"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