7 ms·

In 100 years will we wonder why recumbent bicycles took so long to catch on? MIT's David Gordon Wilson, the writer of the excellent book Bicycling Science, had

In 100 years will we wonder why recumbent bicycles took so long to catch on? MIT's David Gordon Wilson, the writer of the excellent book Bicycling Science, had been advocating for recumbents as a more efficient design to replace traditional modern bicycles for decades. http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-designer-inventor-author-bike-bible-david-gordon-wilson-on-bicycles-0725 http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-designer-inventor-author-bike-b... and https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/bicycling-science-third-edition https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/bicycling-science-third-editi...

davesmith1983 7y ago
I've ridden many different types of bicycle from fixed gears, single speed mountain bikes and more traditional mountain bikes and racing bikes. Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. Yes they are maybe more efficient but they are not pleasant to ride. TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technology. Almost all improvements now are iterative. Also more modern materials (carbon fibre, aluminium) are either expensive, brittle (carbon fibre is easily damaged in a crash) or both. A lot of riders (especially the fixed crowd) have a saying of "Steel is Real", frames are normally cheap, easy to come by and even after crashes easily repaired (you can just bend it back most of the time). The same can be said about many of the more modern gearing systems. Anything past 2 up front, 8 speed at the back is again typically more expensive to fix, parts are less easy to come by and is prone to failure. Shimano's hub gears need regular maintenance where traditional derailleur setup will go on for thousands of miles with only basic maintenance. Maintenance on a derailleur system is typically cleaning (fairy liquid is fine) and using cheap lubrication that can be bought for a few pounds/dollars will suffice in most cases.
- UI_at_80x24 7y ago
  >Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. I disagree. Some of them certainly are 'below eye level', but that is an awfully broad criticism of the group as a whole. I ride a LongBike Slipstream. The length of the bike is LONGER then a Smart Fortwo. I sit eye-level with almost every sedan I've encountered. SUV's and raised pickup trucks are indeed above my eye-level, but sporty cars are usually below it. I usually get exceptional room allotted to me by other drivers when I'm on the road. The exception being assholes, but luckily the are the exception and not the rule. >TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technology. Almost all improvements now are iterative. "Efficient enough" ? All of the land-speed records for human-powered vehicles are held by recumbents. http://www.ihpva.org/home/ http://www.ihpva.org/home/ It's ok if you don't like them. But please don't pass off your opinion as fact.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    > "Efficient enough" ? All of the land-speed records for human-powered vehicles are held by recumbents. http://www.ihpva.org/home/ http://www.ihpva.org/home/ I am not trying to break the land speed record on the way to work. I just want to get there in one piece. The point I was making is just because something is on paper technically better there are other considerations, for someone that commutes regularly being able to go to the local bicycle shop and pick up a spare whatever is more important to me than any perceived efficiencies. I own a fixed gear with some rather fancy kit on it. Despite the simplicity of the bike, getting replacement parts requires me having to order things online. The cheap 1990s Marin Hawk Hill mountain bike I cycle to work on, I can literally get parts for it anywhere and an be fixed with a set of allen keys and a spanner.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > The length of the bike is LONGER then a Smart Fortwo Yes, and that's another big disadvantage. One of the criticisms against cars is that they waste a lot of space, but recumbent bikes reduce that advantage. Bicycle lanes can get quite packed already.
- lmm 7y ago
  > Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) Depends on the recumbent. Mine (an Azub Six) isn't - I commute through London on it every day. And cities are (slowly) getting better at keeping traffic out of the way. > and the handling is atrocious. How so? You have to take a different line through corners, but you turn later (front wheel is further back) so it's if anything easier to go through the kind of right-angle turns that are expected in cities. > Yes they are maybe more efficient but they are not pleasant to ride. That's the opposite of my experience - upright bikes put so much weight on the wrists and, uh, taint, that they simply can't be pleasant for any length of time (particularly for those of us of an, ah, less athletic physique). A certain proportion of the population is able to sit comfortably on a traditional bike saddle, but many people aren't. As scooters and e-bikes open up more of an on-ramp into cycling for a wider demographic, I'd expect more and more people to find that saddles aren't working for them. > Shimano's hub gears need regular maintenance where traditional derailleur setup will go on for thousands of miles with only basic maintenance. Maintenance on a derailleur system is typically cleaning (fairy liquid is fine) and using cheap lubrication that can be bought for a few pounds/dollars will suffice in most cases. Ordinary consumers aren't up to even basic maintenance - cars went through the very same progression, in the '50s or '60s it was normal for a car to require basic maintenance by its owner. Low-maintenance hub gears will continue to get cheaper (an expensive model like the Rohloff already goes for thousands of kms without maintenance) and commuter bikes are increasingly switching. I'm sure that racing bikes for enthusiasts will use derailleurs for many years to come, but for commuters who just want to get to work the hub gears are already taking over.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    > Depends on the recumbent. Mine (an Azub Six) isn't - I commute through London on it every day. And cities are (slowly) getting better at keeping traffic out of the way. I cycle through through and around traffic. I don't keep myself out of traffic I am part of it. I personally hate being in a cycle lane, because I know that many other cyclists normally aren't paying attention, don't know how to ride (they never check over the shoulder, poor handling skills etc). Also separating cars from cyclists just make car drivers less aware that cyclists exist. Not everywhere has cycle lanes. Then again I don't live in London which has to be now the worst city in the UK. > How so? You have to take a different line through corners, but you turn later (front wheel is further back) so it's if anything easier to go through the kind of right-angle turns that are expected in cities. Handling isn't just about going round corners. I can track stand at lights, ride down stairs and going round a 90 degree bend is easy. I can almost turn in the bicycles own circle on my old mountain bike. If I need to bail of the bike, I can just drop the bike and roll off. > That's the opposite of my experience - upright bikes put so much weight on the wrists and, uh, taint, that they simply can't be pleasant for any length of time (particularly for those of us of an, ah, less athletic physique). A certain proportion of the population is able to sit comfortably on a traditional bike saddle, but many people aren't. As scooters and e-bikes open up more of an on-ramp into cycling for a wider demographic, I'd expect more and more people to find that saddles aren't working for them. You need to get the right saddle and yeh if you try riding 60 odd miles on a new saddle and you don't cycle regularly you are going to have a bad time. It would be like trying to run a marathon in a pair of new trainers, not a good idea. As for cycling putting pressure on wrists or too much weight on your arse then the bike probably isn't the right size. As for the wider demographic. I don care what they do. There was a fad in the late 90s early 2000s for mountain bikes, mountain bikes are rubbish on road unless you kit them out with touring tyres, there is simply too much road drag. Also suspension looks flashy but is pointless on a tarmac road. A lot of people follow fads. I don't. > Ordinary consumers aren't up to even basic maintenance - cars went through the very same progression, in the '50s or '60s it was normal for a car to require basic maintenance by its owner. Low-maintenance hub gears will continue to get cheaper (an expensive model like the Rohloff already goes for thousands of kms without maintenance) and commuter bikes are increasingly switching. I'm sure that racing bikes for enthusiasts will use derailleurs for many years to come, but for commuters who just want to get to work the hub gears are already taking over. It is still simpler to repair derailleur setup than any hub. Any bike ship can fix your derailleur gears (unless it is a BMX shop). I doubt the same is true about hubs. Also derailleur gears will work still without maintenance, almost none for years on end. Modern 8 or 9 speed chain is very reliable. Hubs normally require specialised tooling parts and are always more prone to failure due to the nature of a hub. The only hubs that do work well are the really old sturmy archer hubs because they are again much more mechanically simple than anything else.
- kolme 7y ago
  > Shimano's hub gears need regular maintenance where traditional derailleur setup will go on for thousands of miles with only basic maintenance. I think you got that bit wrong: you have to clean and change parts more often with derailleur systems (the teeth for example erode much quicker). Insurances for hub systems bikes are cheaper because of this reason, at least where I am in Germany. Not a bike expert but I happen to have a hub-geared bike with an insurance and I was told that by the insurance guy.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Steltek 7y ago
  > Almost all improvements now are iterative. Improvements are directed to where the money goes. UCI racing rules hold back experimentation outside of concept bikes. E-bikes may have broken the dam open and we'll start to see a lot of interesting things come out in that direction.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    This is another silly argument, the UCI doesn't regulate bicycles sold in the shops. I can (in theory because the bike will cost as much as a good second hand car) go to the boutique bike shop and get a bicycle with all sorts of fancy electronic shifters, carbon fibre frame that is under 6kg. Those bikes are lighter than the bikes in the tour de france. The fact of the matter is that the current design is near optimal and other designs aren't as well understood, aren't as cheap to make (it is three triangles made out of tubes stuck together with a fork shape at the front) and normally have some horrendous downside.
giobox 7y ago
While efficient conversion of rider input to forward motion is obviously important in bicycles, it’s not the only attribute that matters. Recumbent bikes make efficiency gains here in some riding scenarios at the cost of a great many other attributes, which is why they have never really caught on. Also, they are really hard for young people to pop wheelies on, and that’s important too :)
UI_at_80x24 7y ago
As a bent rider myself, I too am baffled. In my mind from the very first instant I saw one (late 1970's or early 80's Dick Ryan was interviewed on broadcast TV [likely as a novelty] and I was captivated. My child mind saw this as 'proper evolution' and I had to have one. Here's a great summary of the history of the recumbent bike: https://www.lightningbikes.com/riders/martin-krieg/recumbent-history/index.html https://www.lightningbikes.com/riders/martin-krieg/recumbent... Some people are intimidated by change, others are energized by challenging the status quo. Those will always be my heroes.
icebraining 7y ago
First mover advantage? Upright bikes are everywhere, and I could easily find one to learn, plus they're cheap. Recumbent simply don't offer enough perceived advantage to justify the investment to even try one out.
GhostVII 7y ago
I don't think I would ever regularly use a recumbent bicycle, since you don't seem to have as much control over the bike than with a traditional one. You can't jump a curb or swerve around parked cars very easily on a recumbent. Also it's nice to be over top of the bike so you can easily jump off or redistribute your weight whenever you have to.
lazyjones 7y ago
> In 100 years will we wonder why recumbent bicycles took so long to catch on? In 100 years, most likely only crazy hipsters will know what a bicycle is because everything will be electrified. E-Scooters will eradicate bicycles for most uses in the next 10 years or so.
- ashtonbaker 7y ago
  > E-Scooters will eradicate bicycles for most uses in the next 10 years or so. That seems completely non-obvious to me. For starters, will Bird et al even continue to exist for 10 years? And even if they do, why would they replace un-electrified bicycles, which have a number of advantages?

davesmith1983 7y ago

I've ridden many different types of bicycle from fixed gears, single speed mountain bikes and more traditional mountain bikes and racing bikes. Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. Yes they are maybe more efficient but they are not pleasant to ride. TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technology. Almost all improvements now are iterative. Also more modern materials (carbon fibre, aluminium) are either expensive, brittle (carbon fibre is easily damaged in a crash) or both. A lot of riders (especially the fixed crowd) have a saying of "Steel is Real", frames are normally cheap, easy to come by and even after crashes easily repaired (you can just bend it back most of the time). The same can be said about many of the more modern gearing systems. Anything past 2 up front, 8 speed at the back is again typically more expensive to fix, parts are less easy to come by and is prone to failure. Shimano's hub gears need regular maintenance where traditional derailleur setup will go on for thousands of miles with only basic maintenance. Maintenance on a derailleur system is typically cleaning (fairy liquid is fine) and using cheap lubrication that can be bought for a few pounds/dollars will suffice in most cases.

UI_at_80x24 7y ago
>Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. I disagree. Some of them certainly are 'below eye level', but that is an awfully broad criticism of the group as a whole. I ride a LongBike Slipstream. The length of the bike is LONGER then a Smart Fortwo. I sit eye-level with almost every sedan I've encountered. SUV's and raised pickup trucks are indeed above my eye-level, but sporty cars are usually below it. I usually get exceptional room allotted to me by other drivers when I'm on the road. The exception being assholes, but luckily the are the exception and not the rule. >TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technology. Almost all improvements now are iterative. "Efficient enough" ? All of the land-speed records for human-powered vehicles are held by recumbents. http://www.ihpva.org/home/ http://www.ihpva.org/home/ It's ok if you don't like them. But please don't pass off your opinion as fact.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  > "Efficient enough" ? All of the land-speed records for human-powered vehicles are held by recumbents. http://www.ihpva.org/home/ http://www.ihpva.org/home/ I am not trying to break the land speed record on the way to work. I just want to get there in one piece. The point I was making is just because something is on paper technically better there are other considerations, for someone that commutes regularly being able to go to the local bicycle shop and pick up a spare whatever is more important to me than any perceived efficiencies. I own a fixed gear with some rather fancy kit on it. Despite the simplicity of the bike, getting replacement parts requires me having to order things online. The cheap 1990s Marin Hawk Hill mountain bike I cycle to work on, I can literally get parts for it anywhere and an be fixed with a set of allen keys and a spanner.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > The length of the bike is LONGER then a Smart Fortwo Yes, and that's another big disadvantage. One of the criticisms against cars is that they waste a lot of space, but recumbent bikes reduce that advantage. Bicycle lanes can get quite packed already.
lmm 7y ago
> Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) Depends on the recumbent. Mine (an Azub Six) isn't - I commute through London on it every day. And cities are (slowly) getting better at keeping traffic out of the way. > and the handling is atrocious. How so? You have to take a different line through corners, but you turn later (front wheel is further back) so it's if anything easier to go through the kind of right-angle turns that are expected in cities. > Yes they are maybe more efficient but they are not pleasant to ride. That's the opposite of my experience - upright bikes put so much weight on the wrists and, uh, taint, that they simply can't be pleasant for any length of time (particularly for those of us of an, ah, less athletic physique). A certain proportion of the population is able to sit comfortably on a traditional bike saddle, but many people aren't. As scooters and e-bikes open up more of an on-ramp into cycling for a wider demographic, I'd expect more and more people to find that saddles aren't working for them. > Shimano's hub gears need regular maintenance where traditional derailleur setup will go on for thousands of miles with only basic maintenance. Maintenance on a derailleur system is typically cleaning (fairy liquid is fine) and using cheap lubrication that can be bought for a few pounds/dollars will suffice in most cases. Ordinary consumers aren't up to even basic maintenance - cars went through the very same progression, in the '50s or '60s it was normal for a car to require basic maintenance by its owner. Low-maintenance hub gears will continue to get cheaper (an expensive model like the Rohloff already goes for thousands of kms without maintenance) and commuter bikes are increasingly switching. I'm sure that racing bikes for enthusiasts will use derailleurs for many years to come, but for commuters who just want to get to work the hub gears are already taking over.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  > Depends on the recumbent. Mine (an Azub Six) isn't - I commute through London on it every day. And cities are (slowly) getting better at keeping traffic out of the way. I cycle through through and around traffic. I don't keep myself out of traffic I am part of it. I personally hate being in a cycle lane, because I know that many other cyclists normally aren't paying attention, don't know how to ride (they never check over the shoulder, poor handling skills etc). Also separating cars from cyclists just make car drivers less aware that cyclists exist. Not everywhere has cycle lanes. Then again I don't live in London which has to be now the worst city in the UK. > How so? You have to take a different line through corners, but you turn later (front wheel is further back) so it's if anything easier to go through the kind of right-angle turns that are expected in cities. Handling isn't just about going round corners. I can track stand at lights, ride down stairs and going round a 90 degree bend is easy. I can almost turn in the bicycles own circle on my old mountain bike. If I need to bail of the bike, I can just drop the bike and roll off. > That's the opposite of my experience - upright bikes put so much weight on the wrists and, uh, taint, that they simply can't be pleasant for any length of time (particularly for those of us of an, ah, less athletic physique). A certain proportion of the population is able to sit comfortably on a traditional bike saddle, but many people aren't. As scooters and e-bikes open up more of an on-ramp into cycling for a wider demographic, I'd expect more and more people to find that saddles aren't working for them. You need to get the right saddle and yeh if you try riding 60 odd miles on a new saddle and you don't cycle regularly you are going to have a bad time. It would be like trying to run a marathon in a pair of new trainers, not a good idea. As for cycling putting pressure on wrists or too much weight on your arse then the bike probably isn't the right size. As for the wider demographic. I don care what they do. There was a fad in the late 90s early 2000s for mountain bikes, mountain bikes are rubbish on road unless you kit them out with touring tyres, there is simply too much road drag. Also suspension looks flashy but is pointless on a tarmac road. A lot of people follow fads. I don't. > Ordinary consumers aren't up to even basic maintenance - cars went through the very same progression, in the '50s or '60s it was normal for a car to require basic maintenance by its owner. Low-maintenance hub gears will continue to get cheaper (an expensive model like the Rohloff already goes for thousands of kms without maintenance) and commuter bikes are increasingly switching. I'm sure that racing bikes for enthusiasts will use derailleurs for many years to come, but for commuters who just want to get to work the hub gears are already taking over. It is still simpler to repair derailleur setup than any hub. Any bike ship can fix your derailleur gears (unless it is a BMX shop). I doubt the same is true about hubs. Also derailleur gears will work still without maintenance, almost none for years on end. Modern 8 or 9 speed chain is very reliable. Hubs normally require specialised tooling parts and are always more prone to failure due to the nature of a hub. The only hubs that do work well are the really old sturmy archer hubs because they are again much more mechanically simple than anything else.
kolme 7y ago
> Shimano's hub gears need regular maintenance where traditional derailleur setup will go on for thousands of miles with only basic maintenance. I think you got that bit wrong: you have to clean and change parts more often with derailleur systems (the teeth for example erode much quicker). Insurances for hub systems bikes are cheaper because of this reason, at least where I am in Germany. Not a bike expert but I happen to have a hub-geared bike with an insurance and I was told that by the insurance guy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Steltek 7y ago
> Almost all improvements now are iterative. Improvements are directed to where the money goes. UCI racing rules hold back experimentation outside of concept bikes. E-bikes may have broken the dam open and we'll start to see a lot of interesting things come out in that direction.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  This is another silly argument, the UCI doesn't regulate bicycles sold in the shops. I can (in theory because the bike will cost as much as a good second hand car) go to the boutique bike shop and get a bicycle with all sorts of fancy electronic shifters, carbon fibre frame that is under 6kg. Those bikes are lighter than the bikes in the tour de france. The fact of the matter is that the current design is near optimal and other designs aren't as well understood, aren't as cheap to make (it is three triangles made out of tubes stuck together with a fork shape at the front) and normally have some horrendous downside.

giobox 7y ago

While efficient conversion of rider input to forward motion is obviously important in bicycles, it’s not the only attribute that matters. Recumbent bikes make efficiency gains here in some riding scenarios at the cost of a great many other attributes, which is why they have never really caught on. Also, they are really hard for young people to pop wheelies on, and that’s important too :)

UI_at_80x24 7y ago

As a bent rider myself, I too am baffled. In my mind from the very first instant I saw one (late 1970's or early 80's Dick Ryan was interviewed on broadcast TV [likely as a novelty] and I was captivated. My child mind saw this as 'proper evolution' and I had to have one. Here's a great summary of the history of the recumbent bike: https://www.lightningbikes.com/riders/martin-krieg/recumbent-history/index.html https://www.lightningbikes.com/riders/martin-krieg/recumbent... Some people are intimidated by change, others are energized by challenging the status quo. Those will always be my heroes.

icebraining 7y ago

First mover advantage? Upright bikes are everywhere, and I could easily find one to learn, plus they're cheap. Recumbent simply don't offer enough perceived advantage to justify the investment to even try one out.

GhostVII 7y ago

I don't think I would ever regularly use a recumbent bicycle, since you don't seem to have as much control over the bike than with a traditional one. You can't jump a curb or swerve around parked cars very easily on a recumbent. Also it's nice to be over top of the bike so you can easily jump off or redistribute your weight whenever you have to.

lazyjones 7y ago

> In 100 years will we wonder why recumbent bicycles took so long to catch on? In 100 years, most likely only crazy hipsters will know what a bicycle is because everything will be electrified. E-Scooters will eradicate bicycles for most uses in the next 10 years or so.

ashtonbaker 7y ago
> E-Scooters will eradicate bicycles for most uses in the next 10 years or so. That seems completely non-obvious to me. For starters, will Bird et al even continue to exist for 10 years? And even if they do, why would they replace un-electrified bicycles, which have a number of advantages?