Talk:Recumbent bicycle

message: A picture would be helpful. -Frecklefoot
Isn't it possible to exert more force while peddling a recumbent bike, as you are able to brace against the seat, whereas in a normal bike the force you exert can never be greater than your weight?  --Neil
I noticed a discrepancy betweent this page and the bike page. The bike page quotes a much higher speed record for a rcubet bicycle set by a Canadian. I don't know enough to determine who is right but maybe the discrepancy should be addressed? -- Fred
Recumbent bikes sound cool! - a guy
Expanded a bit, removed some probable vandalism, structured a bit.  More needed on recumbent culture (and, IMO, on the competition scene) Just zis Guy, you know? 12:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: RecumbentReCycler (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recumbents banned from racing 

message: I am working on expanding the History section; I will also incorporate some more info from Gunnar Fehlau's "The Recumbent Bicycle" which is a pretty good authority. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in progress by Jus zis Guy 

message: I would think that this wiki page would be better served by discussing the safety implications of being involved in an automobile accident in a recumbent. While it's important to promote the pros of riding recumbent, it's a disservice to readers to not openly discuss the cons.
When a car hits an upright bicycle, generally the impact will be at the riders lower leg level, 2-3 feet below the riders centre of gravity. This will likely throw the rider up and over the vehicle. However on a recumbent bike, the impact will be at the riders legs, hip, and torso, directly at the centre of gravity. This will cause the rider to absorb more of the impact energy and there is a greater chance of being run over by the vehicle.
Further, it's a valid point to recognize that, with the head closer to the ground, there is less visibility over cars, bushes, newspaper boxes at intersections, etc... Temple 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is entirely speculative.  I know of absolutely no credible data to support the suggestion that a 'bent rider is likely to come off worse in a car v bike collision - and one of the common causes of fatal collision is a car pulling out into the path of the bike; in these circumstances hitting feet-first is likely to be a great advantage.  No two collisions are the same.  I have no idea how comon car v 'bent collisions are, they seem to be very uncommon indeed even given how rare the bikes are (I only know a few dozen recumbent riders personally), but that may be because the kinds of riders who ride 'bents have some idea how to ride properly so they don't get hit in the first place (and they are less likely to ride on footways, which is very dangerous).  I think it's almost certainly the case that recumbent safety is neither better nor worse than for "wedgies", but that there are slightly different issues. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why are only half of these issues mentioned in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.235.136.245 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety of Recumbents in MVAs 

message: If you like userboxes (userboxen?), you can give recumbent riding some loooove with this one: Template:User bentcycling. - FlyingOrca 14:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: The article seems very much like it was written from an apologetic standpoint in favor or recumbent bicycling--it refers to upright bicycles as wedgies instead of their traditional name, and in the disadvantage section even tries to explain away at least one quantitative disadvantage (price).  There are also several non-encyclopedic phrases, especially the things that appear in parantheses "(Test ride... test ride... test ride...)"  -Mance 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's true that bent riders do tend to be an enthusiastic lot... but I think without exception they would say that is because recumbents really ARE superior. Be that as it may, it wouldn't hurt to tone down some phrases. The "wedgie" thing is worthy of inclusion, being quite widespread, but perhaps it should be presented in another fashion? (e.g. Recumbent riders commonly refer to upright bikes as "wedgies" due to the percieved comfort advantages of recumbents and to the perceived comfort and health disadvantages of uprights, such as neck strain and penile numbness.) As for the "Test ride" thing, I agree that it's non-encyclopedic. Care to take a stab at some edits? - FlyingOrca 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biggest problems I see really come down in the Advantages/Disadvantages, which basically seems to be saying that there are many ("too many to list") advantages to a recumbent bicycle over an upright bicycle and that all of the perceived disadvantages aren't disadvantages at all, just misconceptions. Did a rewording and reformatting, but I attempted to keep all factual and NPOV content.  Lemme know what you think. -Mance 05:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm liking it so far. I'd do some work in this myself today, but I have a client breathing down my neck for some paying work. ;-) FWIW, the health and comfort benefits are probably the most important to recumbent riders, and are often the reason people get their first recumbent; I'd strongly suggest their inclusion in some form. Cheers! - FlyingOrca 11:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they'll definitely be in there--it's just that the hour was waxing late, so I needed to break it off and get some sleep.  I -am- going to tag all of it with needs citation--getting a few scientific (or otherwise) sources in there will significantly reduce the fanboy feeling it gives off now.-Mance 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I removed an anonymous addition: "Recumbents are also harder for motorists to spot, making accidental collisions more likely; for this reason many recreational recumbents sport an easily-seen banner on a pole attached to the back (though this increases air resistance)."
This is unsourced.  I know of no research basis for this, anecdotal evidence suggests that recumbents are sufficiently unusual that they get noticed very easily (the "wtf? factor").  That siad, as this is WP:OR I think we wait for a credible source first. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't a study or similar citation showing that recumbents are more likely to be involved in an accident, it should not be included in the article.  Just because it may "seem like that" to a lot of people is not a justifiable reason for including it.  The counter arguments that recumbents are MORE visual hold just as much weight.  No citation, no inclusion IMO.  Same thing regarding the riding defensively comment.  Most recumbent riders, and indeed most upright riders (especially roadies) who have tried a recumbent, note that the natural position puts you in a position to naturally view the world around you.  This is opposite of a road bike, which naturally puts you in a position of looking at the road beneath you.  Again, no citation, no inclusion.  IMHO though, a recumbent puts you in a position to monitor traffic in front and to the side of you much easier, while making it naturally harder to check behind you without the aid of mirrors.  Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: "Handling. Because of its low center-of-gravity, the recumbent bicycle can handle sharper turns at greater speeds than a traditional upright bicycle."
:Any idea how this might be true? If the same physics apply, then a recumbent will need exactly the same lean angle as an upright bike to make the same radius turn at the same speed. True, the combined center of mass of the bike and rider will be displaced from the vertical less, but that doesn't necessarily give it an advantage. The only limiting factors for both types of bikes should be friction of the tires on the pavement, interferance from other parts of the bike touching the ground (pedals or seats), and the riders nerve. -AndrewDressel 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't corner at 50 on a wedgie... Guy 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How does a lower center of gravity make recumbents more stable? In fact, J. Fajans  claims the opposite, as do Whitt and Wilson on page 232 of Bicycling Science. Even the first advantage listed in the section immediately following contradicts this. -AndrewDressel 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  But lowering the CoG seems to offset the problems with the pendulum effect.  Low riders improve ride in a way that high loading does not, don't ask me why. Guy 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The attribute of "more slowly" altering balance can also be seen as destabilizing in that more steering input is required to maintain balance. The closest things to a handling wiki page so far is either Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, Bicycle and motorcycle geometry, or Bicycle frame. -AndrewDressel 15:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims in Advantages section 

message: I cleaned up some manufacturers from the External Links section.  These shouldn't really be in a wikipedia article.  This is an encyclopedia, not a commercial directory.  One of them, "Red Rim cycles", has even added themselves back in almost immediately.  Before this goes into an edit war, I think there should be concensus from other editors. Wikipedia:External links  --Vgedris 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, clear them out.  Link to one of the directories of manufacturers at a human power club, or BROL or something. Guy 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest someone revove the citation to Ed Atkins, (currently [3]) he is a vendor of plans for the FWD type of bike. The reference to Tom Traylor (currently [2]) is the correct reference as he is the originator of this form of recumbent bicycle, and the reference covers that configuration thoroughly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.180.243 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been done. Beaglebent 03:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The current article mentions
*[The recumbent position] 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. 
*the [recumbent] rider is unable to stand on ascents
*the [recumbent] rider can push against the seat to generate more pedal force than is possible on an upright bike because on an upright, the rider cannot press a pedal downward with any more force than his own weight
*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. 
All unsourced, of course, and to which I would add:
*While pressing against the seat back may allow for more force, it comes at the cost of losses due to compressing imperfectly elastic material: muscle and other tissue of the back and foam or plastics in the seat. Any energy spent raising the CG of the rider against gravity may be recovered.
On the other hand here are some citable points:
*A study by Bussolari and Nadel (1989) led them to pick a recumbent riding position for the Daedalus flight even though the first English Channel crossing was accomplished with an upright position. This is according to Wilson in his third edition of "Bicycling Science" on page 72.
*He continues on page 86 to cite Drela (1998) who "confirmed that there was no significant difference in power output between recumbent and conventional bicycling."
Anyone else have any data points that can be referenced? -AndrewDressel 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and disadvantages of recumbent riding position 

message: The opening paragraph mentions the land speed record for human powered vehicle, but no link or citation is given. There seems to be no pae for it on Wikipedia. stib 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  land speed record link needed 

message: Several editors have added the claim recently that recumbent riders can generate more pedal force by pushing against the seat back than upright riders. While this may sound obviously true (This doesn't need a citation. It's just simple physics. When you push against something, it pushes back.), reality is far more complicated, and this claim definitely needs a reference. 
This is especially so since the one reference already cited in the Riding position section confirmed "that there was no significant difference in power output between recumbent and conventional bicycling." (Drela, 1998)
Reasons why this claim may be false or irrelevant include, but are not limited to:
:*No one can leg press more than their body weight with one leg more than a few times anyway.
:*No one can leg press more than their body weight with one leg at the rate necessary for efficient pedaling.
:*Energy lost through inelastic seat back compression, compared to perfectly conservative gravitation, negates any advantage that the greater force may bestow.
:*Since force = (mass x acceleration), not just weight, upright riders are not limited by their body weight when generating pedal forces.
:*Etc.
:: Not sure I agree with any of this. Point 1 - 1-legged jump-roping is applying more force than your body weight, Point 2 - people standing on their pedals tend to pedal much slower than sitting, 3 - say back compression is 90% efficient, if you're applying 2x the force that's still significantly more power than gravity, 4 - acceleration in this case for an upright is capped at <1G without hopping out of your pedals, unless you're pulling down with your arms.  I think the real matter is more of being able to switch back and forth from standing on the pedals to spinning in a lower gear, to activate different muscles.  In a recumbent, there is less switching of riding styles so muscle fatigue is a bigger factor. Nerfer (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An upright bike allows the use of the arm muscles to generate extra force by swinging the bike against the pedal stroke.  A recumbent does not allow this. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the Cruzbike (any pivoting-boom recumbent, of which Cruzbike is the only current manufacturer, AFAIK).  You can pull on the handlebars to swing the pedal toward the pushing leg, much like someone standing on the pedals will swing the bike back and forth. I don't know of any scientific analysis of that, so I'm not going to put it in the article, but they do claim the Cruzbike climbs better than other recumbents (similar to uprights) for this reason. Nerfer (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedal force and seat backs 

message: I've deleted the entire section "Other" because:
* The first sentence (higher rolling resistance of small wheels) is only true in some cases and in any case not a special characteristic of all recumbents.
* The second sentence about heel overlap is a valid point which I moved (shortened) to "Disadvantages".
* The third sentence about possible injuries is too long and doesn't really belong here.
--Theosch 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Section "Other" under "Disadvantages" 

message: There isn't any.  I hope a clear picture can be provided of the Steering Under Seat arrangement.  Jim.henderson (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hope it is clear enough. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS picture 

message: "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."
There are systems which keep the feet in place on the pedals but also have a mechanism by which you can easily detach the feet if necessary.
You can adjust the strength which is needed to relaese your feet and your feet will only detach from the pedals when you put the force in specific directions (to the side).
So, as long as you are normally cycling the feet will stay on these pedals, when you have an accident then the feet will be released from the pedals.
Another big advantage is that you can generate a higher speed when you can also pull the pedal up in stead of only pushing the pedal down (racing bike vs. ordinary bike).
Pieter pietersen (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete part about safety 

message: "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)"
I rode my recumbent today, and I can shift around in the seat just fine.  You put your weight on the pedals and your shoulders, and then shift your butt to where you want it.  You can skooch around the seat no problem. 89.240.148.165 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seating position nonsense 

message: The little edit war between 75.156.75.40 and Thumperward caused me to take a look to see which version of English we should use, per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English
The topic has no strong national ties to either, and the current article has
#"centre" once and "center" multiple times.
#"fiber" is only used once and spelled the American way only.
#"tyre" once and "tire" multiple times.
#"maneuverability" as a section heading and "maneuvers" in the text.
The original stub used "centre", but the current Bicycle article is in American English.
At this point, I'd say the article "has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety." I suggest we alter the two British English words I can find to match the rest of the article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version of English used 

message: "A few recumbent bicycles use rear wheel steering, but these are typically less stable."
:While I would normally wait for a reference to be provided, this claim is so extrodinary that it should wait here until a reference can be found. There are several good sources in the bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article that assert a rear wheel steered bike is unridable, except for one particular example: hardly "a few recumbent bicycles". -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trivial to find links to these via google. There's even videos on youtube. There's nothing impossible about rear wheel steering; even land speed record cars have used rear wheel steering. The main trick seems to be to use a relatively long caster on the steering. They're clearly something you can ride.- Wolfkeeper 23:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are making the claim, perhaps you will be kind enough to provide some of these links. All the ones I find either confirm that they are unridable, or actually have center steering (the Python Lowracer and Flevobike, for example). Rear-steering in three- and four-wheeled vehicles, such as land speed record cars, really has nothing to do with bicycles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rear wheel steering 

message: Half inch trail steering geometry should be mentioned. -65.101.129.33 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No sweat. Provide a reliable source, and we'll get it right in. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Half inch trail steering geometry

message: re: disadvantges, starting and stopping in July 8 version.  The article states "However, since starting a bicycle by pushing the feet against the ground is probably a poor way to start,[23]  this criticism may invalidate itself.[citation needed]"  but the cited reference does not support the statement.  the reference instead says that pushing off with one foot on a low pedal is a poor way to start.  The embedded video at the reference shows the correct way to start as pushing off with one foot on a higher pedal.     I'm changing the sentence to agree with the citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.129.149.223 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting a bicycle

message: In the recumbents vs uprights comparisons, this article seems biased and in addition to that only considering the uprights on wich the cyclist bends forward. The city bikes that are the standard in the netherlands, have strengths and weaknesses that are verry different than upright racing bikes. 
They are designed for use as transportation, not sport. Safety, comfort and manueverability are considerately better than the ones designed for high speeds. I don´t have any references, but to me it seems by far the safest option for use in traffic.
Because the cyclist truly sits upright, visibility and the ability to see your surroundings is optimal. Combined with better manueverability, this greatly reduces the risk of an accident occuring in the first place. Falling head down is less likely, and its also a better position to be in when you whant to hop off your bike during an incident. 
In my twenty years of cycling daily through the towns and cities i lived in i have experienced some incidents, and in all of them i would have been  in a worse situation if it had occured while driving recumbent.
Recumbent bikes are ideal for high speed long distance travel, but not the safest. Unless you ride a nearly upright recumbent bike, wich close to  a city bike with extra back support.
If you want to compare things, be clear what you are comparing with what. Comparing cats and dogs changes when you include lions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.66.29 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good points which I have attempted to address in the article, mostly by expanding the introductory sentence to the section. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While I might disagree on some of the safety aspects brought up by "unsigned", I do agree we're trying to compare too many things and this section has become unwieldy, in an article that is already long.  In particular, there are many caveats for recumbent bikes vs. trikes, and as unsigned mentions, a mountain bike or city bike (town bike, hybrid, whatever you want to call it) will be different than a head-down position on a road bike with dropped handlebars.  Maybe this section should be converted into a table instead? Nerfer (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recumbents vs uprights vs uprights 

message: I have moved the following item here until it can be reliably sourced:
::Trikes are capable of turning at high speed when leaning into the corner, producing lateral "g forces" similar to sports cars.
:*First, what is leaning into the corning? Not the subject of the sentence, unless it is a tilting trike.
:*Second, the part about g forces similar to a sports car is quite a claim and definitely needs a reliable source.
:*Third, it is pretty easy to find sources, though not necessarily the more reliable, that describe the danger of "the dreaded trike flip." For example  and .
:-AndrewDressel (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but speaking from experience, simply leaning your body isn't going to produce as sharp a turn as you can do on something that tilts (typically with two wheels), at least not comfortably (ie. staying in your seat). Nerfer (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The body lean has to be extreme, and the seat must be low, to compete with a tilter in turns. Note that if you change the text to clarify this, it should also be clarified that a tilter doesn't experience lateral G-forces at all, from the point of view of the rider, who only feels a down force (as on a bike). Gunnstein (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recumbent trike cornering 

message: The above quote is from the first sentence of the 'Performance' section.   The reference provided does not support the claim.  To the contrary, the reference provided suggests that it is far more common in long distance contests for upright bicycles to capture the win. 
That sentence needs to be changed because it is misleading.  It goes toward the fairly obvious slant over most of the article towards painting recumbent bicycles as superior performance machines. The fact remains that over long distances and on courses incorporating uphill sections, recumbent bikes do not compare favorably to upright bicycles.
70.171.44.124 (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbara Buatois won the Women's division of RAAM outright in 2010 riding a Performer low-racer recumbent, by almost 21 hours. Mr Larrington (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Over Distances Recumbent bicycles outperform upright bicycles..." 

message: "Because of the supine position, some recumbents do not allow the rider to push forward with both feet on the ground." Who starts a bike like this, with BOTH feet on the ground? Apart from pedal-less kids running bikes, I have never seen a bike started that way. For an upright bike it would require an extremely low saddle. Seems nonsensical, should be sourced better or removed.
"The recommended way to start an upright bicycle is by pushing off with one foot on the ground, and one foot on a high pedal. (...) Recumbents cannot be started with this recommended upright bicycle technique." This is exactly how I start recumbents. I'll remove that claim if it is not explained or sourced better.
"Starting a recumbent does not require great strength; it is a matter of balance and a skill which must be learned. It is best to learn from an experienced rider, who can help with a little push at first. Several rides may suffice to become confident enough of one's starting and stopping skills before becoming ready to ride in traffic or perform uphill starts." While I agree with what is said, this defence section seems misplaced here. I suggest to remove it, to keep the whole list shorter (easier to read).
Gunnstein (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages: Starting

message: I've seen high and low racers used all 3 ways in the article (and in the talk page).  We should probably consolidate on one standard.  It seems most of the time it is written as one un-hyphenated word, even though that is flagged by my spell-checker. Nerfer (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling: high-racer, highracer or high racer? 

message: The advantage/disadvantage section is rather wordy and a bit redundant and full of exceptions for recumbent trikes vs bikes as well.  I made a table in my sandbox that can replace all that, I kept most of the text except to make it fit better where a section was merged or separated (for instance, adv and disadv sections both have "safety" bullet points, along with other bullet points on leg suck, falling, genital-urinary issues, etc. so I distributed the safety parts to the more specific points).  There were two, what I considered somewhat controversial, statements that were tagged with citation needed, I deleted them, but I did keep another citation needed sentence that I felt was worthwhile.
The result, I think is visually better, although it can be harder to edit (I had to learn how tables worked, and putting citations in it can lead to some confusion over what '|' character means what).  Check it out in my sandbox and let me know what you think.  If I don't hear objections, I'll move it into the article (and then probably will hear objections from people not monitoring the talk page :-) )  Nerfer (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's been nearly 3 weeks, I'm going to remove it from my sandbox now. But it's still in the history. Nerfer (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing adv/disadv section with a table 

message: Fed and non-fed/unfed recumbent bicycle? 176.222.44.103 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fed