From: freytag@seas.gwu.edu (Richard Freytag)
Subject: Re: Recumbents
Followup-To: freytag@seas.gwu.edu
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:07:53 GMT

Hello all.  Been away for a week and my news reader only keeps rec.*
news for four days.  I'm delighted to see that the recumbent thread 
still lives and that Harold still insists "death traps" :) are better.  

If memory serves there were a few points Harold asserted that I took 
exception to.  

1. The force that may be applied to the pedals on a standard exceed
that possible on a recument, allowing reasonable pressures on all body 
parts in contact with the respective frames.  

False (surprised?).  The following force equation should indicate why:

Force to lift butt to avoid chaffing on seat =
	Force on "pushing" pedal - Force on "pulling" pedal

where the pushing pedal is that which you are pushing.  Vice verso for the
pulling pedal.  While riders might sit on the seat with all their weight
for short distances on smooth surfaces I have heard enough times from enough
riders of standard frames that chaffing is best avoided by nearly lifting
one's butt, to believe it is generally true (naturally there are bound
to be exceptions and some people might even like the chaffing).  

2. That the risk of endos on 'bents and standards is even remotely similar.

I strongly disagree.  In the case of a bent, even a short-wheel base (SWB),
'bent one's center of gravity is a good deal lower and further behind the
front wheel when compared to a standard.  This means that to effect an
endo on a 'bent one must be lifted up about 3 feet (my SWB in
this case), before being in to position where a racer in a crouch starts 
his/her endo.  

3. That head injury is as likely on a 'bent as on a standard.  

See arguement to #2 above.  Further note that an alternate name for 'bents
is "feet firsters." Standards are known in 'bent circles as "head firsters." 
the truth is that in a crack-up a recumbent cyclist meets his/her fate feet
first.  As in death, going feet first is the best way to go if you must.  


Issues of relative speed seemed impossible to reconcile from my point
of view as it has been asserted by others that unfaired 'bents have
not performed as well in a race as compared with standards.  
Experimental evidence seems winning and if 'bents lose when riders are
equally matched then the issue seems clear.  My disagreement here lies
with the quality of the experiment.  Recumbents still generally out
weigh standards by 5-10 pounds.  Recumbent riders are, genrally, on it
for comfort not speed so the riders may not be well matched.  
Recumbents are rarely outfitted with
the best components due to already high costs of "custom" manufacturing
the frame.  Many of the ergonomics of 'bents as regards efficient seat
placement are still being hotly debated.  Remember standards have had
a century of steady incremental improvement in design under pressure
of competition to resolve issues of efficiency.  I look forward to the
day when sufficeint racing interest in 'bents exists to adequately 
prove the issue of racing 'bents vs. standards one way or the other.  

The big point against recumbents is that they remain around 2x to 4x as
expensive as standards.  This is falling but not fast enough.  

Summary, as I see it:

Recumbent advantages:
	Comfort,
	Safety (especially from head injury),
	Novelty (more room from cars; the whazzat? effect), 
	View from the seat (head tilted up rather than down),

Recumbent shortcomings:
	Novelty (the questions are repetitive; current favorite:
			is that comfortable?)
	Price,
	Maintenance (most modern 'bents use 20"+ wheels but some use smaller).

People interested in learning more about recumbents and alternative
human-powerd vehicles should subscribe to the hpv mailing list.  Send
mail to hpv-request@sonoma.edu

-Richard Freytag