|
|
|
|
|
|
by UI_at_80x24
2532 days ago
|
|
|
>Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. I disagree. Some of them certainly are 'below eye level', but that is an awfully broad criticism of the group as a whole. I ride a LongBike Slipstream. The length of the bike is LONGER then a Smart Fortwo. I sit eye-level with almost every sedan I've encountered. SUV's and raised pickup trucks are indeed above my eye-level, but sporty cars are usually below it. I usually get exceptional room allotted to me by other drivers when I'm on the road. The exception being assholes, but luckily the are the exception and not the rule. >TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technology. Almost all improvements now are iterative. "Efficient enough" ?
All of the land-speed records for human-powered vehicles are held by recumbents.
http://www.ihpva.org/home/ It's ok if you don't like them. But please don't pass off your opinion as fact. |
|
|
I am not trying to break the land speed record on the way to work. I just want to get there in one piece.
The point I was making is just because something is on paper technically better there are other considerations, for someone that commutes regularly being able to go to the local bicycle shop and pick up a spare whatever is more important to me than any perceived efficiencies.
I own a fixed gear with some rather fancy kit on it. Despite the simplicity of the bike, getting replacement parts requires me having to order things online. The cheap 1990s Marin Hawk Hill mountain bike I cycle to work on, I can literally get parts for it anywhere and an be fixed with a set of allen keys and a spanner.