From: harry@cv.hp.com (Harry Phinney)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: Recumbents
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:43:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

freytag@seas.gwu.edu (Richard Freytag) writes:
: I'm delighted to see that the recumbent thread 
: still lives and that Harold still insists "death traps" :) are better.  

No, Harry instead insists that upright bikes are better for certain
types of riding, and freely admits that many people will find recumbents
better for other types of riding.

: 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.  

No, I never claimed that the rider of an upright can or will apply
greater pedaling forces than a recumbent rider.  What I stated was that
the upright rider is not restricted to applying a maximum pedaling force
equal to his/her body weight.  This is in no direct way connected to my
explanation that the pressure on the saddle is reduced by the pedaling
force.  As I have stated in the past, the maximum pedaling force is
irrelevant for 99% of the riding done.  What limits a person's speed
is their ability to produce power, not force.

: 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.

What I intended to communicate was that I am unsure of the relative
safety of the various types of bikes.  I perceive advantages and
disadvantages for each, and am unsure what the overall safety record
will be for each type.  While I will agree that the recumbent rider's CG
is lower than that of an upright rider, the short wheelbase recumbents I
have ridden have placed enough of the rider's mass in front of the front
wheel that they have been prone to planting the cranks into the
pavement.  This has in fact limited the braking ability of these bikes
to the point where I am quite certain an upright could out brake these
particular SWB recumbents.  A long wheelbase recumbent should have
better braking capabilities than an upright, but will suffer in terms of
maneuverability when compared to either an upright or a SWB recumbent.
Both forms of recumbent place the rider's head lower than an upright,
which should mean less risk of serious head injury in equivalent falls,
but also means poorer vision in traffic.  How do these differences
balance out?  I don't know, and neither do you.

: 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.

I agree that there has in general been too little open competition to
conclusively prove the performance differences.  I, however, still
maintain that recumbents would be superior on certain courses, and
uprights superior on others.  What I do not want to see is racers
choosing different types of bikes for different races, or changing bikes
during races (e.g.  changing to an upright for the long climbs, and a
recumbent for the flat sections).

Harry Phinney   harry@hp-pcd.cv.hp.com