Audax article in Cycle.

[Really Ancien]

There seems to be plenty of good advice in Dan Farell's article. A bit of nostalgia too with pictures from LEL 2001 and 2005 and PBP 2003.

Damon.

[Greenbank]

Familiar faces in the back pages too.

[simonp]

I just flicked through my copy tonight whilst thinking "nothing interesting again" then came across the Audax article.  Nice one.

Might see if I can drum up some interest in the local CTC group for the Hauxton event using this.  Very few of the Cambridge DA people actually ride the event, which is a shame.

[harrumph]

Most of a page dedicated to bum and hands and the problems long-distance riders often encounter with both.

Then, in an aside at the end of the section dealing with bike choice and riding position, a mention of the solution to these problems - recumbents.

Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...

[vorsprung]

Then, in an aside at the end of the section dealing with bike choice and riding position, a mention of the solution to these problems - recumbents.

Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...

In that case you will be baffled to hear that the group with the most DNF in PBP 2007 were recumbents

It's a simple fact that in the worlds premier long distance event this type of human powered vehicle has been found to be generally unsuitable

Why this should be the case I do not know.  I have drawn my own conclusions.

To be fair to  "Cycle" magazine they just printed an unedited list of things people found that worked for them on long distance events, which included 'bents

[Greenbank]

Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...

I'd guess at one of several reasons (including various generalisations):

1) The majority of upright Super Randonneurs have got their bike setup pretty much right (after lots of trial and error) and don't actually get any discomfort on long distance rides.
2) A significant number of Super Randonneurs are "old school" and are quite happy with their uprights with double clangers and 6-speed blocks. Recumbents represent that new-fangled technology like email or mobile telephones (or electricity in general).
3) Hills.

Personally, and speaking as a Super Randonneur, I just hate recumbents¹.

1. Note that this does not mean I hate others riding recumbents, or that I think that recumbents are generally evil. I just choose not to ride one.

[simonp]

Recumbents are much harder on the thighs, generally weigh much more, and are slow on hills.

I wouldn't say I've had no discomfort on uprights, but I've had plenty on a recumbent.

[Really Ancien]

PBP 2007 was very unusual for the amount of rain and wind, it was bad enough in waterproofs designed for uprights, but recumbents seemed to suffer because water was driven up under jackets and up sleeves.

Damon.

[Kathy]

Then, in an aside at the end of the section dealing with bike choice and riding position, a mention of the solution to these problems - recumbents.

Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...

In that case you will be baffled to hear that the group with the most DNF in PBP 2007 were recumbents

It's a simple fact that in the worlds premier long distance event this type of human powered vehicle has been found to be generally unsuitable

It might not be that the 'bent bike itself causes the DNF - it could be that the sort of rider most likely to DNF is also the sort of rider most likely to use a 'bent.

[RichForrest]

It's like any bike they take some miles to get used too as the use different muscles.
I ride mine because I can go faster on the flat than when on my upright and with more comfort (for me).
They can climb with the right rider but at 100+kg I'll never be a fast rider uphill.
My average is usually in the 21 - 24kph range but I've managed over 27kph on a couple of 200s.
I ride what I find comfortable, same as all the other riders out on the road.

[Tiger]

I suspect that a lot of bent riders are in fact less fit/older/back injured - which might explain the DNF rate.
That is my background anyway. (Also some are a few spokes short of a full wheel - no names mentioned). And quite a few 'bents' are not designed for long pacy riding being very heavy indeed and built entirely for comfortable slow cruising.
Thus the PBP lineup starts with a disproportionate bunch of bent riders who would never have got to the start on a regular bike, or are on machines designed for a different purpose. These guys are going to struggle with the repeated days of hard riding.  Meanwhile the regular bike riders will have explored their pain thresholds very thoroughly in the qualifiers, and those less fit will have been winnowed out.

My theory anyway.
Also some people really hate bents.

[vorsprung]

I suspect that a lot of bent riders are in fact less fit/older/back injured - which might explain the DNF rate.

I don't think that the idea that "it is the riders fault" can explain the PBP 2007 data

All the riders on PBP have to do an SR first.  So all of them have ridden at least half the distance already.  If this theory is true then it is also true that 'bent riders are more self delusional than average, which seems unlikely.

[harrumph]

1) The majority of upright Super Randonneurs have got their bike setup pretty much right (after lots of trial and error) and don't actually get any discomfort on long distance rides.

I went through several years of experimentation, several bikes and lots of money before admitting that I simply could not ride an upright all day without unacceptable discomfort and giving up Audax in favour of other kinds of cycling. There was no "right" setup for me, and judging by the deformed bodies of many ageing long-distance riders I don't think there was one for them either.

3) Hills.

Recumbents are like tandems; yes, they generally climb a bit more slowly, but what they lose going up they get back downhill or into a headwind, so it all works out about the same. Even if uprights were faster, for long-distance events where performance is very dependent upon comfort I would have expected a recumbent to be at least considered by any open-minded rider.

Personally, and speaking as a Super Randonneur, I just hate recumbents¹.

They're only another kind of bicycle. I like them because one saved my cycling life. I just can't imagine why they attract such antagonism 

[vorsprung]

... for long-distance events where performance is very dependent upon comfort I would have expected a recumbent to be at least considered by any open-minded rider.

I'll consider anything that really improves comfort over a long distance.
Maybe all the riders that packed PBP 2007 on 'bents were comfortable but they gave up for some other reason?

[harrumph]

I'll consider anything that really improves comfort over a long distance.

Does this mean that you do have comfort issues over long distances?

Maybe all the riders that packed PBP 2007 on 'bents were comfortable but they gave up for some other reason?

Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people who don't carry on when they are not having any fun

[Mr Larrington]

PBP 2007 was very unusual for the amount of rain and wind, it was bad enough in waterproofs designed for uprights, but recumbents seemed to suffer because water was driven up under jackets and up sleeves.

OTOH, our feet are nicely out of the firing line, so no cases of trench foot anong the Dark Side brigade.

[vorsprung]

I'll consider anything that really improves comfort over a long distance.

Does this mean that you do have comfort issues over long distances?

I am reminded of the discussion in "3 men on the Brummel" by Jerome K Jerome
We join the action well into the heroes tour of foreign parts on bicycles.  They are on a "pull up some stiff hills"

“Don’t you two fellows over-exert yourselves merely on my account,” said George.

“How do you mean?” asked Harris.

“I mean,” answered George, “that where a train does happen to be going up these hills, don’t you put aside the idea of taking it for fear of outraging my finer feelings.  Personally, I am prepared to go up all these hills in a railway train, even if it’s not playing the game.  I’ll square the thing with my conscience; I’ve been up at seven every day for a week now, and I calculate it owes me a bit.  Don’t you consider me in the matter at all.”

We promised to bear this in mind, and again the ride continued in dogged dumbness, until it was again broken by George.

“What bicycle did you say this was of yours?” asked George.

Harris told him.  I forget of what particular manufacture it happened to be; it is immaterial.

“Are you sure?” persisted George.

“Of course I am sure,” answered Harris.  “Why, what’s the matter with it?”

“Well, it doesn’t come up to the poster,” said George, “that’s all.”

“What poster?” asked Harris.

“The poster advertising this particular brand of cycle,” explained George.  “I was looking at one on a hoarding in Sloane Street only a day or two before we started.  A man was riding this make of machine, a man with a banner in his hand: he wasn’t doing any work, that was clear as daylight; he was just sitting on the thing and drinking in the air.  The cycle was going of its own accord, and going well.  This thing of yours leaves all the work to me.  It is a lazy brute of a machine; if you don’t shove, it simply does nothing: I should complain about it, if I were you.”

When one comes to think of it, few bicycles do realise the poster.  On only one poster that I can recollect have I seen the rider represented as doing any work.  But then this man was being pursued by a bull.  In ordinary cases the object of the artist is to convince the hesitating neophyte that the sport of bicycling consists in sitting on a luxurious saddle, and being moved rapidly in the direction you wish to go by unseen heavenly powers.

( you can find the whole book at
Three Men on the Bummel )

Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people who don't carry on when they are not having any fun

This is the mystery solved.  All 'bent riders are sensible

[Mr Larrington]

Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people

'ere, are you calling me sensible?

(Primes Mr Shovel)

[Greenbank]

I just can't imagine why they attract such antagonism 

It wasn't antagonism, it was a statement of personal preference, not about recumbents in general. Also, I did say that my first point included generalisations, your individual experiences don't change that, the whole point of a generalisation is to ignore the data points that don't fit.

You don't need to defend recumbents, nor try to convert me; there's little point given that (as an open-minded person) I've tried various and found I dislike:

• the weight (and the light ones are expensive)
• the riding position and corresponding pedaling action
• the feel of the handling (and I've tried bikes and trikes with various steering setups)
• the look of them (ugliness is in the eye of the beholder)
• and finally, the fact that out on the road, if something goes wrong, it will probably be harder to source spare parts than for a 700c wheeled upright

The "feel" is probably the reason why I used the word "hate". I genuinely hated the feeling of riding them.

I'm glad that they work for you (and many others), and bring you much enjoyment.

[harrumph]

So your dislike of recumbents is based partly on a purely subjective criterion (their appearance) and partly on negative experience - which at least shows that you have tried some.

What I don't understand is why so few Audaxers have even tried a recumbent, when it is so obvious a solution to some of the things which (if that article in Cycle is anything to go by) plague them.

I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else (each to his own), just curious to know why cycling minds in general are so closed to recumbents.

[harrumph]

Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people

'ere, are you calling me sensible?

(Primes Mr Shovel)

Well, you will note that I did allow for exceptions

[Really Ancien]

I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else (each to his own), just curious to know why cycling minds in general are so closed to recumbents.

Storage and carriage mainly I think, that and expense, and the high visibility with kids pointing at you and laughing and perhaps throwing the odd stone, but apart from the difficulty of getting spare parts I can't really think of any downsides, apart from the insanely long chains, guided in a plastic tube.

Damon.

[Mr Larrington]

Recumbents are like tandems; yes, they generally climb a bit more slowly, but what they lose going up they get back downhill or into a headwind, so it all works out about the same.

The problem is that they're fast enough down hills that half the time you have to brake.  Which rather spoils the effect.  Though this didn't seem to bother Messrs. Sybrandy & Wessels, who finished in a whisker over 53 hours in machines with an base unladen mass of 34 kg.  Before the start Hans said that they were "going for a good time, but if it rains, it will be difficult" while pointing at his specs.

[tatanab]

I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else (each to his own), just curious to know why cycling minds in general are so closed to recumbents.

Not me.  As a cyclist I like to try all sorts.  I've ridden everything from one wheel to four; new to 1890's; upright and recumbent.  Give me a chance and I will give it a go, although I probably don't have the bottle to try an ordinary.  I've tried recumbent bikes, long and short wheelbase; recumbent trikes, tadpole and delta, I just don't like them much.  They don't suit me as an allround machine - on road, off road etc.

The antipathy to some recumbent people I can understand.  Those I know or meet on the road are fine, but in writing on a forum some come across as too evangelical - just like when MTBs were new in this country "why do you need drops, you only need one hand position?" - then watch them grow bar ends etc when they came along.

Each to their own, and long may it be so.  Personally I prefer tricycles to bicycles, and have been told many times how silly it is by cyclists with no experience or imagination.  So I can only hope I treat recumbent owners with more tolerance.

[Mr Larrington]

Storage and carriage mainly I think, that and expense, and the high visibility with kids pointing at you and laughing and perhaps throwing the odd stone, but apart from the difficulty of getting spare parts I can't really think of any downsides, apart from the insanely long chains, guided in a plastic tube.

My Kingcycle actually took up less space than my mountain bike, and the pointing and laughing you get used to after the first twenty years.  The only time I've ever had anything thrown at me was when I was riding an MTB, and I've only been stranded on the road once due to a failure of a recumbent-specific part.

Not all of 'em use chain tubes - of the six BRITONS known to have started PBP on recumbents, I was the only one to sport a full set - Patrick Field's Ratracer has a small length on the return side.