Recumbent bicycle
A recumbent bicycle is a bicycle which places the rider in a seated or supine position (rarely, in a prone position). Recumbents hold the world speed record for a bicycle and were banned from international racing in 1934.
The back of the rider is supported, and the rider's legs extend forward to pedals that are at about the same height as the seat. Steering is either above- or over-seat steering (ASS or OSS) using a handlebar in front of the rider, or under-seat steering (USS) using a handlebar under the seat. The wheels are often smaller and/or farther apart than on an upright bicycle.
Records of recumbent designs go back to the early days of cycling, but recumbent use was not widespread until the late 20th century. Recumbent riders hold world speed records for unpaced, human-powered vehicles. Tricycles form a substantial part of the recumbent market (far more so than they do for uprights); the generic term "trike" tends to be applied to these as well.
Description
Recumbents can be categorized by their wheelbase, wheel sizes, steering system, faired or unfaired, and front-wheel or rear-wheel drive.
Wheelbase
Recumbent bicycles may be classified according to their wheelbase: long wheelbase (LWB) models have the pedals located between the front and rear wheels; short wheelbase (SWB) models have the pedals in front of the front wheel; compact long wheelbase (CLWB) models have the pedals either very close to the front wheel or above it. Within these categories are variations, intermediate types, and even convertible designs (LWB to CLWB) - there is no "standard" recumbent.
Wheel sizes
The rear wheel of a recumbent is usually behind the rider and may be any size, from around 16 inches to the 700c of an upright racing cycle. The front wheel is commonly smaller than the rear, although a number of recumbents feature dual 26-inch (ISO 559), ISO 571 (650c), or ISO 622 (700c) wheels. Notable among these are "highracers", such as the Bacchetta Corsa and Strada or Volae Team, or the "LWB-style" RANS Stratus XP. Larger wheels generally have lower rolling resistance but a higher profile leading to higher air resistance. Highracer aficionados also claim that they are more stable, and although bicycle stability increases with the height of the centre of gravity above the ground, the wide variety of recumbent designs makes such generalizations unreliable. Another advantage of both wheels being the same size is that the bike requires only one size of inner tube.
The most common arrangement is probably an ISO 559 rear wheel and an ISO 406 (20-inch) front wheel. The small front wheel and large rear wheel combination is used to keep the pedals and front wheel clear of each other, avoiding the problem called "heel strike" (where the rider's heels catch the wheel in tight turns). A pivoting-boom front-wheel drive configuration also overcomes heel strike since the pedals and front wheel turn together. Pivoting boom front-wheel drive (PBFWD) bikes may have dual 26-inch wheels or larger.
Steering
Steering for bikes can be generally categorized as over-seat (OSS) or under-seat (USS). Most tadpole trikes are USS. USS is usually indirect -- the bars link to the headset through a system of rods and bell cranks. OSS is generally direct -- the steerer acts on the front fork like a standard bicycle handlebar -- but the bars themselves may extend well behind the wheel (more like a tiller); alternatively the bars might have long rearward extensions (sometimes known as Superman or Kingcycle bars). Chopper-style bars are sometimes seen on LWB bikes.
Drive
As with upright bicycles, most recumbents are rear wheel drive. However, due to the proximity of the crank to the front wheel, front wheel drive can be an option, and it allows for a much shorter chain. One style requires the chain to twist slightly to allow for steering.[1]Another style has the crankset connected to and moving with the front fork.[2]
Fairings
Some riders fit their trikes with aerodynamic devices called fairings to reduce wind drag (fairings are also available for upright bikes, but are much less common). Fairings are available for the front and rear of the vehicle. Some riders also use a "bodysock," a fabric (usually lycra) covering which connects the front fairing and the rear fairing, enclosing the rider for even less drag. Socks can also be run from a front fairing to an "A" shaped framework on the back of the seat. Or a "tailsock" can run from the back of the seat to the "A" shaped framework. A tailsock using lycra fabric and small aluminium tubes adds only a few ounces of weight. Front and rear fairings have been shown to be beneficial for long wheelbase bikes, but front fairings are less beneficial for short wheelbase bikes. Front fairings and bodysocks have the advantage of blocking wind and rain on cool days, and a bodysock can help block the sun on bright days.
Empirical results indicate that a faired tailbox can increase speed on a low short wheelbase bike by around 5-10%, but this has not been validated formally. The design of the fairing is important: a long, sealed fairing gives best compensation for the added weight; for road riding a tailbox may well not repay the weight penalty. The most exotic machines have lightweight full-body fairings, tested in wind tunnels, but these are not practical for street use. Indeed the pilots of many of these bikes must be taped in, and the bike launched by handlers on the outside.
For the ultimate in all-weather riding, a velomobile has a fully enclosed body, is usually a three-wheeled design, and keeps the rider warm and dry in all weather.
Seats
The seats themselves are either of mesh stretched tightly over a frame (as in the Gold Rush pictured) or hard shells like the Stinger pictured, which might be moulded (as here) or assembled from sheet materials. Hard-shell seats predominate in Europe, mesh seats in the USA.
Variations
Lowracers
Lowracers are a type of recumbent more common in Europe among racing enthusiasts. The extreme reclined position, and the fact that the rider is sitting in line with the wheels rather than atop them, makes this the fastest type of bicycle that can be used on roads.
Tandem recumbents
Just as with upright bicycles, recumbents are built and marketed with more than one seat, thus combining all the advantages of recumbents with those of tandem bicycles. In order to keep the wheelbase from being any longer than absolutely necessary, tandem recumbents often place the stoker's crankset under the captain's seat.
Recumbent tricycles
Recumbent tricycles (trikes) are closely related to recumbent bicycles, but have three wheels instead of two. Trikes come in two varieties, the delta, with two rear wheels, and the tadpole, with two front wheels. Most recent high-performance trikes are of the tadpole variety.
Three remarkable characteristics of recumbent trikes include that: (1) the rider does not need to disengage from the pedals when stopped; (2) the trike can be geared very low to enable mountain climbing while heavily loaded and at a slow speed, without losing stability; and (3) trikes are capable of turning sharply without leaning, producing lateral "g forces" similar to sports cars. Recumbent trikes may also be more suitable for people with balance or limb disabilities.
The Windcheetah, designed by Mike Burrows and one of the first commercial tadpole designs, is often credited with kicking off the recumbent tricycle boom. In addition to having a long association with Giant (for whom he designed the OCR series), Burrows designs and builds two- and three-wheeled recumbent racers, as well as load bikes. The Windcheetah is still in production and is an iconic design much appreciated by enthusiasts.
At present, the tadpole trike market is represented by companies such as Inspired Cycle Engineering (ICE), Greenspeed and HP Velotechnik, with touring being a strong market but sporting use also being common. ICE has produced a sub-20lb trike - all the more remarkable for being steel framed and fitted with a hard-shell seat, full mudguards, and luggage rack. As the market expands, costs continue to drop. Stein has launched a range of budget recumbent trikes made in Eastern Europe, the KMX Kart stunt trike, and others.
Handcycles
In order to accommodate paraplegics and other individuals with little or no use of their legs, many manufacturers have designed and released hand-powered recumbent trikes, or handcycles. Handcycles are a regular sight at HPV meetings and are beginning to be seen on the streets. They usually follow a delta design with front wheels driven by standard derailleur gearing powered by hand cranks. Brake levers are usually mounted on the hand holds, which are usually set with no offset rather than the 180° of pedal cranks. The entire crank assembly and the front wheel turn together, allowing the rider to steer and crank simultaneously.
Although arms are less strong than legs, many hand cyclists are able to make use of the power of the whole upper body. A good hand cyclist can still achieve a respectable pace in competitions. Georgiev's Varna bikes have been well represented over the years (see also Records below) and in 1995 Jacob Heilveil achieved 52.47 km/h (32.60 mph) in the flying 200 m.
Handcycles have also been used for touring, though few designers incorporate mudguards or luggage racks. Also, the gear ratios of standard handcycles tend to be less useful for long steep climbs.
Hand-and-foot recumbent tricycles
In one recumbent tricycle design the user makes the two front wheels change direction by shifting his center of weight, and moves forward by rotating the rear wheel. The vehicle can be converted into a manual tricycle designed to be driven with both hands and both feet.
Homebuilts
As with upright bikes, there is a subculture of recumbent builders who design and build home-built recumbents. Often these are assembled of parts from other bikes, particularly mountain bikes. The frame designs may be as simple as a long steel tube bent into the appropriate shape to as elaborate as hand-built carbon fiber frames. For many builders, the engineering and construction of the bikes is as much of a challenge as riding them.
Compared to uprights
The striking difference in appearance between recumbents and upright bikes begs comparison. Since recumbents vary widely, the advantages and disadvantages listed below may apply to different types to different degrees or not at all. (For example, balance is not an issue on tricycles.)
Riding position
A study by Bussolari and Nadel (1989) led them to pick a recumbent riding position for the Daedalus flight even though the English Channel crossing was accomplished in the Gossamer Albatross with an upright position. Drela in 1998 confirmed "that there was no significant difference in power output between recumbent and conventional bicycling."[3]
Advantages
Recumbents have several advantages over traditional upright bicycles.
- Variety. A specific recumbent can be purchased that best meets the physical needs and aesthetic preferences of the rider. Models can range from semi-upright to a full reclined position, short wheelbase to long wheelbase, fairings for rain/wind protection, suspension, and many others. (This could be considered a disadvantage; see below).
- Safety. The recumbent bicycle's low center-of-gravity and low distance from the ground significantly reduce the consequences of a fall for the rider. (A fall is far more critical to a fairing, however.) It is also possible to cycle very close to the curb without risking a pedal-curb collision. A fall from a recumbent may be less harmful than from an upright bike due to the feet-first orientation. The low center of gravity greatly increases braking and stopping capabilities. The rider never goes over the handlebars resulting in fewer head injuries.
- Comfort. The recumbent riding position reduces strain on the body, making it particularly suitable for long rides and touring. It is very easy on the neck, wrists, hands, arms, shoulders, lower back, and ischial tuberosities ("sit bones"). Riders who suffer back pain or genito-urinary trouble often find that recumbents allow them to make significant rides without pain. Shorts made for recumbent riders do not have padding or any need for it..
- View angle. The recumbent riding position enables the rider to face forward, at a comfortable angle, and view the passing scenery. A recumbent rider can even look straight up at a sailplane doing loops! An upright bike, particularly a road bike, on the other hand, has a riding position in which the natural angle is to stare down at the pavement below. In order to see the scenery, you have to crane your neck upward.
- Health. Many riders switch to recumbents to alleviate the chronic back or neck pain from riding upright bikes. On tricycles, the inherent stability of three wheels allows very low gearing to be used, so hills can be climbed without strain on joints. Also, on some recumbents, the rider's legs are nearly at the same height as the heart. This reduces the rider's hydrostatic pressure, thus allowing venous blood to more easily return to the heart. This physiological effect of improved circulation suggests an increase in rider endurance and/or increased power output on long rides. Recumbent riders are not bent over as are conventional bike riders, and this makes breathing easier.
- Speed. On declines, on the flat, or on shallow inclines, recumbent bicycles are generally faster than upright bicycles for the same level of effort because the aerodynamic profile of the rider reduces wind resistance. It is this feature which led to the Union Cycliste International (UCI) banning them in the 1930s (see History). Also, a recumbent in theory allows the rider to exert more force on the pedals by pushing against the seat back in the much more natural leg extension motion. On an upright bike, the maximum force a rider can exert depends on his or her body weight and how hard he or she can pull up on the handlebars.
Disadvantages
- Balance. Balance is easier to effect with a higher centre of gravity, because of the "pendulum effect" (it is easier to minutely change the angle at which ordinary bicycles lean).[4] The two-wheeled recumbent rider cannot shift his weight to steer or help balance the bicycle, as can the riders of conventional bikes. If a recumbent's wheel slides, the high position of the pedals, along with the use of clipless pedals make it virtually impossible to use the feet to stop the skid from resulting in a fall. The rider is much closer to the ground, so the fall is shorter and it just doesn't take as long. There is less time to think about using the feet to stop a fall. But the short fall means a lighter impact with the ground that is usually taken on the rider's buttocks or the seat frame of the bike. The riders of conventional bikes fall twice as far to land on their hands, forearms, elbows, shoulders and heads.
- Starting and Stopping Because the body position does not allow the rider to push the recumbent bike forward using his feet against the ground, the bikes can only be propelled forward using the pedals. This makes starting out slow and excellent balance is required. Starting a recumbent does not require a great deal of strength, it is a matter of balance and skill which must be learned. It is best to learn from an experienced rider, who can help with a little push at first. It can take as much as a couple of years before one becomes confident enough of his starting and stopping skills before one is ready to ride alongside automobile traffic.
- Maneuverability. Recumbents have usually a larger turning radius. Also, it's impossible to jerk the front wheel up curbs. Since the front wheel is usually small, driving up unlowered curbs is very risky even with suspension.
- Uphills. A perceived disadvantage of the recumbent position is that the rider is unable to stand on ascents. This is most noticeable during the initial period of riding a recumbent when the muscles are not yet trained for the different muscle recruitment. Offset against this, the rider can push against the seat to generate more pedal force than is possible on an upright bike, although on an upright, top pedalling force also derives from a pulling action on the handlebars and not just the legs. As with upright bikes, higher cadence reduces leg strain and fatigue when climbing.
- Length of the frame. Recumbent bicycles have longer frames than conventional bicycles. This generally results in a weight penalty, and in more flexing of the frame which loses power. The chain is 2-3 times as long as an upright, and usually requires one or more idler pulleys. There is a small amount of friction in such pulleys which also reduces power slightly. The weight gain and power loss is more than made up for by the aerodynamic advantage. The long frames make recumbents more difficult to transport if the bikes are shipped, or put on racks on automobiles. Some manufacturers offer folding or break apart designs, but these tend to be expensive. The longer distance from the handlebars to the wheels can be problematic for speedometers and cyclocomputers, both wireless and hard wired. The distance from the handlebars to the crankset is likewise longer than a conventional bike, and can give problems for cadence sensors.
- A few designers have attempted to build bikes which convert from recumbent to upright for climbs. In practice the biggest difference is probably the additional weight of the recumbent layout combined with the difficulty of balancing a bike with a low centre of gravity at speeds below about 5mph; the idea that recumbents inherently cannot climb is regarded by recumbent riders as a myth, as recumbents have won hill-climb challenges and races with substantial ascents against uprights in mixed fields, and have been ridden over the mountain stage routes of the Tour de France.[citation needed]
- Constant position. While the riding position is comfortable and removes stress from the arms, it cannot easily be varied during a ride (as upright riders might stand for a hill), and some find that bottom brackets at or near hip level produces problems with cold or numb feet. Some riders suffer "recumbent butt", a pain in the gluteal muscles caused by their working harder while being compressed. This can usually be addressed by adjusting the seat angle and pedal position. In a more reclined position, the weight is spread evenly between the back and "butt". The rider of a conventional bike can stand up on the pedals to allow his legs to take up the shock of a severe bump in the road. The recumbent rider cannot.
- Visibility of the road. The distance from the eyes to the front end is somewhat larger than an upright, and also the rider cannot lean forward. This leads to a bad insight angle at sharp corners. (Car drivers have the same problem, though less acute since they are closer to the middle of the street.) It's also a bit more difficult to glance back. Many recumbent riders address this by adding helmet or handlebar mirrors.
- Visibility. In urban traffic many recumbent bikes are below the eye level of many automobile drivers but their "silhouette is more noticeable to drivers". Recumbent commuters often add lighting and reflective material to their bikes and gear to enhance visibility, and many refer to being able to see "eye to eye" with the automobile drivers as an advantage. [5]
- Price. Recumbents are generally more expensive than upright bikes. Most are hand-built in comparatively small runs by independent manufacturers, usually with high specification components. A typical recumbent costs 10% to 15% more than an equivalently specified (i.e. generally high-end) upright bike.
- Nonstandard design. Recumbents often have radically different shapes than diamond frame bikes, so that conventional bike racks, automobile carriers, accessories and locks don't fit in the usual ways.
- Safety A type of injury characteristic of recumbents called "leg suck" occurs when a foot touches the ground and the bike runs forward over the contact point, causing ligament damage and in some cases ankle fractures. The use of clipless pedal reduces this possibility by preventing the foot from slipping off of the pedal. But with clipless pedals, remaining clipped in during a front tire or wheel failure at high speeds can result in the recumbent rolling over the rider and taking a clipped in leg or legs with it. This scenario, although very rare, can create severe spiral fractures of the femur rarely seen with upright bicycles. Except for these injury classes, recumbents are generally considered safer than upright bicycles. Many upright bicycle accidents involve the rider going over the handlebars with resultant head injuries. Recumbent riders are less prone to these types of injuries.
- Overlap of heels with the front wheel known as "heel strike" during tight turns with short wheel base (SWB) and some compact long wheel base (CLWB) designs. This is only evident during tight turns, and can be avoided by lifting the heel. The rider of the conventional bike must stop pedalling when leaning in hard corners to avoid the pedal striking the pavement. This never happens to the high pedals of a recumbent.
History
Recumbent bicycle designs date back to the middle of the 19th century. A couple were patented around 1900 but the early designs were unsuccessful.
Early recumbents
Recumbent designs of both prone and supine varieties can be traced back to the earliest days of the bicycle. Before the shape of the bicycle settled down following Starley's safety bicycle, there was a good deal of experimentation with various arrangements, and this included designs which might be considered recumbent. Although these dated back to the 1860s the first recorded illustration of a recumbent considered as a separate class of bicycle is considered to be in the magazine Fliegende Blätter of September 10 1893. This year also saw what is considered the first genuine recumbent, the Fautenil Vélociped. Patent applications for a number of recumbent designs exist in the late years of the 19th Century, and there were discussions in the cycling press of the relative merits of different layouts. The Challand designs of 1897 and the American Brown of 1901 are both recognisable as forerunners of today's recumbents.
Mochet's Velocar
A crucial story in the history of recumbent cycling began with the design of a four-wheeled pedal-propelled car called the 'Velocar' (or 'Vélo couché') built in the early 1930s by French inventor and light car builder Charles Mochet. Velocars sold well to French buyers who could not afford a motor car, possibly because of a poor economy just after World War I. The four-wheeled Velocars were fast but didn't corner well at high speed. Mochet then experimented with a three-wheel design and finally settled on a two-wheel design.
To demonstrate the speed of his recumbent bicycle, Mochet convinced cyclist Francis Faure, a Category 2 racer, to ride it in races. Faure was highly successful, defeating many of Europe's top cyclists both on the track and in road races, and setting new world records at short distances. Another cyclist, Paul Morand, won the Paris-Limoges race in 1933 on one of Mochet's recumbents.
Then on 7 July 1933 at a Paris velodrome, Faure rode a Velocar 45.055 km (27.9 miles) in one hour, smashing an almost 20-year-old hour record held by Oscar Egg. Since the one-hour record was one of the most important in all of cycling, that accomplishment attracted a great deal of attention. Less than two months later, on 29 August 1933, Maurice Richard, riding an upright bicycle, also bettered Egg's one-hour record.
When the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) met in February, 1934, manufacturers of upright bicycles lobbied to have Faure's one-hour record declared invalid. On 1 April 1934, the UCI published a new definition of a racing bicycle that specified how high the bottom bracket could be above the ground, how far it could be in front of the seat and how close it could be to the front wheel. The new definition effectively banned recumbents from UCI events and guaranteed that upright bicycles would not have to compete against recumbents. For all intents and purposes, the ban is still in effect.
After the decision, Faure continued to race, and consistently beat, upright bicycles with the 'illegal' (according to the UCI) Velocar.
In 1938 Faure and Mochet's son, Georges, began adding fairings to the Velocar in hopes of bettering the world record of one hour for a bicycle with aerodynamic components. On 5 March 1938, Faure rode a faired Velocar 50.537 kilometers in an hour and became the first cyclist to travel more than 50 kilometers in an hour without the aid of a pace vehicle.
The UCI ban on recumbent bicycles and other aerodynamic improvements virtually stopped development of recumbents for four decades. Although recumbent designs continued to crop up over the years they were mainly the work of lone enthusiasts and numbers remained insignificant until the 1970s.
1970s resurgence
While developments had been made in this fallow period by Paul Rinkowski and others, the fathers of the modern recumbent movement are usually said to be Chester Kyle and particularly David Gordon Wilson of MIT, two engineers working in the USA. Kyle and his students had been experimenting with fairings for upright bicycles, also banned by the UCI, leading in 1974 to the International Human Power speed Championship, from which the IHPVA grew.
The Avatar 2000, a LWB bike very much like the current Easy Racers products, arrived in 1979, and is often considered the first modern production recumbent. It was featured in the 1983 film Brainstorm, ridden by Christopher Walken, and in the popular cycling reference Richard's Bicycle Book by Richard Ballantine. The oil crises of the 1970s sparked a resurgence in cycling coincident with the arrival of these "new" designs. Since competition was not a driving force, the UCI ruling did not hinder the commercial development of recumbent designs. The influence of Kyle and Wilson and their students probably also had a lot to do with the strength of this renaissance. This era also spawned an adaptation of the recumbent called the Rowbike. Created by Rollerblades inventor Scott Olson, the Rowbike is a hybrid of a recumbent bicycle and an indoor rowing machine.
A parallel but somewhat separate scene grew up in Europe, with the first European human power championships being held in 1983. The European scene was more dominated by competition than was the US, with the result that European bikes are more likely to be low SWB machines, while LWB are much more popular in the US (although there have been some notable European LWB bikes, such as the Peer Gynt).
In the 1980s
In 1984 Linear recumbents (of Iowa) began producing what was at the time arguably one of the most comfortable and relaxing bicycles available. Their stability, handling, comfortable seat and natural arm position made them a relaxing form of transportation, recreation and exercise. One rider, returning from their first test ride said, "If my butt had wheels this is what it would be like!"
Linear ownership has changed hands since the 80’s. In 2002 Linear Manufacturing's assets were bought by Bicycle Man LLCand moved to New York. Since then owner Peter Stull has been working with senior engineering students at Alfred University Alfred University, local engineers and machinists utilizing available technology including computer FEA testing to improve their Recumbent Bikes and bring an old favorite into the new century.
In the UK in the 1980s the most publicised recumbent cycle in the UK was the delta configuration, sometime electrically powered Sinclair C5. Although sold as an "electric car", the C5 would be more accurately characterised as a recumbent tricycle with electrical assistance, with all the associated advantages and disadvantages.
In the 2000s
A number of recumbent manufacturers went out of business after the 1990s, including BikeE and Vision.
Popular models in the 2000s include recumbents by Challenge Bikes, Optima, Bacchetta, RANS, Easy Racers, Lightning, Linear recumbents, HP Velotechnik, and Volae.
The high racer designs of Bacchetta and Volae have become particularly popular[citation needed], since they combine the safety of being highly visible in traffic[citation needed] with the performance of a nearly fully reclined position and ultra light and performant components.
In 2006, Cruzbike became the first manufacturer to commercialise the Tom Traylor originated configuration for front wheel drive moving bottom bracket with a product that provided a seat height similar to a high racer but with a lower crank height. This approach erased many of the riding difficulties of the center-steered variations[citation needed] produced by European Flevobike company in the 1980s.
Performance
Over distances recumbent bicycles outperform upright bicycles as evident by dominace in ultra-distance events like 24 hours at Sebring (http://www.ultracycling.com/results/sebring2006.html) Official speed records for recumbents are governed by the rules of the International Human Powered Vehicle Association. A number of records are recognised, the fastest of which is the "flying 200m", a distance of 200 m on level ground from a flying start with a maximum allowable tailwind of 1.66 m/s. The current record is 130.36 km/h (81.00 mph), set by Sam Whittingham of Canada on a fully faired Varna Diablo front-wheel-drive recumbent lowracer bicycle designed by George Georgiev. The official record for an upright bicycle under somewhat similar conditions is 82.53 km/h (51.29 mph) set by Jim Glover in 1986 with an English-made Moulton bicycle with a hardshell fairing around him and the bike.
The IHPVA hour record is 85.991 km (53.432 miles), set by Fred Markham on July 2, 2006. The equivalent record for an upright bicycle is 49.700 km (30.882 miles), set by Ondřej Sosenka in 2005. The UCI no longer considers the bike Chris Boardman rode for his 1996 record to be in compliance with its definition of an upright bicycle. Boardman's Monocoque bike was designed by Mike Burrows, whose Windcheetah recumbent trike (see above) also holds the record from Land's End to John o' Groats, 861 miles in 41 h 4 min 22 s with Andy Wilkinson riding.
In 2003, Rob English took on and beat the UK 4-man pursuit champions VC St Raphael in a 4000 m challenge race at Reading, beating them by a margin of 4 min 55.5 s to 5 min 6.87 s - and dropping one of the St Raphael riders along the way.
Stationary recumbents
As well as road-going recumbents bicycles with wheels, stationary versions also exist. These are often found in gyms but are also available for home use. Like a regular stationary exercise bike, these stay in one place and the user pedals against some kind of resistance mechanism such as a fan or alternator but in a recumbent position. These have the same comfort advantages as road-going recumbents. Stationary recumbents almost always have a fairly upright seat and the pedal crank is lower than the level of the seat. The seat is normally adjustable and is adjusted by sliding it along a rail. The heads-up position also makes it easier to watch TV.
Recumbent culture
Recumbent owners call their bikes "bents" and are prone to joking about being "bent bikers." Recumbent riders tend to be enthusiasts for the type, often referring to diamond-frame "upright" bikes as "wedgies" or "upwrongs". Recumbent riders don't wear "diapers" (padded shorts). Recumbent riders know what the scenery looks like. Wedgies know what the white line on the edge of the pavement looks like.
See also
- Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics
- Bicycle and motorcycle geometry
- Bicycle performance
- Bicycle seat
- Bicycle suspension
- Handcycles
- International Human Powered Vehicle Association
- Quadricycle
- Rowbike
- Tricycle
- Velomobile
Notes
- ^ "Toxy TT Race Recumbent". Retrieved 2007-02-03.
- ^ "Front Wheel Drive - Is it practical?". Retrieved 2007-02-03.
- ^ Wilson, David Gordon (2004). Bicycling Science (Third edition ed.). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 72, 86. ISBN 0-262-73154-1.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Fajans, Joel. "Email Questions and Answers: Robot Bicycles". Retrieved 2006-08-07.
- ^ "Upright vs Recumbent Comparison Table". Retrieved 2007-04-21.
Further reading
- Fehlau, Gunnar (2003). The Recumbent Bicycle (2nd edition ed.). Out Your Backdoor Press. ISBN 1-892590-58-1.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters:|accessyear=,|origmonth=,|accessmonth=,|month=,|chapterurl=,|origdate=, and|coauthors=(help) - Fehlau, Gunnar (2006). The Recumbent Bicycle (3rd edition ed.). Out Your Backdoor Press. ISBN 1-892590-59-X.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters:|accessyear=,|origmonth=,|accessmonth=,|month=,|chapterurl=,|origdate=, and|coauthors=(help)
External links
- [http://www.cyclegenius.com/history.php Winning Forbidden: The Real History of the Recumbent Bicycle
- [http://www.bhpc.org.uk/ UK HPV club - all the UK activities and very active forum*
- Recumbent Types (in German)
- [1] (in Spanish)
- Fastest Bicycles (HPVs) Ever - beyond 50 mph / 80 kph
- Best Hour Performances - HPVs that exceeded Chris Boardman's mark: updated March 2007
- Best Hour Performances - HPV and UCI bikes - note, not as current as the above list, but contains more UCI bike listings
- The People of Recumbent Cycling
- Overview European recumbent manufacturers and dealers (Google Maps)
- Animation of How to use Indoor recumbent bicycle