My beef with the French
I hate to participate in all the French-bashing that’s the rage among idiots today, but I do have one big issue with them.
After a bicyclist on a recumbent bike, Francois Faure, broke the bike speed record in 1933, the Union Cycliste Internationale, the body that governs bike racing in France, forbade recumbent bikes from racing. Their stated rationale was to maintain bike racing as an athletic rather than an engineering competition.
Which makes some sense, of course, but had a chilling effect on innovation. They specified the diamond-frame bike (dating to 1884) as the standard, and bicycle manufacturers followed suit, such that even today almost all bikes are that shape. Only in recent years, largely driven by mountain biking, has there been much innovation.
The diamond-frame bike, by design, puts about 40% of your weight on your hands. Operating it involves maintaining tension in much of your body. If you want to look up and enjoy the view, you have to crane your neck into an uncomfortable position (generally — some styles allow one to sit more upright.) This means that anyone with upper-body joint problems — wrist, back, neck — is essentially barred from bicycling.
And I gnash my teeth every time I see a recommendation for a split-seat or other ‘comfortable’ bike seat for an upright bicycle to alleviate the well-documented discomfort, and even nerve damage, and, in men, erectile dysfunction and sterility that upright bicycling can cause. No matter how much you pay for the seat, you’re still jamming something up your crotch. It’s solving the wrong problem.
Now on a recumbent, you’re comfortably reclined, your head upright, positioned to comfortably look all around. With above-seat steering, there’s a little weight or your hands — basically, the weight of your forearms, with under-seat steering, there’s none. If your hips and legs work, and you can see and balance, you can ride a recumbent, even if upper-body injuries prevent your riding an upright.
I always thought recumbents looked neat, but probably would never have taken the leap until my repetitive stress injury meant that a single bike ride caused days of pain — a pretty big drawback for a transportation cyclist.
If the UCI hadn’t banned recumbents, they obviously would have become the standard for racing, because uprights couldn’t compete. If they’d been the standard for racing, manufacturers would have been mass-producing them for most of this century, and we wouldn’t even refer to recumbent bikes — they’d be what “bike” meant.
And if that’s what bike meant, then more people could ride them — the elderly, those with joint injuries — and maybe the idea of someone biking for transportation wouldn’t be quite so peculiar.
OK, I‘m lapsing into bicyclist fantasy there. Recumbent bikes wouldn’t have trumped car culture in this country. But it could have (and could still) mean more comfort, more options, and a better quality of life for some. And that’s more than enough to be worth it.
I've tried a 'bent (a BikeE) and it was comfy but I missed being able to get my weight above the pedals to push uphill if I needed to. Ben's got a 'bent with 108 speeds and the granny gears are seriously granny, but you're moving uphill at a crawl.
But for a leisurely sightseeing spin they're awfully nice. If I were wealthy I'd own one as an alternate ride.
Posted by Kate M. on March 24 2003 15:31
It's true, they're somewhat slower at climbing than one can get standing on the pedals of an upright. But (obviously) I would be quick to discourage any notion that they're suited only for leisure. Berkeley's a hilly town, and I get by just fine. And every year, there are recumbent bike tourists crossing the Rockies.
If I were wealthy, I'd own a folding recumbent and a racing recumbent (model unknown -- I've never even tried to investigate 'em -- would be nice to have something lightweight and fast, as opposed to my rugged, durable, heavy bike.)
Posted by Zed on March 24 2003 20:43
Also, I didn't ride the BikeE long enough to get a sense of another thing. On my conventional bike, I'm often controlling the bike's direction by minor hip motions left and right. I don't see how you would do that on a 'bent in which your seated position is fixed.
Actually, got my bike out Sunday for the first time this year. Enough of the snow is gone to make it bike time again. Yay!
Posted by Kate M. on March 25 2003 06:30
I don't think hip motion plays a role in my steering; leaning plays a larger role than it did for me on uprights, and, at any rate, I do always get the bike where I want it.
Yay!
Posted by Zed on March 25 2003 08:22
Minor point: doesn't the UCI control all international cycle racing, rather than just in France? Certainly I was under the impression that UCI points could be earnt in a number of accredited events across the globe. And, come to that, aren't the UCI now based in Switzerland? http://www.uci.ch seems to imply so...
Recumbents: couple of points. Diamond frames are superior to recumbents when it comes to maneuverability - ever bunny-hopped a 'bent? Off-road recumbents are unlikely to ever make much impact, so to speak. I agree that 'bents make sense for protracted runs on tarmac: if I ever get around to serious long-distance touring, a 'bent tricycle (or better, a bent trike tandem) would be my weapon of choice. However, I'm put off using a 'bent around town due to the height thing. I have enough trouble being seen by drivers as is, without losing about 2ft of vertical height. The speed gain, for me, would be counteracted by a perceived decrease in traffic safety.
Again, if my primary cycling need was long-distance touring I'd be putting down the cash on a Windcheetah or a Greenspeed. As I'm mainly a commuting and short-distance touring cyclist, I'll stick to a diamond-frame MTB with road slicks.
Posted by Jack on March 27 2003 08:12
OK, I'll have to look up more about the UCI before shooting off my mouth (the French-bashing was an affectation at any rate.)
There's manuverability and there's manuverability. You can't bunny-hop a 'bent, but I've never wanted to in street-riding (of course, what it's occurred to me to want may have been affected by what was possible.) My short-wheelbase recumbent offers the tightest turning radius I've ever had on any bike, though.
And recumbent mountain bikes do exist, but I agree with you -- a more upright posture is more practical for mountain biking.
I consider the visibility thing a non-issue. My head is at the same height as that of a driver in a compact car. If a driver doesn't see me, it's because he or she isn't looking, and, if so, the extra height wouldn't have helped. The only time I've had a collision is when a BMW driver parked a foot and a half from the curb and swung her door into traffic without looking. I used to say that this was a non-recumbent rider's idea of a problem, that I'd never encountered a recumbent rider that worried about it... but since then I have met one recumbent rider who did, forevermore spoiling my ability to say that.
By the way, I'm not claiming a speed advantage in city riding. There's an advantage in accelerating from a stop, but a lot of the reason 'bents hold the speed records is better aerodynamics, and on city streets, I don't get anywhere near the speed at which they'd come into play.
What I consider the really big advantage is comfort and the pleasure of being able to see everything without contorting my neck.
Maybe some time soon I'll detail the pros and cons of recumbents. (I may be a recumbent propagandist, but I don't deny uprights have some few advantages...)
Posted by Zed on March 27 2003 11:39