3 ms·

That thought experiment is worthless junk. The differences in dynamics of the two designs are not just different but equivalent. There are countless ways in wh

That thought experiment is worthless junk. The differences in dynamics of the two designs are not just different but equivalent. There are countless ways in which a standard diamond frame is practical and handles a given situation that a recumbent can't. And I love recumbents because I love weird things. I have both 2 wheel and tadpole trike recumbents. They are the only bikes I ever ride given any choice. But they are actually quite unsafe for both myself and everyone else, and quite, even ridiculously, comically impractical. You can't do the simplest thing like just hop a curb or a tree root, because you can't pull up on the front wheel. There is no amount of life long 'grew up used to it' that magics that away, nor about 100 other similar typical situations. Climbing hills is ridiculously difficult, even with highly practiced spinning technique, because simply standing up on the pedals one at a time is just far simpler, and preserves your momentum better,with no special expert technique. The simple fact that you are already upright makes crashing on a DF infinitely more navigable. There is no such thing as just hopping off a crashing recumbent and landing on your feet. That happens all the time on a df. There is just not even remotely a comparison, not even in the same universe when it comes to either safety or practicality all day every day in all the infinite random situations from parking, storing, threading through narrow pathways and gaps anywhere a pedestrian could go, bringing on a train/bus, up the stairs to your appartment or office, wearing a backpack and not needing any other on-bike cargo space... Recumbents are great in a few particular ways, but they are neither safe nor practical.

bunabhucan 3y ago
I guess I'm missing something. I can "wheelie" the front wheel of my recumbent up a curb. Stomp the pedal while leaning back and it hops up. Very few people have the stamina to stand on the pedals for more than a short hill. A friend and I rode a recumbent and a regular touring bike from Oregon to San Francisco with camping gear in panniers. We would switch bikes and I don't remember either being particularly worse or better when climbing inland to campsites. When we got to San Francisco we used a bike path map to find and ride all the 25+ % gradient streets and alleys. For a short hill any upright will be faster. Longer hills, equal weight (recumbents are usually heavier) and the answer becomes "meh."
jacquesm 3y ago
The way I look at is that recumbents approach biking from the physics optimization aspect and uprights approach it from the ergonomics aspect.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I would say it as they are optimized to operate within far more limited conditions. They will by far beat any diamondframe, on a perfectly smooth, wide, flat, clean, dry, level, closed track, with unidirectional and homogeneous traffic. Outside of that artificial environment, it's not merely ergonomics it's plain utility. It's like rolling luggage with tiny castors on 4 corners. They are great, on clean flat marble floors. Setting aside the fact that sometimes a rider simply requires the reclined sitting position, the same way a handcycle is severly limited, but some riders simply need it. It's still limited like a wheelchair, it's just better that than nothing. And of course if you can change the equation by changing the goal. You can ride across the country towing a trailer and enough camping stuff to live indefinitely on a recumbent. But then you're just trading some of what's useful about a bike for some of what's useful about a car, not actually a better bike.

bunabhucan 3y ago

I guess I'm missing something. I can "wheelie" the front wheel of my recumbent up a curb. Stomp the pedal while leaning back and it hops up. Very few people have the stamina to stand on the pedals for more than a short hill. A friend and I rode a recumbent and a regular touring bike from Oregon to San Francisco with camping gear in panniers. We would switch bikes and I don't remember either being particularly worse or better when climbing inland to campsites. When we got to San Francisco we used a bike path map to find and ride all the 25+ % gradient streets and alleys. For a short hill any upright will be faster. Longer hills, equal weight (recumbents are usually heavier) and the answer becomes "meh."

jacquesm 3y ago

The way I look at is that recumbents approach biking from the physics optimization aspect and uprights approach it from the ergonomics aspect.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
I would say it as they are optimized to operate within far more limited conditions. They will by far beat any diamondframe, on a perfectly smooth, wide, flat, clean, dry, level, closed track, with unidirectional and homogeneous traffic. Outside of that artificial environment, it's not merely ergonomics it's plain utility. It's like rolling luggage with tiny castors on 4 corners. They are great, on clean flat marble floors. Setting aside the fact that sometimes a rider simply requires the reclined sitting position, the same way a handcycle is severly limited, but some riders simply need it. It's still limited like a wheelchair, it's just better that than nothing. And of course if you can change the equation by changing the goal. You can ride across the country towing a trailer and enough camping stuff to live indefinitely on a recumbent. But then you're just trading some of what's useful about a bike for some of what's useful about a car, not actually a better bike.