>2017 >he doesn't ride a bike that merges the rider

That is not a question concerning equipment at all stupid.

You can merge with a frigging skateboard when you are good enough.

>>1036054
I'd prefer to remain heterosexual.

>>1036054
Recumbents are objectively worse at everything than normal bikes. They're just useful for going fast in a straght line, as long as there's no wind, hills, cars, or children who throw sand in your face.

>>1036055
>Interlaken

>>1036061
>You can merge with a frigging skateboard when you are good enough.
That, by the way, is the mechanism by which humans are able to use tools; the tool becomes an extension of your body, so far as your brain is concerned. It's no different if it's a bicycle than if it's a hammer or a screwdriver or banging on nuts with a rock to break them open. It doesn't matter what kind of bike it is either if you ride enough this phenomenon occurs.

Of course the above has nothing to do with the fact that recumbents of any design are an evolutionary cul-de-sac. There's too many disadvantages and outright problems (some of them dangerous to the rider) for them to ever be popular, and all anyone has to do to see this is true is to look at professional cycling; there is no 'recumbent' class in TdF or any of the big Pro Tour races, it's all traditional bikes. Recumbents will always be a small niche reserved for people with biomechanical problems that prevent them from riding a normal bicycle. Really though because of the safety hazard they present to the rider, and the traffic hazard they represent because of the lack of visibility even compared to a normal, upright bicycle, they should be banned from public roads. Furthermore you're suicidal on a steep technical descent so they should certainly be banned from any really hilly routes. In the end they're only really safe to be used on flat terrain with no sharp curves or other technical areas, ridden at a slow rate of speed, away from other riders so as to no endanger them. Might even be best to just sell them with out a drive wheel and get one of those indoor trainers that you substitute for a wheel, and the unfortunates who are relegated to recumbents can then turn pedals in the comfort of their homes away from dangerous situations.

>>1036117
Are you the same guy who think bents brake worse?

>>1036117

This is how we know you're retarded.

File: DSC04122.jpg (969KB, 1936x1395px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1936x1395px

>>1036054
>one entity
,,
,half,, thats, whathey call it,,, I callit,, VICTORY!
,, cages are freaked by bents,, like a child in the road., justhis week widepasser almost headond traffic,, ifso, then I will gethere forthe shrapnel cloud!

>>1036076
>They're just useful for going fast in a straght line, as long as there's no wind
Are you literally retarded.

I think recumbants are silly, but one of the very few things that they are inarguably, unequivocally, objectively 100% better than normal bikes at is pushing through wind.

File: Cycling_loaded_Bacchetta.jpg (244KB, 900x685px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 900x685px

Bents have a place in the bicycle world. They are not for young people though. If you are below 30 a roadbike is the most fun bike you can get.

Above 40 things start to hurt a little for the normal man. When you get really old and you want to keep on riding, an upright bent like this is really comfortable and useful. You can keep on cycling until your 75.

Also, recumbents vastly differ from each other, more so then normal bikes. There are some really crazy designs out there that I disapprove of as well, especially those that are lower then the door of a car. But these are a very rare sight. A good recumbent is at the same height of a car seat. When I rode one I looked car drivers directly in the eye.

>>1036209
Also, since they tend to be a rare sigh.
Visibility in practice isn't an issue. Unless you're riding a super low bent.

Rarity means people are more likely to notice it.

What is the highest level of recumbent racing? Do they have tours?

>>1036061
cold dropping some wisdom on these /n/egroes

>>1036076
hour record for upright bike: less than 55 km
hour record for recumbents: literally over 90 km

upright downtubes BTFO

why would you want to lay down like that. backpacks make my back sweaty enough. imagine riding with a permanent backpack...recumbents are stupid.

>>1036054
ER WUNT TO RIYDE MU BIRSICKLE I WANNUH RIDE MUH BIRRRRRRK

>>1036298
>recumbents are stupid because your back gets sweaty
kill yourself my man

>>1036054

If you're going to go that far, why not just go the extra mile and add a penis pump?

Walmart recumbents when?

>>1036054
I want to know what that wheel is in the background. is it part of the bike?

>>1036189
Not the anon you're replying to, but what about crosswinds?

>>1036298
I'm sure someone has devised some sort of mesh back or ventilated seat to mitigate sweating.

>>1036675
but how many of those have you seen

I've seen a bunch of cumbents posted and not a one had a hammock

File: P-38-XT-for-2013.jpg (38KB, 622x469px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 622x469px

>>1036693

>>1036273
That doesn't refute the post you are quoting, though.

>>1036675
>what about crosswinds
they're still better than uprights for crosswinds because lower center of mass