Why aren't recumbent bicycles more popular?

Question

They're really interesting bikes, and they're supposedly much faster than a normal bicycle. So why don't more people ride them? - I'd love to have a recumbent tandem or sociable.

Answer 1

The main reason there are not more popular is that most people simply don't know about them. If there was a Major competition in the world that allowed them they would dominate. They are still banned as having to much of an aerodynamic advantage. Faired recumbents have held the world speed record for years (currently about 81mph)

They are starting to gain a following since at least one Taiwanese manufacturer has gone into mass production. (tw bents) This has brought the cost of a high end machine a lot closer to the upright version.

They are a lot more common amongst the long distance set since they are more comfy. Maintenance is not really a problem since they use common components. (apart from frame, seat and forks on bikes. Trikes are a different story)

Bike stores don't stock them because there isn't enough demand.(A classic catch 22) There is a perception that they look a little daggy. I think this is just because they are different. My research has found that tadpole trikes actually rate as looking cool.

People seem to focus on what the champs are riding. Lets face it upright bikes are a lot of fun. Most simply don't get past this to give an alternative a go. Others don't want to stand out in a crowd. Either way I think we will be seeing a lot more on the roads in the next few years. Here is a chance to get into it before it gets trendy.

Additional:
Looks like there is a bit of misinformation about also.

If you scrub out tyres on a trike there is most likely a problem with your alignment and/or ackerman compensation. Or maybe you just throwing it around a bit to often. Most run bmx sized slicks which are reasonably common.

Bent riders usually attack a hill by spinning I admit this isn't quite as quick but is more than compensated elsewere.

information on prices see actionbent "TW bents" us agent
http://actionbent.com/index.html

Answer 2

** disclosure - I sell and ride recumbent trikes **

Recumbents aren't more popular because fewer people know of them. That means fewer get sold, so fewer are made, and you lose the economy of scale a bike factory in China that turns out 10,000 frames a week has.

(very condensed story follows) Recumbents have been round for decades - the first ell known one was in the 1930s, where a cyclist blitzed a lot of Paris races on a home-built one. The French cycling federation eventually banned the recumbent design from official racing, and as a result no bike manufacturers would make them (no racing -> no exposure -> no sales). It's really only been the last 25 years or so that manufactures have built commercial 'bents, despite the fact that they are still not "bikes" according to most cycling bodies.

Unlike what's been stated above, they DON'T have "many more parts", or "many non-standard parts" at all. The frames and some steering components are different it's true, as is the steering, but the cassettes, derailleurs, chainrings, cranks, pedals, brakes, lights, panniers, etc are all generally standard components from the likes of Avid, Shimano, SRAM, Sugino, Hope, Rolhoff, Tioga, etc. Tyres are generally BMX sizes, and you can use Schwalbe, Maxxis, Vredestein, Continental etc happily. Not all have two different size wheels either.

Also, again unlike what's been said above, they do "do hills". It needs a different technique to what you do on an upright - you need to drop right down in the gears and spin to get up there. once you've mastered the art you can generally be pretty close to as fast as you are on an upright, and because spinning is a much more energy efficient technique you can climb longer hills too. Then blitz your upright friends down the other side :-)

WRT relative speeds, a 'bent can be either lightning fast,or a slow cruiser - just like regular bikes. Speaking from a trike POV, if you're a good rider on a road bike (and i mean you're a genuine roadie, riding/racing in events, training regularly etc) then a recumbent trike will slow you down slightly. On the other hand, if you ride a regular MTB, or are just a casual cyclist on an average bike, a trike will make you faster slightly, once you're used to it. And of course, 'bent bikes are generally (but not always) faster than 'bent trikes.

The thing that makes 'bents such a nice ride tho is the seating ergonomics. It's no coincidence that most chairs in the world look like recumbent seats, not bike saddles! What I get from my 'bent is not speed, but endurance - I can sit in that seat very comfortably for hours at a time - no sore bum, no sore back or arms, no stiff neck.

Finally, a recumbent tandem trike is a joy to tour on. It's like a limo! It takes a bit of effort to get it up to speed, but once you're at speed it just stays there! The long wheelbase makes for a very comfortable ride by absorbing pretty much all bumps, and because you sit in a normal seating position you look straight ahead naturally - don't have to keep lifting your head - you get a fantastic view all around (and you have mirrors to see behind you). And because it has 3 wheels is extremely stable so you don't have to worry about balance either. if you get a blowout at high speed you just roll to a stop, not flipped over the bars or rolled over a cliff or onto the road.

Answer 3

As to why they aren't more popular, it's the "perception" that they are too heavy, climb slow, etc. and with some designs this certainly is the case. But overall, I think the lack of standardization is the primary hurdle. If there was a standard platform with both wheels the same size and handling the gearing similiarly then I believe they'd be more tempting for a large corporation to start a factory line of them, like they currently do with diamond-frame styles. (I'm aware that Trek tried and Cannondale still does but niether really put a big effort into marketing thier respective models).

In addition, the fact that the UCI banned them years ago really shot them in the foot. Look at it this way - a guy goes in to the shop to purchase a road bike and does he get something that will suit his riding style as a new rider, with somewhat wider but more comfortable tires, wheels with a "normal" spoke count and a durable frame that will let you fit fenders in case he gets caught in the rain? Nope. Joe Newbiker gets a carbon fiber wonder with very narrow tires and 16-spoke wheels because that's what Lance (or whomever) rides... the image that we constatly get from the media outlets that reflect reader's buying habits that (more circles). I won't get into the downside of that but like a previous poster mentioned if Lance won the TdF on a recumbent the sales would skyrocket.

That said, *I* like the fact that recumbents come in various configurations and have owned a few. There are some downsides as well and upsides. "Bents are *generally* more expensive because none of the recumbent makers are mass-producing them on the same scale as most other tradioinal-style bikes. A previous poster mentioned ActionBents, but even better is the Sun EZ-line that is carried by J&B (any bike shop that orders from J&B can get one). Cool designs, good prices, but with some trade-offs.

Recumbents can be designed to be fast, or can be designed to be comfortable, or can be designed to actually climb as well as a diamond-frame (check out Bachetta and Hostel Shoppe's high-racers). But making them more popular is what the recumbent makers are trying to figure out.

Answer 4

First off, they're more expensive. It's hard to find a recumbent for less than $800. I suspect that's due to their complexity (longer chain, longer bars, tougher welds, and so on). Also, since there's much less standardization among recumbents, you can't get stock parts, so that also drives up the price.

Also, they can be more dangerous. Their low profile makes them harder to see by cars and pedestrians.

Finally, they're not what one typically thinks of when bikes come to mind. Their unconventional shape will be a hurdle for years to come.

Answer 5

Go for it. I've had a bent for years, it's not the bike I ride most but is definitely the most comfortable bike I own.

The hills are a real killer is the main problem, and the handling takes some getting used to, but otherwise they're a ton of fun.

As to "why" all I can say is fashion is a fickle thing. If Lance won the Tour riding a bent, we'd all be on bents.

Answer 6

Despite the hi-tech side of the bikes themselves, they attract geeky types. They have a multitude of engineering solutions to the problem of going fast while pedaling, comfort and aerodynamics but when riders have to fly an orange flag just to be visible (the same ones that some kid's bikes have), it kinda cuts down on the coolness factor. Also, a lot have 2 different wheel sizes, non-standard parts and not locally stocked so you can't really test-ride one.

Answer 7

They are interesting, and they are definitely faster on the flat. Having met a few people commuting and touring on them, and done a lot of both myself (but only on uprights), here's the pros and cons as I see them:

~ The reclined position means your body spends less energy pumping blood against gravity, so you have more energy available for pedalling. Couple this with the more aerodynamic position and recumbents can be hard to keep up with, except uphill where their extra weight catches up with them. Recumbent bikes are difficult to steer straight at low speeds.
~ As machines they are inherently safer and more stable than uprights (although you lose the ability to transfer your weight) but in traffic you are less visible (especially on trikes), can't easily look in all directions or over cars, and trikes are wider. Their practicality for commuting depends heavily on the cycling conditions in your city.
~ For touring, they give a fantastic armchair view of the road ahead, are faster on flattish terrain, can be used as lounge chairs at the end of the day, and eliminate saddle, neck and shoulder pain. Those low slung trikes handle like go-carts and are wicked to ride. On the downside you can't see the view behind, they are more cumbersome to get on and off planes/trains/etc or park overnight, demand patience on climbs, trikes go through (non-standard) front tyres at an alarming rate and can struggle on dirt tracks, your upper body literally wastes away if you don't do anything else, some parts are not stocked in shops, and the riding position can cause or aggravate lower back problems (but so can an upright, just depends on your body). Touring trikes also cost twice as much as regular touring bikes. For me the portability issue is a big one, since touring usually involves hopping on and off all forms of transport and I like to park the bike in my room overnight, plus I gravitate towards mountainous areas and backroads where they are less pleasant to ride. That's not to say I'll never buy one, just not yet.

Answer 8

They are not faster than a regular bicycle, although they are very cool. They are much heavier, cannot climb fast, and most importantly do not have the handling ability that a regular bike does. They are aso not cheap- they start at around $1,000 and go up from there.

I'm not against them at all, and I would like to try one of those low-down three-wheelers! It just looks so freakin' cool!

Answer 9

Because of their odd shape most people I right with steer away from them. They're hard to fix most shops won't sell them and have WAY MORE components on them if they break down. They look cute but getting them fixed is a pain the rear.

Answer 10

It's difficult to climb with it if you can actually can. You can't race it in the grand tours.