Third best reason to ride a bent or trike

[rydabent]

Everyone knows the first and second best reasons to ride a bent or trike, is comfort and view. IMO the third best reason is you dont have to wear an expensive kit to protect you from you bike. With bents or trikes you can wear almost anything. I for instance wear rugby shorts that are really short sweat pants. On sale they are $15. And---------------my summer attire is a T-shirt and these rugby shorts. So to take off and ride, all I need to do is put on my bike shoes and ride off.

[Jesper]

You do not have to wear special clothing to ride a road bike either. Kits that many "sport" cyclists wear are just emulating what the pros wear. It is often just an ego thing. The majority of recreational cyclists do not need to wear skin tight clothing. I regularly wear button-up cotton "dress" shirts and T-shirts for comfort and cooling. I am still riding 25+ miles at speeds averaging over 17mph, but aerodymanics are not a concern for me; there are no medals being given at the end of my ride so why wear competition kits. I started serious cycling wearing sweat pants, gym shorts, and t-shirts. I do not wear padded shorts nor chamois lined shorts. I do wear normal briefs (essentially cotton bike shorts) under my bike shorts which apparently is a no no, but I suffer no ill effects. I even ride in jeans occassionally with the drive side leg wrapped for safety. My prime wear are cycling tights or knee length cotton shorts, and long sleeve cotton shirts to avoid sun exposure; the tights also avoid chain interference in an open drivetrain without guards. I feel like fool wearing wearing a racing kit just to ride 10 miles; but high end bike shops think you are somewhat of a bum if you do not dress the part like the pros and have treated me like I do not know anything even though I have decades more knowledge and experience than their staff combined. I look at people on the 70s age F-book cycling group and they are almost always covered in lycra. I guess when buying their $2k-$3k carbon fiber bikes they also got sold on the idea of needing to wear a specialized cycling kit costing hundreds of $. There are padded bike shorts made for touring that are quite suitable for hiking also. I find it interesting that most commuters do not wear cycling clothing regardless of the bike they ride. I still see plenty of folks riding recumbents (2 and 3 wheel) wearing cycling kits. To each his, her, or their own. Its all about one's personal preference and I don't care what folks wear as long as it makes them happy wearing it.

Edit: I think semi and full recumbents are great, but regarding the view you may have a better view of the ground, but you are often blocked by obstacles (fences, rails, walls, hedges, etc.) due to lower head level than on a road bike where the same visual obstacles I am able to readily see over (plus I can easily stand on the pedals to gain more height which I have never seen anyone do on a recumbent if it is indeed even possible to do). My view is only slightly inhibited when riding a lo-pro bike due to a more extreme body angle and type of riding it is used for (not sightseeing while in the saddle), but riding standard road frames does not affect my view whether in the drops or not.

Regarding comfort; that is a personal preference. If someone is uncomfortable on a bike then either their body cannot adapt to the style of bike (due to anatomy, injury, and/or age), or the bike and/or set-up was not correct. I will ride an upright bike until it is uncomfortable because I like the design and handling. If I doubt the majority of recumbent designs can corner ad fast while handling as well as my road bike. Even my old 3 speed roadsters take corners fairly well at speed.

[rydabent]

(08-06-2024, 10:55 AM)Jesper Wrote:  You do not have to wear special clothing to ride a road bike either. Kits that many "sport" ctclists wear are just emulating what the pros wear. It is often just an ego thing. The majority of recreational cyclists do not need to wear skin tight clothing. I regularly wear button-up cotton "dress" shirts and T-shirts for comfort and cooling. I am still riding 25+ miles at speeds averaging over 17mph, but aerodymanics are not a concern for me; there is no medals being given at the end of my ride so why wear competition kits. I started serious cycling wearing sweat pants, gym shorts, and t-shirts. I do not wear padded shorts nor chamois lined shorts. I do wear normal briefs (essentially cotton bike shorts) under my bike shorts which apparently is a no no, but I suffer no ill effects. I even ride in jeans occassionally with the drive side leg wrapped for safety. My prime wear are cycling tights or knee length cotton shorts, and long sleeve cotton shirts to avoid sun exposure; the tights also avoid chain interference in an open drivetrain without guards. I feel like fool wearing wearing a racing kit just to ride 10 miles; but high end bike shops think you are somewhat of a bum if you do not dress the part like the pros and have treated me like I do not know anything even though I have decades more knowledge and experience than their staff combined. I look at people on the 70s age F-book cycling group and they are almost always covered in lycra. I guess when buying their $2k-$3k carbon fiber bikes they also got sold on the idea of needing to wear a specialized cycling kit costing hundreds of $. There are padded bike shorts made for touring that are quite suitable for hiking also. I find it interesting that most commuters do not wear cycling clothing regardless of the bike they ride. I still see plenty of folks riding recumbents (2 and 3 wheel) wearing cycling kits. To each his, her, or their own. Its all about one's personal preference and I don't care what folks wear as long as it makes them happy wearing it.

Edit: I think semi and full recumbents are great, but regarding the view you may have a better view of the ground, but you are often blocked by obstacles (fences, rails, walls, hedges, etc.) due to lower head level that on a road bike I am more often able to readily see over (plus I can easily stand on the pedals to gain more height which I have never seen anyone do on a recumbent if it is indeed even possible to do). My view is only inhibited when riding a lo-pro bike due to extreme body angle, but riding my standard road frames does not affect my view whether in the drops or not.
Regarding comfort; that is a personal preference. If someone is uncomfortable on a bike then either their body cannot adapt to the style of bike (due to anatomy, injury, and/or age), or the bike and/or set-up was not correct. I will ride an upright bike until it is uncomfortable because I like the design and handling. If I doubt the majority of recumbent designs can corner ad fast while handling as well as my road bike. Even my old 3 speed roadsters take corners fairly well at speed.

---

Comfort? On my Trike my weight is spread across a measured 280 square inches. On a DF bike it is at best maybe 15 square inches. No amount of "bike fitting" is going to overcome that fact.

---

Comfort? On my Trike my weight is spread across a measured 280 square inches. On a DF bike it is at best maybe 15 square inches. No amount of "bike fitting" is going to overcome that fact.

[Jesper]

(09-24-2024, 09:57 AM)rydabent Wrote:  Comfort? On my Trike my weight is spread across a measured 280 square inches. On a DF bike it is at best maybe 15 square inches. No amount of "bike fitting" is going to overcome that fact.

No one is trying to overcome any mathematical fact, but that does not mean the everyone will be comfortable just because of a larger surface area. It winds up being an issue of one's unique physiology and anatomy, and riding preference aside from injuries and/or age in general. How come I can sit on a bike saddle for hours and be more comfortable than I am sitting in a car seat (which has ample padding and surface area support) for less than an hour. I just happen to be uncomfortable in a recumbent position over my standard saddle.

As I stated, comfort is a personal thing. That is why I will not fit riders anymore. There are thousands of saddle and bike/trike types trying to cover millions of body types. I am certain that there are some recumbent seating designs that are more or less comfortable than others to those who prefer that style of bike/trike transportation; but it only means it is more comfotable to that specific individual and not the whole of the biking population. I doubt that there is a comfortable recumbent made that I could ride for hours that would climb steep hills (lowest gear F39 x R24), descend and corner at 40 to 50 mph, and perform on pavement, gravel, grass, and single track that I comfortably did on my road bike (and also comfortably put in the cab of my vehicle when needed to). If someone has a comfort issue it may not be equipment related at all; it could be the correct equipment but improperly adjusted, and/or an ill fit (right bike/trike but wrong size) regardless of upright or recumbent design. If it were easy to make a bike comfortable than why are there so many means to adjust and/or select custom parts to fit one's individual needs regarding comfort regardless of the bike/trike type being used.

[rydabent]

(09-25-2024, 07:43 PM)Jesper Wrote:  

(09-24-2024, 09:57 AM)rydabent Wrote:  Comfort? On my Trike my weight is spread across a measured 280 square inches. On a DF bike it is at best maybe 15 square inches. No amount of "bike fitting" is going to overcome that fact.

No one is trying to overcome any mathematical fact, but that does not mean the everyone will be comfortable just because of a larger surface area. It winds up being an issue of one's unique physiology and anatomy, and riding preference aside from injuries and/or age in general. How come I can sit on a bike saddle for hours and be more comfortable than I am sitting in a car seat (which has ample padding and surface area support) for less than an hour. I just happen to be uncomfortable in a recumbent position over my standard saddle.

As I stated, comfort is a personal thing. That is why I will not fit riders anymore. There are thousands of saddle and bike/trike types trying to cover millions of body types. I am certain that there are some recumbent seating designs that are more or less comfortable than others to those who prefer that style of bike/trike transportation; but it only means it is more comfotable to that specific individual and not the whole of the biking population. I doubt that there is a comfortable recumbent made that I could ride for hours that would climb steep hills (lowest gear F39 x R24), descend and corner at 40 to 50 mph, and perform on pavement, gravel, grass, and single track that I comfortably did on my road bike (and also comfortably put in the cab of my vehicle when needed to). If someone has a comfort issue it may not be equipment related at all; it could be the correct equipment but improperly adjusted, and/or an ill fit (right bike/trike but wrong size) regardless of upright or recumbent design. If it were easy to make a bike comfortable than why are there so many means to adjust and/or select custom parts to fit one's individual needs regarding comfort regardless of the bike/trike type being used.

---

All of that "may" be well and good, but you just cant get around the fact that a recumbent seat has way less pressure per square inch on the riders body.

[rydabent]

Or the third best reason to ride a trike is the ease of use.

[Criminal]

(05-12-2025, 10:24 AM)rydabent Wrote:  Or the third best reason to ride a trike is the ease of use.

I understand that you do not need to deal with the balance issue (for those who have that issue) when riding on any trike; but what exactly aside from that makes a trikes ease of use any more or less easy than when on a GURPF?

Is braking easier; less strength required, etc.? Is the method of pedalling easier? Is steering/handling easier? Is climbing easier? Is it easier to to jump onto or off of a curb? Is it easier to jump a hole or speed bumps? What is easier to use or do on a trike that makes it overall use easier than riding a GURPF other than balance?

Please enlighten the ignorant among us? I know you are just dying to do it (whether a rational rebuttal or not!).

[rydabent]

(05-30-2025, 04:51 PM)Criminal Wrote:  

(05-12-2025, 10:24 AM)rydabent Wrote:  Or the third best reason to ride a trike is the ease of use.

I understand that you do not need to deal with the balance issue (for those who have that issue) when riding on any trike; but what exactly aside from that makes a trikes ease of use any more or less easy than when on a GURPF?

Is braking easier; less strength required, etc.? Is the method of pedalling easier? Is steering/handling easier? Is climbing easier? Is it easier to to jump onto or off of a curb? Is it easier to jump a hole or speed bumps? What is easier to use or do on a trike that makes it overall use easier than riding a GURPF other than balance?

Please enlighten the ignorant among us? I know you are just dying to do it (whether a rational rebuttal or not!).

I believe that anyone that rides a device with one, two, three, or four wheels with pedals is a cyclist. That includes little Susie on her side walk bike with 12 inch wheels. Those that sit around the bike shop, and claim that the only real cyclist are people on $5000 CF bikes, outfittted in expensive "cycling" garb, and claim every ride has to be a "training" ride are deluding themselves. I believe that cycling should just be fun.

[Criminal]

(06-04-2025, 10:35 AM)rydabent Wrote:  

(05-30-2025, 04:51 PM)Criminal Wrote:  

(05-12-2025, 10:24 AM)rydabent Wrote:  Or the third best reason to ride a trike is the ease of use.

I understand that you do not need to deal with the balance issue (for those who have that issue) when riding on any trike; but what exactly aside from that makes a trike's ease of use any more or less easy than when on a GURPF?

Is braking easier; less strength required, etc.? Is the method of pedalling easier? Is steering/handling easier? Is climbing easier? Is it easier to to jump onto or off of a curb? Is it easier to jump a hole or speed bumps? What is easier to use or do on a trike that makes it overall use easier than riding a GURPF other than balance?

Please enlighten the ignorant among us? I know you are just dying to do it (whether a rational rebuttal or not!).

I believe that anyone that rides a device with one, two, three, or four wheels with pedals is a cyclist. That includes little Susie on her side walk bike with 12 inch wheels. Those that sit around the bike shop, and claim that the only real cyclist are people on $5000 CF bikes, outfittted in expensive "cycling" garb, and claim every ride has to be a "training" ride are deluding themselves. I believe that cycling should just be fun.

I guess the "ease of use question" will go unanswered and lost in a brain fog; so instead change the subject to identify who are and are not cyclists as a completely off-topic response (why even quote the post?). I guess I am too busy riding; unlike rydabent who is sitting around a bike shop listening to other cyclists or caring how they paid, what they ride or wear (who cares; I'll tell you who: rydabent!). Thankfully, I do not use bike shops, and if I did I would certainly not have the time to be sitting around (unless trying on shoes) listening or caring about what others claim regardless (after seeing the false claims about recumbent tricycles here why would I listen to other cyclists). I certainly am not able to pass judgement on other cyclists since I have never heard anyone state (other than in this thread by rydabent) that only riders "outfitted in expensive 'cycling' (not "mountain climbing"?) garb" "on $5000 CF bikes" claiming "every ride is has got to be a 'training' ride are the only people allowed to be called cyclists. I have heard actual competitive cyclists deride those who are "wannabe competitors" buying expensive cycling clothing, bikes, equipment, etc., but who only use the equipment to ride to the local bike shop and sit around saying how they are competitive cyclists when they are obviously not. There are posers in every facet of life.
I guess some of us are lucky we kept our old bikes in proper nick as well as our bodies and can still ride our old cruisers and racers, or if needed managed to buy a nice new carbon fiber framed bike for a lot less than $5000.

Thankfully, I was able to compete on a steel bike that was already 10 yrs old when I first raced (new pro level racing bikes were $5000 and more forty years ago); and continued to be raced for the next 25 years; as well as touring, commuting, and general training. Of course we all know, when you are competing for real, THAT EVERY RIDE IS A TRAINING RIDE no matter how short or easy. A competitive cyclist knows that idle legs do nothing to improve strength and stamina except during recovery periods so any active cycling is helping to keep up one's conditioning.

Now back to why I posted my previous question (though I was not expecting to get an answer; and of course no answer was forthcoming!) in the first place: clarification as to the ease of use advantages or points of a recumbent tricycle compared to a GURPF, aside from not having to balance the vehicle. Since I received no response, I can only deduct that there is no more ease of use in comparing a GURPF to a recumbent tricycle; and from those (tricycle owners) I have talked to they said it was much easier and quicker on average to store and transport a 2 wheeled bike thus making them easier to use in that aspect than a recumbent tricycle. A recumbent bicycle rider did not have the same storage issues as recumbent tricycle owner, but stated a GURPF was still easier to transport.

[rydabent]

Part of the ease of use on a trike is the fact that wen you come to a stop, you can remain clipped onto the pedals. When the light turns green, you simply start pedaling again. You just ride straight off and do not annoy drivers. No scratching around and wobbling around trying to get clipped in again.