Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

Hello,

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

But, obviously, the bicycle has taken alot of sideroads on in evolving
into what it is today.

Do any newsgroup readers know about the birth of the recumbent bike?

Cullen

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

wrote in message
...
Hello,

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

A recumbent bicycle is the most comfortable position, but not the most
efficient. An upright is more efficient, especially at climbing hills.

But, obviously, the bicycle has taken alot [a lot] of side roads in
evolving
into what it is today.

Nope, not really. It was all set in concrete almost from the beginning.
Today's uprights look just like the original safety bicycle.

Do any newsgroup readers know about the birth of the recumbent bike?

Do a Google search on the Web and you can find out more than you will ever
want to know about recumbents, including their birth.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hello,

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

A recumbent bicycle is the most comfortable position, but not the most
efficient. An upright is more efficient, especially at climbing hills.

Thats just your opinion. Sure it might be the common opinion,
but we havent seen all recumbent designs yet, or all riding
technics. Cruzbike has some ideas that also use the arms to
help drive leg power into the wheels.

While the recumbent may be more comfortable, some uprights
might just be comfortable enough for the length of the rides
that people do on their bike.

And those that do want speed has a different upright bike.



JonB

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

wrote:

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

But, obviously, the bicycle has taken alot of sideroads on in evolving
into what it is today.

One side road was the original recumbent side road. It looked very
promising when the Hour Record was taken on one, but the UCI banned the
attempt retrospectively, and all recumbent entires into officially
sanctioned sporting events.
Arguably that really put the brakes on recumbent development and
sidelined the form, with little further development until comparatively
recently. By that time the upright bike was so well established it made
recumbents a niche which is very hard to break out of.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

Jon Bendtsen wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hello,

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

A recumbent bicycle is the most comfortable position, but not the most
efficient. An upright is more efficient, especially at climbing hills.

Thats just your opinion. Sure it might be the common opinion,
but we havent seen all recumbent designs yet, or all riding
technics. Cruzbike has some ideas that also use the arms to
help drive leg power into the wheels.

The arm and leg power together has often been tried but it's really a
dead end. Fact is the human body can use its entire quota or aerobic
power in the legs alone, so aside from unsustainable sprints adding arms
in is a red herring that just makes the bike more difficult to design,
build and ride.

However, Ed's supposition falls foul of the IHPVA record sheet, where
given free reign to design what they please to go as fast (i.e., as
efficiently) as possible, the lion's share of the records are set on
recumbents. Still, Ed's never been one to let facts get in the way of
his pronouncements.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hello,

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

A recumbent bicycle is the most comfortable position, but not the most
efficient. An upright is more efficient, especially at climbing hills.

Thats just your opinion. Sure it might be the common opinion,
but we havent seen all recumbent designs yet, or all riding
technics. Cruzbike has some ideas that also use the arms to
help drive leg power into the wheels.

The arm and leg power together has often been tried but it's really a
dead end. Fact is the human body can use its entire quota or aerobic
power in the legs alone, so aside from unsustainable sprints adding arms
in is a red herring that just makes the bike more difficult to design,
build and ride.

However, Ed's supposition falls foul of the IHPVA record sheet, where
given free reign to design what they please to go as fast (i.e., as
efficiently) as possible, the lion's share of the records are set on
recumbents. Still, Ed's never been one to let facts get in the way of
his pronouncements.

No one needs any records to KNOW that recumbents can't climb hills worth a
damn. Since they can't, they are overall slower than uprights since the
world is full of hills. Even slight grades slow recumbents down a lot
compared to uprights.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

But, obviously, the bicycle has taken alot of sideroads on in evolving
into what it is today.

One side road was the original recumbent side road. It looked very
promising when the Hour Record was taken on one, but the UCI banned the
attempt retrospectively, and all recumbent entires into officially
sanctioned sporting events.
Arguably that really put the brakes on recumbent development and
sidelined the form, with little further development until comparatively
recently. By that time the upright bike was so well established it made
recumbents a niche which is very hard to break out of.

It wasn't the UCI or any other racing group that is responsible for the
recumbent not being mainstream. There are inherent disadvantages to
recumbents that are responsible for its lowly position in the world of
cycling. The main disadvantage is that recumbents can't climb hills worth a
damn.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

Peter Clinch wrote:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hello,

I wonder why today's common bicycle is upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".
A recumbent bicycle is the most comfortable position, but not the most
efficient. An upright is more efficient, especially at climbing hills.
Thats just your opinion. Sure it might be the common opinion,
but we havent seen all recumbent designs yet, or all riding
technics. Cruzbike has some ideas that also use the arms to
help drive leg power into the wheels.

The arm and leg power together has often been tried but it's really a
dead end. Fact is the human body can use its entire quota or aerobic
power in the legs alone, so aside from unsustainable sprints adding arms
in is a red herring that just makes the bike more difficult to design,
build and ride.

It only needs to work for a short while uphill, since most
commuting bicyclists avoid big hills. And for people that
is exercising, they probably deliberately go after hills.
I do.


JonB

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

Jon Bendtsen wrote:

It only needs to work for a short while uphill

For some values of "work"...

Adding in arms will take aerobic potential from the legs unless it's
entirely anaerobic. In practise you can't compartmentalise how you use
your energy, but if you could then your arms, not being evolved for
propulsion, will give up the ghost reasonably soon for purely anaerobic
exertion, and all the extra gubbins will weigh the bike down nore which
will make the hill harder, not easier.

Plenty of people have built arms/legs bikes. The only one that seems to
do well to any degree in practice is the Thys Rowbike, with a rowing
action that directly combines the arms and legs (and abs) in the nature
of the action.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Bicycle evolution and recumbents...
 

Peter Clinch wrote:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:

It only needs to work for a short while uphill

For some values of "work"...

Adding in arms will take aerobic potential from the legs unless it's
entirely anaerobic. In practise you can't compartmentalise how you use
your energy, but if you could then your arms, not being evolved for
propulsion, will give up the ghost reasonably soon for purely anaerobic
exertion, and all the extra gubbins will weigh the bike down nore which
will make the hill harder, not easier.

Okay, i had not understood the biochemistry side, but i
can see now that adding arms may not be so good.


Plenty of people have built arms/legs bikes. The only one that seems to
do well to any degree in practice is the Thys Rowbike, with a rowing
action that directly combines the arms and legs (and abs) in the nature
of the action.

Actually the kind of arm assisted driving i was thinking
of is the cruzbike one, mainly because i do not have
experience with other designs.

Cruzbike generally has 2 arm assisted driving options,
i can do one, but not for long, but thats more because
of my generel fitness, which is still low. 107 kilo,
down from 110 since i got the bike 4 months ago.

The 1. arm assisted option is simply just crunching your
abs and pulling forward with both arms. It is working, i
do go faster, but i dont have the stamina to do it for a
long time.

The 2. arm assisted option is to pull back with your arm as
your leg presses forward. Right arm, right leg. It may be
neasesary as the huge push can push the steering to the side,
and the arm prevents that. But it may take a toll on your
knees, but i dont hear anyone complaining about it.
This technic should be long time possible, but i havent
learned it yet, maybe because pushing so hard to the pedal
that the bike turns seems dangerous to me.


Maybe part of why i cant see recumbents as being slow climbers
is because we dont really have big hills arround here. The
biggest near me have a 20-30 meter height increase in 1-1.5 km
There is 1 60 meter hill just over an hour away, but it is 2.7
km long, and then there is a 44 meter in 730 meter.

I have never driven anything bigger, but i suppose i will some
day.


Also, what good is it to compare the bikes if recumbents are
generally more heavy than uprights, maybe because they are
longer? The seat is bigger, the handlebars are bigger, and
they have suspension.

If there was more professionel competition on recumbents, maybe
we would get some designs that where lighter and/or better at
climbing.



JonB