>Faster>More aerodynamic>More comfortable>Easier to ride at any age>Retains all benefits of cyclingWhat is the point of using a normal bike?
Harder to turn, they don't corner as well as upright bikes, they also make you less visible in traffic so they're not as safe, they're also pretty rougher to ride on less-than-well maintained roads and dirt/gravel because of the smaller wheels, less suspension, and the fact that you sit closer to the ground.
>>2054018I'm not going to share a road with automobiles on something with a lower profile than a standing five-year-old child. not only can they not see me, but I can't scan the traffic. hell, I put swept back riser bars on my city bike just so I can see what's going on.
>>2054023>Having to share the road with automobiles on your bikeLmao what an american post, you should only be allowed to talk about cycling if you can cycle to another city without once interacting with a car
They solve two problems that don't make up for the disadvantages. One, they're more aero. Two, if you have posterior chain flexibility issues, they can be more forgiving. Especially for the elderly.The main reason they suck is that the crankset is in front of and basically above you. Not a big deal when it's amsterdam-flat but in the real world climbing becomes a problem for average-strength people, because you're pushing forward and up against gravity, when you really ought to have gravity helping you with the effort. Also they weigh a lot because there's a shitload of redundant material because it's basically just a huge fucking chainstay with a saddle that's the size of an entire person, so you can't rely on triangles to keep things rigid and strong. And they use proprietary parts that are expensive. And god help you if you need to carry it up a flight of stairs (yeah yeah I get it they don't have stairs in amsterdam)So you solve a problem that doesn't apply to most people, and another problem that already has other solutions minus the disadvantages. And they introduce a lot of problems.
>>2054026>if you can cycle to another city without once interacting with a carThis poster is ragebaiting and describes something that literally does not exist
>>2054018>Head at bumper height
In the real world, the speed difference between recumbent and upright bikes are fairly minimal for the vast majority of riders. The fastest speed on a recumbent clocked in at 90 mph, while the fastest speed on an upright bicycle without using a draft car (subject to aerodynamic resistance) is 45 mph, however, the fastest speed ever recorded on an upright bicycle with a draft car in front to eliminate drag, was set in 2018 by American cyclist Denise Mueller-Korenek at an astonishing 183 miles per hour, which is also the land speed record for any human-powered vehicle to date. An upright bicycle is already 99 percent efficient, meaning the biggest limiting factor when it comes to speed is aerodynamic drag, which goes up exponentially with your speed as per the inverse square law. In the real world, unless your daily commute is always in a headwind for some reason, a recumbent will provide little advantages with typical cycling speeds of 15-25 mph in typical traffic, and the cons (lower seating position, significantly worse handing, worse ride quality.etc) greatly outweigh the benefits in the real world.
