Re: CruzBike?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Never heard of it.
>
> Does anybody actually have one of these things?
> http://www.cruzbike.com/
>
Not me.
>
> Been flirting with the idea of a 'bent for a number of years -
>
Oh, the HORROR!!! ;)
>
> just for path riding but, being a statistical outlier
> body-dimension-wise, have shied away from the cost of a custom.
>
My opinion is that recumbents are best on the open road, or ridden in a
"vehicular cycling" mode. Path generally have too many features that
need to be maneuvered at low speed with tight turns, which is not a
forte of recumbent bicycles (trikes are a different matter).

Describe more specifically how you differ from the norm, and perhaps
suggestions for suitable bicycles could be made. Recumbent fit concerns
are rather different than those of uprights.
>
> Cruz' attraction is that the drive system seems to lend itself to
> fairly extreme leg length adjustments - yet fit on the average
> trunk-mount bike rack.
>
I would hesitate to buy without a chance to ride one first. Moving
bottom bracket bicycle can be rather odd in the handling department.
Note that the number of dealers is sparse, so finding a test ride may
not be practical.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Never heard of it.
>
> > Does anybody actually have one of these things?
> >http://www.cruzbike.com/
>
> Not me.
> >> Been flirting with the idea of a 'bent for a number of years -
>
> >
> Oh, the HORROR!!! ;)
> >> just for path riding but, being a statistical outlier
> > body-dimension-wise, have shied away from the cost of a custom.
>
> >
> My opinion is that recumbents are best on the open road, or ridden in a
> "vehicular cycling" mode. Path generally have too many features that
> need to be maneuvered at low speed with tight turns, which is not a
> forte of recumbent bicycles (trikes are a different matter).
>
> Describe more specifically how you differ from the norm, and perhaps
> suggestions for suitable bicycles could be made. Recumbent fit concerns
> are rather different than those of uprights.
>
> > Cruz' attraction is that the drive system seems to lend itself to
> > fairly extreme leg length adjustments - yet fit on the average
> > trunk-mount bike rack.
>
> >
> I would hesitate to buy without a chance to ride one first. Moving
> bottom bracket bicycle can be rather odd in the handling department.
> Note that the number of dealers is sparse, so finding a test ride may
> not be practical.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Labeling all recumbents as not suitable for bike paths is a massive
generalization. My short-wheelbase Rans Rocket is very agile at low
speeds and tight turns. My long-wheelbase Sun EZ-Sport is almost as
good.

On Nov 27, 1:46 am, Joe Bernard <josephrbern...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > > Never heard of it.
>
> > > Does anybody actually have one of these things?
> > >http://www.cruzbike.com/
>
> > Not me.
> > >> Been flirting with the idea of a 'bent for a number of years -
>
> > Oh, the HORROR!!! ;)
> > >> just for path riding but, being a statistical outlier
> > > body-dimension-wise, have shied away from the cost of a custom.
>
> > My opinion is that recumbents are best on the open road, or ridden in a
> > "vehicular cycling" mode. Path generally have too many features that
> > need to be maneuvered at low speed with tight turns, which is not a
> > forte of recumbent bicycles (trikes are a different matter).
>
> > Describe more specifically how you differ from the norm, and perhaps
> > suggestions for suitable bicycles could be made. Recumbent fit concerns
> > are rather different than those of uprights.
>
> > > Cruz' attraction is that the drive system seems to lend itself to
> > > fairly extreme leg length adjustments - yet fit on the average
> > > trunk-mount bike rack.
>
> > I would hesitate to buy without a chance to ride one first. Moving
> > bottom bracket bicycle can be rather odd in the handling department.
> > Note that the number of dealers is sparse, so finding a test ride may
> > not be practical.
>
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> > "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> > differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> > excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
>
> Labeling all recumbents as not suitable for bike paths is a massive
> generalization. My short-wheelbase Rans Rocket is very agile at low
> speeds and tight turns. My long-wheelbase Sun EZ-Sport is almost as
> good.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.

/s

Joe Bernard wrote:
> On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>> ...
>> >> Been flirting with the idea of a 'bent for a number of years -
>>
>> Oh, the HORROR!!! ;)
>> >> just for path riding...
>>
>> My opinion is that recumbents are best on the open road, or ridden in a
>> "vehicular cycling" mode. Path generally have too many features that
>> need to be maneuvered at low speed with tight turns, which is not a
>> forte of recumbent bicycles (trikes are a different matter).
> ...
>
> Labeling all recumbents as not suitable for bike paths is a massive
> generalization. My short-wheelbase Rans Rocket is very agile at low
> speeds and tight turns. My long-wheelbase Sun EZ-Sport is almost as
> good.

1. I did not label all recumbents as unsuitable for riding on paths.
Rather, I was contending the real strength of recumbents is being ridden
on the open road. Using a recumbent only on paths (as the original
poster suggested doing) would be a significant under utilization of the
bicycle.

2. What is a "Rans Rocket"? Is it similar to the 2000 [1] RANS Rocket I
have?

3. While most paths can be negotiated on a recumbent without
dismounting, it is much easier to deal with the really poorly designed
sections on an upright bicycle, particularly an ATB. Of course, the
recumbent is vastly superior to the ATB in comfort and speed.

[1] By serial number, the frame is a 1999, but it came with the 2000
seat, so I assume it was one of the leftover 1999 frames built up in 2000.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Scott Gordo wrote:
> On Nov 27, 1:46 am, Joe Bernard <josephrbern...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
What up with Google - they need to fix their web interface to meet
commonly accepted Usenet standards? The elimination of blank lines, the
insertion of extra blank lines and ignoring the signature separator are
all unacceptable.
>>
>>> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>>> Never heard of it.
>>>> Does anybody actually have one of these things?
>>>> http://www.cruzbike.com/
>>> Not me.
>>> >> Been flirting with the idea of a 'bent for a number of years -
>>> Oh, the HORROR!!! ;)
>>> >> just for path riding but, being a statistical outlier
>>>> body-dimension-wise, have shied away from the cost of a custom.
>>> My opinion is that recumbents are best on the open road, or ridden in a
>>> "vehicular cycling" mode. Path generally have too many features that
>>> need to be maneuvered at low speed with tight turns, which is not a
>>> forte of recumbent bicycles (trikes are a different matter).
>>> Describe more specifically how you differ from the norm, and perhaps
>>> suggestions for suitable bicycles could be made. Recumbent fit concerns
>>> are rather different than those of uprights.
>>>> Cruz' attraction is that the drive system seems to lend itself to
>>>> fairly extreme leg length adjustments - yet fit on the average
>>>> trunk-mount bike rack.
>>> I would hesitate to buy without a chance to ride one first. Moving
>>> bottom bracket bicycle can be rather odd in the handling department.
>>> Note that the number of dealers is sparse, so finding a test ride may
>>> not be practical.
>
>> Labeling all recumbents as not suitable for bike paths is a massive
>> generalization. My short-wheelbase Rans Rocket is very agile at low
>> speeds and tight turns. My long-wheelbase Sun EZ-Sport is almost as
>> good.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.

The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.

You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
these limitations are unimportant.

You do not want to plant your foot while riding a recumbent. On the
other hand, if you are going slow enough that you could attempt a foot
plant, a fall from a recumbent will not really hurt anything. Falling
over on a recumbent is much less hurtful than doing the same on an upright.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Per Tom Sherman:
>You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>or certain types of non-vehicular cycling.

After I fired off the post, I realized that with the front wheel
drive there might be difficulty negotiating something like a curb
by raising the front wheel.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Tom Sherman:
>> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling.
>
> After I fired off the post, I realized that with the front wheel
> drive there might be difficulty negotiating something like a curb
> by raising the front wheel.

Raising the front wheel is very difficult to impossible on a recumbent.
As I wrote, recumbents are best when used for "vehicular cycling". For
some, that trade-off is negligible compared to the advantages in comfort
and aerodynamic drag, for others it is not. As always, YMMV.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

On Nov 27, 9:22 am, Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
>
> /s

DING DING DING DING DING!!!
We have a winner!

Yes, on an upright bicycle, you balance by moving your body, or even
pull up to pop a wheelie or bunny hop a curb.
Yes, on a recumbent, you cannot move very much. You must learn to
steer the front wheel toward the balance point, where the line between
the tire contact patches is underneath the center of mass, and altered
by a deliberate turn. For practice, I will hold a pipe or chain link
fence, and attempt to balance with as little push / pull effort as
possible. When approaching a red light or busy stop sign, I can ride
real slow, close to a track stand.
It is difficult for first time riders to get used to this, but you get
used to it after a few miles.

Joe Bernard wrote:
> ...
> Aaaah I see. OK, settle it. Rans or RANS?

Randy Schlitter says "RANS" is correct. End of argument.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

On Nov 29, 4:23 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Joe Bernard wrote:
> > ...
> > Aaaah I see. OK, settle it. Rans or RANS?
>
> Randy Schlitter says "RANS" is correct. End of argument.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

What does he know? Oh, right. I knew it, too, and can't believe I
typed it wrong the first time. Don't tell my Rocket.

On Nov 27, 9:22 am, Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:

DING DING DING DING DING!!!
We have a winner!

Yes, on an upright bicycle, you balance by moving your body, Wrong!

Balance AND navigation on both the upright bike and the recumbent, require steering inputs to remain balanced. Although the rider on the upright has marginally greater influence over balancing than the 'bent rider does, the same basic laws of physics apply equally to both platforms.

Joe Bernard wrote:
> On Nov 29, 4:23 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Joe Bernard wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Aaaah I see. OK, settle it. Rans or RANS?
>> Randy Schlitter says "RANS" is correct. End of argument.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
>> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
>> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
>
> What does he know? Oh, right. I knew it, too, and can't believe I
> typed it wrong the first time. Don't tell my Rocket.

Get down on your knees facing Hays, Kansas, and say one-hundred (100)
"Hail RANS". ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

cjengineer who? wrote:
> mike.a.schwab@gmail.com Wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 9:22 am, Scott Gordo <blubberp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> DING DING DING DING DING!!!
>> We have a winner!
>>
>> Yes, on an upright bicycle, you balance by moving your body, Wrong!
>
> Balance AND navigation on _both_ the upright bike and the recumbent,
> require steering inputs to remain balanced. Although the rider on the
> upright has marginally greater influence over balancing than the 'bent
> rider does, the same basic laws of physics apply equally to both
> platforms.

Yes, one does not see many (any?) upright bicycles without steering.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Scott Gordo wrote:
> >
> > From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
> > recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
> > like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
> > of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
>
> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.

The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
already jumped out of a tall building.

> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
> these limitations are unimportant.

You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.

'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
suburbs. Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
out in the countryside.

Chalo

Chalo Colina wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Scott Gordo wrote:
>>> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
>>> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
>>> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
>>> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
>>
>> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.
>
> The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
> drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
> pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
> you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
> 'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
> complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
> already jumped out of a tall building.

With all due respect, commenting on the handling of recumbents would be
better left to those that have some experience of the variety. I have
ridden recumbents that require almost no effort to steer and balance,
and poorly designed others that are barely controllable. There is a far
greater variation in recumbents than there is in upright bicycles.

>> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
>> these limitations are unimportant.
>
> You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
> where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
> getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
> take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
> those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.

I never found this to be a significant disadvantage. I prefer NOT to
ride in these odd places, since both pedestrians and motorists will not
be watching for potential conflicts coming from these areas,
substantially increasing the risk of collisions.

> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
> suburbs.

Huh? I have spent plenty of time riding a recumbent in such areas with
not difficulty. Again, we have a non-recumbent riding "expert" on
recumbents. :(

> Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
> out in the countryside.

I have seen plenty (relative to their share of the bicycle market) of
recumbents on the open road. In fact, due to the greater comfort and
upright to slightly reclined head position, recumbents are an excellent
choice for long-distance touring.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f97717cd-db43-423a-9861-8661be953e25@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Scott Gordo wrote:
>>>> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
>>>> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
>>>> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
>>>> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
>>> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.
>> The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
>> drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
>> pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
>> you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
>> 'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
>> complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
>> already jumped out of a tall building.
>>
>>> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>>> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>>> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
>>> these limitations are unimportant.
>> You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
>> where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
>> getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
>> take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
>> those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.
>>
>> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
>> suburbs. Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
>> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
>> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
>> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
>> out in the countryside.
>
> Chalo is quite correct in everything he says above. Mr. Sherman gets carried
> away by the sole advantage of a recumbent, and that is its comfort as
> compared to an upright. However, when you are old and decrepit like I am, it
> is either ride a recumbent or forget about bikes altogether.
>
> The day may come when even Chalo will think the comfort factor is of supreme
> importance and all those other factors which he now cherishes will be of no
> importance whatever.

One does wonder if Chalo, due to his 2.05-meter tall stature and mass in
the 145 to 175-kilogram range, has ever ridden a recumbent suitable for
him? All the production recumbents I can think of would either have too
short a wheelbase or two flexible of a frame for someone in the 99.9th
percentile of height and mass.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:firn91$naq$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Chalo Colina wrote:
> [...]
>>> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
>>> suburbs.
>> Huh? I have spent plenty of time riding a recumbent in such areas with no
>> difficulty. Again, we have a non-recumbent riding "expert" on recumbents.
>> :(
>
> I wonder if Tom Sherman has ever ridden an upright for any length of time?
> The fact is that they will go places easily that a recumbent can only
> negotiate with awkwardness. An upright is like a deer springing through
> traffic; a recumbent is more like a lumbering elephant.
> [...]

I purchased my first quality upright bicycle (a Peugeot P-8 from Andrew
Muzi at Yellow Jersey) in 1982, and my first recumbent (RANS Wave) in
1999. Do the math.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Chalo Colina wrote:

>> Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
>> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
>> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
>> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
>> out in the countryside.
>
> I have seen plenty (relative to their share of the bicycle market) of
> recumbents on the open road. In fact, due to the greater comfort and
> upright to slightly reclined head position, recumbents are an excellent
> choice for long-distance touring.

Indeed, judging by the use I make of mine, Chalo is wrong. I use
it on Real Roads in the countryside more often than I use it
anywhere else (it is, after all, a specific touring example)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l41L_q1Dp6w

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Scott Gordo wrote:
>>>> From looking at that cruzbike.com page, it dawned on me that
>>>> recumbents must require more of a leap of faith handling-wise. Looks
>>>> like there's no way to redistribute your weight, and I don't see much
>>>> of a way to plant a foot to prevent a crash.
> >>
>>> The CruzBike does look to have the weight distribution too far forward.
>>
>> The Cruzbike's traction probably benefits from it's weight bias to the
>> drive wheel. I'm pretty sure that its handling suffers more from
>> pedal-steering than it does from its weight distribution. But once
>> you've made the decisive handling compromise of going to any kind of
>> 'bent layout, the specific problems are just details. It's like
>> complaining about a necktie that flaps in your face when you've
>> already jumped out of a tall building.
>
> With all due respect, commenting on the handling of recumbents would be
> better left to those that have some experience of the variety. I have
> ridden recumbents that require almost no effort to steer and balance,
> and poorly designed others that are barely controllable. There is a far
> greater variation in recumbents than there is in upright bicycles.
>
>>> You can not do the same type of maneuvers on a recumbent as on a
>>> upright, but this is really only of concern in technical off-road riding
>>> or certain types of non-vehicular cycling. For many types of riding,
>>> these limitations are unimportant.
>>
>> You can call it "unimportant" to limit your bike travel only to places
>> where you can take the lane (or a paved shoulder), but actually
>> getting places is easier and much more versatile when you can also
>> take to the sidewalk or the grassy margins as appropriate-- even if
>> those facilities are not blessed with curb cuts.
>
> I never found this to be a significant disadvantage. I prefer NOT to
> ride in these odd places, since both pedestrians and motorists will not
> be watching for potential conflicts coming from these areas,
> substantially increasing the risk of collisions.
>
>> 'Bents don't appear to do well in city centers, or in well-populated
>> suburbs.
>
> Huh? I have spent plenty of time riding a recumbent in such areas with
> not difficulty. Again, we have a non-recumbent riding "expert" on
> recumbents. :(
>
>> Judging by the places I ever see them riding more than once
>> in a rare while, it looks like they are best suited to riding on multi-
>> use paths and inconvenient byways avoided by motorists. I expect that
>> they'd be OK on the open road, but I don't think I've ever seen one
>> out in the countryside.
>
> I have seen plenty (relative to their share of the bicycle market) of
> recumbents on the open road. In fact, due to the greater comfort and
> upright to slightly reclined head position, recumbents are an excellent
> choice for long-distance touring.
>

Ever recumbent is different. Some are more suitable for riding in one
type of situation other are better in other situation, which is pretty
much the same as diamond frame bicycles. I ride my V2 in town almost
exclusively, even though I have two diamond frames sitting in my garage.
Once the new recumbent rider becomes proficient at riding their
recumbent they will be at home in more and more situations and
conditions. Would I choose to ride my V2 in New York city as a commuter?
Probably not. I would probably choose a short wheel base for that
situation.