|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
If you don't believe in Evolution, then why do you drive an SUV? | Just A User | UK | 112 | January 23rd 08 08:31 PM |
Evolution dvd ? wth ? | doubleflip | Unicycling | 31 | October 11th 06 10:01 PM |
Evolution dvd ? wth ? | forrestunifreak | Unicycling | 1 | October 11th 06 01:40 AM |
Evolution?? ... of what? | Gary S. | Mountain Biking | 1 | September 8th 05 04:38 AM |
MTB evolution | DD5 | UK | 15 | December 27th 03 12:47 PM |