seems like we should have the latter, in which case we don't need the "advocates/critics" in the intros of those sections. Ccrrccrr ( talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"A few recumbent bicycles use rear wheel steering, but these are typically less stable."
Half inch trail steering geometry should be mentioned. - 65.101.129.33 ( talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
re: disadvantges, starting and stopping in July 8 version. The article states "However, since starting a bicycle by pushing the feet against the ground is probably a poor way to start,[23] this criticism may invalidate itself.[citation needed]" but the cited reference does not support the statement. the reference instead says that pushing off with one foot on a low pedal is a poor way to start. The embedded video at the reference shows the correct way to start as pushing off with one foot on a higher pedal. I'm changing the sentence to agree with the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.129.149.223 ( talk) 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Quote from current text: "The recommended way to start an upright bicycle is by pushing off with one foot on the ground, and one foot on a high pedal. (...) Recumbents cannot be started with this recommended upright bicycle technique." What? This is exactly how I start on recumbents. Other ways are quite hard. For example, the "shuffle-start" technique which many use on uprights, is difficult or impossible on recumbents. Please explain better what is meant, or edit to improve. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be describing some kind of steering mechanism, but it is not very clear and completely unreferenced, so I've moved it here. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
In the recumbents vs uprights comparisons, this article seems biased and in addition to that only considering the uprights on wich the cyclist bends forward. The city bikes that are the standard in the netherlands, have strengths and weaknesses that are verry different than upright racing bikes. They are designed for use as transportation, not sport. Safety, comfort and manueverability are considerately better than the ones designed for high speeds. I don´t have any references, but to me it seems by far the safest option for use in traffic. Because the cyclist truly sits upright, visibility and the ability to see your surroundings is optimal. Combined with better manueverability, this greatly reduces the risk of an accident occuring in the first place. Falling head down is less likely, and its also a better position to be in when you whant to hop off your bike during an incident. In my twenty years of cycling daily through the towns and cities i lived in i have experienced some incidents, and in all of them i would have been in a worse situation if it had occured while driving recumbent. Recumbent bikes are ideal for high speed long distance travel, but not the safest. Unless you ride a nearly upright recumbent bike, wich close to a city bike with extra back support. If you want to compare things, be clear what you are comparing with what. Comparing cats and dogs changes when you include lions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.66.29 ( talk) 19:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have moved the following item here until it can be reliably sourced:
"leaning into the corner" is exactly that: Leaning your (upper) body into the turn. A tilting trike is not required for this. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The above quote is from the first sentence of the 'Performance' section. The reference provided does not support the claim. To the contrary, the reference provided suggests that it is far more common in long distance contests for upright bicycles to capture the win. That sentence needs to be changed because it is misleading. It goes toward the fairly obvious slant over most of the article towards painting recumbent bicycles as superior performance machines. The fact remains that over long distances and on courses incorporating uphill sections, recumbent bikes do not compare favorably to upright bicycles. 70.171.44.124 ( talk) 09:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)BGriffin
"...it is far more common in long distance contests for upright bicycles to capture the win" Maybe because there are a lot more upright bicycles participating? Just a guess. Anyway, the reference seems to no longer say what it did when it was added, I see nothing about recumbents there now. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"The fact remains that over long distances and on courses incorporating uphill sections, recumbent bikes do not compare favorably to upright bicycles." Citation needed, implausible claim. Maybe not for long uphills, but for long distances in general it makes sense that the ergonomics and aerodynamics favour recumbents. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"Because of the supine position, some recumbents do not allow the rider to push forward with both feet on the ground." Who starts a bike like this, with BOTH feet on the ground? Apart from pedal-less kids running bikes, I have never seen a bike started that way. For an upright bike it would require an extremely low saddle. Seems nonsensical, should be sourced better or removed.
"The recommended way to start an upright bicycle is by pushing off with one foot on the ground, and one foot on a high pedal. (...) Recumbents cannot be started with this recommended upright bicycle technique." This is exactly how I start recumbents. I'll remove that claim if it is not explained or sourced better.
"Starting a recumbent does not require great strength; it is a matter of balance and a skill which must be learned. It is best to learn from an experienced rider, who can help with a little push at first. Several rides may suffice to become confident enough of one's starting and stopping skills before becoming ready to ride in traffic or perform uphill starts." While I agree with what is said, this defence section seems misplaced here. I suggest to remove it, to keep the whole list shorter (easier to read). Gunnstein ( talk) 11:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen high and low racers used all 3 ways in the article (and in the talk page). We should probably consolidate on one standard. It seems most of the time it is written as one un-hyphenated word, even though that is flagged by my spell-checker. Nerfer ( talk) 18:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The advantage/disadvantage section is rather wordy and a bit redundant and full of exceptions for recumbent trikes vs bikes as well. I made a table in my sandbox that can replace all that, I kept most of the text except to make it fit better where a section was merged or separated (for instance, adv and disadv sections both have "safety" bullet points, along with other bullet points on leg suck, falling, genital-urinary issues, etc. so I distributed the safety parts to the more specific points). There were two, what I considered somewhat controversial, statements that were tagged with citation needed, I deleted them, but I did keep another citation needed sentence that I felt was worthwhile.
The result, I think is visually better, although it can be harder to edit (I had to learn how tables worked, and putting citations in it can lead to some confusion over what '|' character means what). Check it out in my sandbox and let me know what you think. If I don't hear objections, I'll move it into the article (and then probably will hear objections from people not monitoring the talk page :-) ) Nerfer ( talk) 18:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Fed and non-fed/unfed recumbent bicycle? 176.222.44.103 ( talk) 21:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A picture would be helpful. - Frecklefoot
Isn't it possible to exert more force while peddling a recumbent bike, as you are able to brace against the seat, whereas in a normal bike the force you exert can never be greater than your weight? --Neil
I noticed a discrepancy betweent this page and the bike page. The bike page quotes a much higher speed record for a rcubet bicycle set by a Canadian. I don't know enough to determine who is right but maybe the discrepancy should be addressed? -- Fred
Recumbent bikes sound cool! - a guy
Expanded a bit, removed some probable vandalism, structured a bit. More needed on recumbent culture (and, IMO, on the competition scene) Just zis Guy, you know? 12:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] RecumbentReCycler ( talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I am working on expanding the History section; I will also incorporate some more info from Gunnar Fehlau's "The Recumbent Bicycle" which is a pretty good authority. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I am post polio with strong upper arms but weak legs in need of exercise. I simply need a low cost multispeed ratio to allow both leg and armpropulsion. Is there any available?? jbaum12@msn.com
82.143.162.72 11:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC) There are references to the 'disadvantage' of not being able to stand when going up hill. Should there be something in these sections that mentions that it is not energy-efficient to stand when riding an upright? Try doing it when there is snow on the ground and you will feel how little of your pedalling is turned into forward movement and how much is turned into wheel-spin.
See the reference in the cycling page to comparative studies on standing vs sitting techniques - more power standing, just as efficient. Standing also move weight off the rear wheel onto the front, and may produce a more pulsing power stroke unless you have pretty good technique. -- 203.59.191.106 (05:09, 2 March 2007)
There is a lot of nonsense going about on 'pushing harder against the seat back' than is possible when 'pushing against gravity'. At a 60 or higher cadence, you are not going to push your weight up into the air as you pedal an upright. You will alleviate a little of the weight that is on the saddle is all. - 203.59.191.106 (05:09, 2 March 2007)
Witness the lack of verticle movement as a road bike rider passes by. Standing up on the pedals does not alter the gravity effect, but allows you to pass some of the pushing effort from the leg alone over to the rest of the body, which it does by rocking the hips slightly to aid the stoke and reduce the legnth of the stroke as experienced by the leg so the knee is less bent at the apex of each stroke and is postioned to handle the extra power.
If you see that logic, then you also understand why new bent riders struggle uphills. It also explains the trend to shorter cranks. Its because the upper body is isolated and cannot be invoked as it can on an upright bike. Bent riders compensate by spining higher (although not higher than other good riders do) and by building more leg mass.
There is a lot of talk of the extra weight of a recumbent accounting for the poorer hill performance - a factor, but not an explanation - if the model I've suggested is right. - 203.59.191.106 (05:09, 2 March 2007)
I have another problem with this part: "On an upright bike, the maximum force a rider can exert on a pedal is a function of their own body weight and how hard they can pull up on the handlebars." In the clipless pedal age, this is irrelevant. Pushing the pedal is not the only means of turning the cranks, it's also possible to pull the pedal on the upstroke, and this applies to recumbents as much as uprights. Also, swinging the frame from one side to another is another means by which upright riders can invoke extra muscle groups to transmit more power. Recumbent riders, by pushing back against the seat, are surely doing the same thing by invoking the muscle groups in their back? -- Eamonnca1 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would think that this wiki page would be better served by discussing the safety implications of being involved in an automobile accident in a recumbent. While it's important to promote the pros of riding recumbent, it's a disservice to readers to not openly discuss the cons.
When a car hits an upright bicycle, generally the impact will be at the riders lower leg level, 2-3 feet below the riders centre of gravity. This will likely throw the rider up and over the vehicle. However on a recumbent bike, the impact will be at the riders legs, hip, and torso, directly at the centre of gravity. This will cause the rider to absorb more of the impact energy and there is a greater chance of being run over by the vehicle.
Further, it's a valid point to recognize that, with the head closer to the ground, there is less visibility over cars, bushes, newspaper boxes at intersections, etc... Temple 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I know of two stories reported to me where people have come off their recumbent. Each one was fearful of how much worse they'd have been if they had been on an upright bike. But this is an encyclopedia, it does not contain stories.
If you like userboxes (userboxen?), you can give recumbent riding some loooove with this one: Template:User bentcycling. - FlyingOrca 14:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me if I am dearly wrong but shouldn't that read 2.2 Health
The article seems very much like it was written from an apologetic standpoint in favor or recumbent bicycling--it refers to upright bicycles as wedgies instead of their traditional name, and in the disadvantage section even tries to explain away at least one quantitative disadvantage (price). There are also several non-encyclopedic phrases, especially the things that appear in parantheses "(Test ride... test ride... test ride...)" - Mance 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made some contributions to the existing injuy sections of the page. I noticed that mention of the "leg-suck" roll-over injury had been removed. I have reinserted it but freely admit that there may be no citable source for information about this type of injury. At most I can vouch as a participant on several recumbent discussion groups, that leg-suck is one of the most often described injury types effecting novice and experienced bent riders alike. The spiral femur fracture injury class which stood unchallenged in the article is much less common. Ironically, I have direct (unverifiable I know) knowledge of at least three cases of this devastating injury. While I am myself a bent fan, I would appreciate it if we could find a way to keep these safety warnings in the article while somehow meeting Wikipedia's verifyability standards. Both injury types come up in periodic discussions on the widely respected Bent Rider Online message forums.-- RZech 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Are recumbent bikes more difficult to ride over obstacles? On an upright bike you can lift the front wheel over obstacles and redistribute weight for the back wheel, or if you want to clear an obstacle at speed just bunny hop straight over it. I ride a lot around the city I live in and find I am always going up curbs, over ditches, over medium strips etc. Riding a recumbent bike would be very inconvenient for me.
Those darn Humans: File:Trial bent.jpg-- RZech 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the persons with the most knowledge in riding in urban environments would be messengers.... perhaps we could get one to comment on what bike is most appropriate for the urban riding, as they seem to do more riding in the major cities than anyone else.
ROBO
I removed an anonymous addition: "Recumbents are also harder for motorists to spot, making accidental collisions more likely; for this reason many recreational recumbents sport an easily-seen banner on a pole attached to the back (though this increases air resistance)."
This is unsourced. I know of no research basis for this, anecdotal evidence suggests that recumbents are sufficiently unusual that they get noticed very easily (the "wtf? factor"). That siad, as this is WP:OR I think we wait for a credible source first. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
A researcher in the UK found that traffic gave him a wider berth when he dressed as a woman wearing a wig. That study may supports the claim that the way you look influences how traffic in general flows around you. There is no doubt that in the mind of the general public, nearly everyone I meet says this to me "those low bikes look dangerous, someone might not notice you". I think its fair to mention that many people think this, it may be true but there is no clear study either way. Being so low does seem to result in accidents, at least its not hard to find someone report they were hit on the trike by someone who didn't see them. Also not mentioned is the difficulty of riding defensively if you have less information about where the traffic is moving.
There has to be some research that says as much. Common sense dictates it. I don't know about your locale, but in the major cities I've lived in (and in the city, not the suburbs) you will never see recumbents in bike lanes or in city traffic. Ezweave80 ( talk) 22:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Even though this is as unsupported as everything else, I have to chip in. Most recumbents are as high as or higher than children's bikes and this particular criticism is rarely made with children's bikes. I ride a low rider which indeed is quite low commuting 35km each way; I have never been overlooked. Still, this is anecdotal. Thniels ( talk) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"Handling. Because of its low center-of-gravity, the recumbent bicycle can handle sharper turns at greater speeds than a traditional upright bicycle."
Having a low CoG means you can change direction faster, because the mass has a lesser distance to move for a given amount of lean, but also adjustments will be less fine (all things being equal which they never are).
"Stability. Because of a lower center of gravity and a more aerodynamic design, recumbent bicycles enjoy greater stability than traditional upright bicycles. In addition, panniers can be mounted low, under the rider, which gives good handling and stability when loaded."
A longer wheel base brings stability, in that steering corrections more slowly alter that balance. Low racers have longer wheelbases than normal bikes. Bill Patterson's book Lord of the Chainring may be helpful resource. In fact, he might be enticed to help here. Is there a bicycle handling wiki page yet? - 124.168.109.248 05:29, 5 March 2007
I cleaned up some manufacturers from the External Links section. These shouldn't really be in a wikipedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not a commercial directory. One of them, "Red Rim cycles", has even added themselves back in almost immediately. Before this goes into an edit war, I think there should be concensus from other editors. Wikipedia:External links -- Vgedris 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The current article mentions
All unsourced, of course, and to which I would add:
On the other hand here are some citable points:
Anyone else have any data points that can be referenced? - AndrewDressel 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph mentions the land speed record for human powered vehicle, but no link or citation is given. There seems to be no pae for it on Wikipedia. stib 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Several editors have added the claim recently that recumbent riders can generate more pedal force by pushing against the seat back than upright riders. While this may sound obviously true (This doesn't need a citation. It's just simple physics. When you push against something, it pushes back.), reality is far more complicated, and this claim definitely needs a reference.
This is especially so since the one reference already cited in the Riding position section confirmed "that there was no significant difference in power output between recumbent and conventional bicycling." (Drela, 1998)
Reasons why this claim may be false or irrelevant include, but are not limited to:
Even recumbent competitors tend towards the extreme supine position, presumably giving up whatever advantage they could have from pressing against their seat back in favor of better aerodynamics. - AndrewDressel 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the entire section "Other" because:
-- Theosch 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the section regarding unique recumbent injuries as they are a discriptive part of the recumbent experience. I'm not certain what "too long" of a sentence is. Also reinstated is the section describing the debate about the use of clipless pedals on recumbents. Their widespread use among avid upright bicycle enthusiasts does not automatically transalte to the recumbent. Some mention of this difference seems instructional and appropriate. Raz711 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any. I hope a clear picture can be provided of the Steering Under Seat arrangement. Jim.henderson ( talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Safety A type of injury characteristic of recumbents called "leg suck" occurs when a foot touches the ground and the bike runs forward over the contact point, causing ligament damage and in some cases ankle fractures. The use of clipless pedal reduces this possibility by preventing the foot from slipping off of the pedal. But with clipless pedals, remaining clipped in during a front tire or wheel failure at high speeds can result in the recumbent rolling over the rider and taking a clipped in leg or legs with it. This scenario, although very rare, can create severe spiral fractures of the femur rarely seen with upright bicycles. Except for these injury classes, recumbents are generally considered safer than upright bicycles. Many upright bicycle accidents involve the rider going over the handlebars with resultant head injuries. Recumbent riders are less prone to these types of injuries."
There are systems which keep the feet in place on the pedals but also have a mechanism by which you can easily detach the feet if necessary. You can adjust the strength which is needed to relaese your feet and your feet will only detach from the pedals when you put the force in specific directions (to the side). So, as long as you are normally cycling the feet will stay on these pedals, when you have an accident then the feet will be released from the pedals.
Another big advantage is that you can generate a higher speed when you can also pull the pedal up in stead of only pushing the pedal down (racing bike vs. ordinary bike). Pieter pietersen ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Many newcomers to recumbents find that high racers are the most difficult recumbent to ride initially, due to the rider's stationary and high center of gravity and the bike's short wheelbase."
BikeZen.org ( talk) 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Constant position. While the riding position is comfortable and removes stress from the arms, it cannot easily be varied during a ride (as upright riders might stand for a hill)"
I rode my recumbent today, and I can shift around in the seat just fine. You put your weight on the pedals and your shoulders, and then shift your butt to where you want it. You can skooch around the seat no problem. 89.240.148.165 ( talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are reasons to adjust position, but at least some of them aren't going apply as much on a recument, if at all. Tired wrists wouldn't apply as much since much less pressure is applied (arms generally are weight bearing on recumbent). Sore sit bones are unlikely to occur due to different mechanics of the seat. Saddle chafe is unlikely to occur, again because of mechanics of the seat. Tired back is also less likely to occur since it is generally in a relaxed position on a recumbent. So why is this even a disadvantage if the reasons prompting a change in position aren't even valid on a recumbent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.139.34 ( talk) 08:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"Safety. Particularly with the lower designs, the recumbent bicycle's low center-of-gravity and short distance from the ground significantly reduce the consequences of a fall for the rider. It is also possible to cycle very close to the curb without risking a pedal-curb collision. A fall from a recumbent may be less harmful than from an upright bike due to the feet-first orientation ensuring that the rider never goes over the handlebars. The low center of gravity greatly increases braking and stopping capabilities."
1. While it can be argued that the energy at impact due solely to the fall will be less for a bike with a low CM, it says nothing about the orientation of the body upon impact and the damage done due to the impact at that orientation or the subsequent skid along the pavement at that orientation. Without an appropriate reference, which is currently lacking, this article cannot state anything about the consequences of a fall.
2. The feet-first orientation does not ensure that the rider never goes over the handlebars. The location of the rider with respect to the front wheel is the largest factor. SWB recumbents with the front wheel behind the feet may be just as likely to perform an endo or stoppie as an upright bike.
3. The low center of gravity does not guarantee any better braking or stopping capabilities. As noted above, endos are still possible. On the other hand, LWB recombents may skid the front tire under hard braking resulting in loss of directional control and balance.
- AndrewDressel ( talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is what Sheldon Brown had to say about recumbent safety: "Crash-worthiness
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/recumbents.html
Now Sheldon was "da man" so you aint allowed to argue with his opinion ;) As for a little original research, it is physically impossible for me to do an endo on my Short Wheelbase recumbent. I can fully lock the wheels at speed, and the most that has ever happened is doing a little "stoppie" where the back wheel lifts off the ground slightly. It is so weighted that it just falls right back down again. 78.148.165.71 ( talk) 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The little edit war between 75.156.75.40 and Thumperward caused me to take a look to see which version of English we should use, per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English The topic has no strong national ties to either, and the current article has
The original stub used "centre", but the current Bicycle article is in American English. At this point, I'd say the article "has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety." I suggest we alter the two British English words I can find to match the rest of the article. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow! PEHowland makes an edit based on what he freely describes as his own original research: as a recumbent owner this is definitely not the case.
He then dismisses the reference to Sheldon Brown's website, whose knowledge of bicycles The Times describes as encyclopaedic and who is cited by over 40 other Wikipedia articles, as an unsubstantiated blog instead.
Well, how about this by Gretchen Konrady, Group Health staff writer at Group Health Cooperative:
Or this by Paul K. Nolan, M.D. in Medical Benefits of Recumbent Bicycles reprinted from Recumbent Cyclist News at Cycle America:
Without any, let alone comparabale, real references to the contrary, the detail should remain. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the "advocates claims"/"critics counter" wording. Neither are really the best people to listen to. Best to listen are those who acknowledge that there are both advantages and disadvantages, and that both types are useful for different purposes and different people. And that different recumbent designs have different sets of advantages and disadvantages.
I guess it depends somewhat on whether the list of advantages is a complete list of anything people say, factual or false, or whether it's a list of verifiable facts. It seems like we should have the latter, in which case we don't need the "advocates/critics" in the intros of those sections. Ccrrccrr ( talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"A few recumbent bicycles use rear wheel steering, but these are typically less stable."
Half inch trail steering geometry should be mentioned. - 65.101.129.33 ( talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
re: disadvantges, starting and stopping in July 8 version. The article states "However, since starting a bicycle by pushing the feet against the ground is probably a poor way to start,[23] this criticism may invalidate itself.[citation needed]" but the cited reference does not support the statement. the reference instead says that pushing off with one foot on a low pedal is a poor way to start. The embedded video at the reference shows the correct way to start as pushing off with one foot on a higher pedal. I'm changing the sentence to agree with the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.129.149.223 ( talk) 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Quote from current text: "The recommended way to start an upright bicycle is by pushing off with one foot on the ground, and one foot on a high pedal. (...) Recumbents cannot be started with this recommended upright bicycle technique." What? This is exactly how I start on recumbents. Other ways are quite hard. For example, the "shuffle-start" technique which many use on uprights, is difficult or impossible on recumbents. Please explain better what is meant, or edit to improve. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be describing some kind of steering mechanism, but it is not very clear and completely unreferenced, so I've moved it here. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
In the recumbents vs uprights comparisons, this article seems biased and in addition to that only considering the uprights on wich the cyclist bends forward. The city bikes that are the standard in the netherlands, have strengths and weaknesses that are verry different than upright racing bikes. They are designed for use as transportation, not sport. Safety, comfort and manueverability are considerately better than the ones designed for high speeds. I don´t have any references, but to me it seems by far the safest option for use in traffic. Because the cyclist truly sits upright, visibility and the ability to see your surroundings is optimal. Combined with better manueverability, this greatly reduces the risk of an accident occuring in the first place. Falling head down is less likely, and its also a better position to be in when you whant to hop off your bike during an incident. In my twenty years of cycling daily through the towns and cities i lived in i have experienced some incidents, and in all of them i would have been in a worse situation if it had occured while driving recumbent. Recumbent bikes are ideal for high speed long distance travel, but not the safest. Unless you ride a nearly upright recumbent bike, wich close to a city bike with extra back support. If you want to compare things, be clear what you are comparing with what. Comparing cats and dogs changes when you include lions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.66.29 ( talk) 19:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have moved the following item here until it can be reliably sourced:
"leaning into the corner" is exactly that: Leaning your (upper) body into the turn. A tilting trike is not required for this. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The above quote is from the first sentence of the 'Performance' section. The reference provided does not support the claim. To the contrary, the reference provided suggests that it is far more common in long distance contests for upright bicycles to capture the win. That sentence needs to be changed because it is misleading. It goes toward the fairly obvious slant over most of the article towards painting recumbent bicycles as superior performance machines. The fact remains that over long distances and on courses incorporating uphill sections, recumbent bikes do not compare favorably to upright bicycles. 70.171.44.124 ( talk) 09:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)BGriffin
"...it is far more common in long distance contests for upright bicycles to capture the win" Maybe because there are a lot more upright bicycles participating? Just a guess. Anyway, the reference seems to no longer say what it did when it was added, I see nothing about recumbents there now. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"The fact remains that over long distances and on courses incorporating uphill sections, recumbent bikes do not compare favorably to upright bicycles." Citation needed, implausible claim. Maybe not for long uphills, but for long distances in general it makes sense that the ergonomics and aerodynamics favour recumbents. Gunnstein ( talk) 11:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"Because of the supine position, some recumbents do not allow the rider to push forward with both feet on the ground." Who starts a bike like this, with BOTH feet on the ground? Apart from pedal-less kids running bikes, I have never seen a bike started that way. For an upright bike it would require an extremely low saddle. Seems nonsensical, should be sourced better or removed.
"The recommended way to start an upright bicycle is by pushing off with one foot on the ground, and one foot on a high pedal. (...) Recumbents cannot be started with this recommended upright bicycle technique." This is exactly how I start recumbents. I'll remove that claim if it is not explained or sourced better.
"Starting a recumbent does not require great strength; it is a matter of balance and a skill which must be learned. It is best to learn from an experienced rider, who can help with a little push at first. Several rides may suffice to become confident enough of one's starting and stopping skills before becoming ready to ride in traffic or perform uphill starts." While I agree with what is said, this defence section seems misplaced here. I suggest to remove it, to keep the whole list shorter (easier to read). Gunnstein ( talk) 11:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen high and low racers used all 3 ways in the article (and in the talk page). We should probably consolidate on one standard. It seems most of the time it is written as one un-hyphenated word, even though that is flagged by my spell-checker. Nerfer ( talk) 18:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The advantage/disadvantage section is rather wordy and a bit redundant and full of exceptions for recumbent trikes vs bikes as well. I made a table in my sandbox that can replace all that, I kept most of the text except to make it fit better where a section was merged or separated (for instance, adv and disadv sections both have "safety" bullet points, along with other bullet points on leg suck, falling, genital-urinary issues, etc. so I distributed the safety parts to the more specific points). There were two, what I considered somewhat controversial, statements that were tagged with citation needed, I deleted them, but I did keep another citation needed sentence that I felt was worthwhile.
The result, I think is visually better, although it can be harder to edit (I had to learn how tables worked, and putting citations in it can lead to some confusion over what '|' character means what). Check it out in my sandbox and let me know what you think. If I don't hear objections, I'll move it into the article (and then probably will hear objections from people not monitoring the talk page :-) ) Nerfer ( talk) 18:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Fed and non-fed/unfed recumbent bicycle? 176.222.44.103 ( talk) 21:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)