3 ms·

There are also clear safety advantages to recumbents, like harder breaking without flipping over and an unobstructed view without sacrificing aerodynamics, so I

There are also clear safety advantages to recumbents, like harder breaking without flipping over and an unobstructed view without sacrificing aerodynamics, so I do not think they should automatically be considered less safe. I am also pretty confident that the 'manoeuvrability' disadvantage is completely irrelevant for any individual track event. And do you think that it would be an important factor for time trials?

scheme271 5y ago
It depends but I don't think a recumbent bike is all that great when climbing or descending. I can't see cyclists wanting a recumbent if there are any significant elevation changes on the course.
- recursive 5y ago
  Recumbents are beasts of descending. As long as there are no turns. On a straight descent, they'll beat anything without even trying.
  - mariusor 5y ago
    We are talking about pro-cycling. The descents in pro tours have _a lot_ of turns.
mariusor 5y ago
Flipping over because of hard braking is not something that happens in pro-cycling. [edit] And yes, for time trials recumbents would be nice, but already time-trial bikes are pretty different and unsafe, I don't think the UCI would allow even more risk.
nradov 5y ago
The view from a recumbent bike becomes highly obstructed when you're riding in a tight peleton. The group road rides that I do don't allow recumbents for safety reasons. Traditional bikes have their dangers but at least your eyes are up higher to allow a good view around other riders. Maneuverability is important for time trials. Most courses have several tight turns and crashes are common.