"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