Electric recumbent bikes are 80 more efficient than EV (2018)

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/les-v%C3%A9lomobiles-electriques-aussi-rapides-et-confortables-que-les-automobiles-mais-80-fois-plus-efficaces.html

by dgan • 3 years ago

56 141 3 years ago

lowtechmagazine.com

jacquesm13• 3 years ago

These EV recumbents are too low to be safe in traffic, but at least they are trikes and so a bit more stable than two wheeled recumbents. There are a couple of them riding around here where I live and while fast they are a huge nuisance on the bike paths because they're faster than everybody else and the people riding them believe that the rest of the population on the bike path are 'moving obstacles' that they have to overtake, even if it isn't possible (in that sense they are quite similar to the packs of racing bikes that always appear in the summer).

Normal recumbents are also bloody dangerous. I'm a pretty experienced cyclist, have taken many experimental bikes out for a spin. Finally, a recumbent got me, a simple traffic obstacle took the front wheel off the ground and that was that. Ambulance ride, complex double fracture and a 7 hour operation later I can walk so I got very lucky. This was 6 years ago. There isn't a day that I think 'why did I have to try that particular bike, it felt dangerous from the first moment'. Recumbents are not stable like normal bikes are. Anything goes wrong, you fall, there is no recovery. If the circumstances are bad enough that will do you in, if you're lucky, like me, you end up with a daily reminder. Don't ride recumbents in traffic, even if it feels like a great idea, they're fast as can be and you have next to no wind resistance. The failure modes are inherent in the way the bike works and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it (leg suck, balancing by steering) and they're invisible from inside a car.

Another problem with these is that they have a bad turning radius and don't mix well with other traffic on a bike path because of their width.

Regular e-bikes are also 80% (or even more) efficient than electric cars and don't have the disadvantages.

jjtheblunt2• 3 years ago

cars give you an exoskeleton, but e-bikes of whatever sort leave you exposed to the maniacs fumbling with their cellphones, which i see incessantly.

fnimick14• 3 years ago

That's a policy failure. We can't have people getting into bigger and bigger cars to protect themselves from other people in big cars. Having road designs that leave non-car users vulnerable is a problem.

megablast2• 3 years ago

Agreed, cars should be nowhere near people.

Steltek2• 3 years ago

Certainly in the US these days, anything that isn't an SUV is unsafe (for the occupants) in traffic. It's a deadly arms race to get as big as you can. The little Fiat's don't even come up to the door handles on an F-150.

they are quite similar to the packs of racing bikes that always appear in the summer

Yes! I have to point this out every time people complain about e-bikes on the local path. It's not the type of bike, it's the mindset and the behavior that is the real problem. Regardless, the police here would never bother doing any enforcement on the path anyway so debates about rules or proposed rules is moot.

I don't own an e-bike but I'd love to see more e-bikes around. It's more support for bike infrastructure, parking, etc.

fnimick14• 3 years ago

It's a deadly arms race to get as big as you can.

SUVs too - I'm 3x more likely to die in the same crash if I'm hit by one rather than by a passenger sedan.

Of course, the real people hurt are the pedestrians and cyclists who can't participate in the arms race at all. Not to mention that leading everyone to use heavy cars for safety every time they leave the house is catastrophically bad for the environment.

berbec• 3 years ago

It's a deadly arms race to get as big as you can

The only reasonable solution is to mandate the only vehicle allowed to be sold in the USA is the Canyonero.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_Jl5WFQkA

tasty_freeze2• 3 years ago

It's a deadly arms race to get as big as you can

Every time I hear someone say they like their SUV or mondo pickup truck because it feels safer, I usually reply, "I know what you mean. That is why I stand up when watching movies in the theater -- the view is so much better."

Aurornis• 3 years ago

Certainly in the US these days, anything that isn't an SUV is unsafe (for the occupants) in traffic.

Honestly it doesn’t matter if the car weighs 2000lbs or 6000lbs, a recumbent bike is getting crushed either way. I don’t know why you’d bring SUVs up specifically. The same problem exists in any country where bikes and cars occupy the same spaces. US isn’t unique.

sneak• 3 years ago

Certainly in the US these days, anything that isn't an SUV is unsafe (for the occupants) in traffic

This is false. Bigger does not equate to safer.

megablast2• 3 years ago

huge nuisance on the bike paths because they're faster than everybody else

I doubt this, there is a huge range of people traveling at different speeds, from road bike users, to ebike users, to kids and parents. Why pretend everyone is doing the same speed?

murderfs• 3 years ago

"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" - George Carlin

crote3• 3 years ago

I think you are seriously underestimating how fast recumbent bikes go. They can reach 40-50 km/h without too much effort, compared to the average cyclist going about 20 km/h.

In Europe e-bikes are separated into two categories. My country has a "regular" e-bike which provides assistance up to 25 km/h, and is treated like any other bike. A "speed pedelec", on the other hand, goes up to 45 km/h and is treated like a moped. It often isn't allowed on bike paths due to the danger the speed difference poses, and it is even required to have a license plate!

So no, just because they are all bicycles doesn't mean they can safely be mixed - just like having a tractor going 40 km/h on a motorway where the rest of the traffic goes 120 km/h is not a great idea.

epage• 3 years ago

Normal recumbents are also bloody dangerous

I've normally been saying the opposite. Been riding a (2 wheel) recumbent for 15 years or so. I'm pretty much never going to endo. My biggest risk is falling sideways and I'm low enough to the ground that it is natural to just put my leg down and catch myself. I even surprised myself when I caught myself when sliding on a sharp turn going fast. I can only think of one time I hit pavement (went into a slide with just minor scrapes to show). It had rained recently and my back tire slid out from underneath me during a turn.

jacquesm13• 3 years ago

That's precisely how I looked at it before I got snagged. It's very tricky: you feel safer, but you're not.

bunabhucan2• 3 years ago

Do the thought experiment where you grow up riding a recumbent and you "try" a regular road bike and crash. Your head is higher and likely the first thing to hit an obstacle - concussion. A pretzeled front wheel or flat tyre or collision can catapult you onto the road - concussion plus broken collarbone/arm plus who knows what else. Those aren't injuries you'll get as easily on a recumbent. Instead (as you found) your legs, out in front, take the hit. That can help - unclipping and getting feet out to stabilize (a front flat) or brace for an impact isn't something you can do on an upright. On an upright you use your head and your arms to break the fall/impact.

I don't think either is inherently safer, it's just the diamond frame is the qwerty of push bikes because the UCI said so 100 years ago.

I've probably ridden dozens of recumbents. Some have an excellent turning circle but they tend not to be as fun bombing down a hill. Some (LWB with USS) can't u-turn on a US 2 lane road but would be the ideal bike to collide with something (wheel->fork->frame->feet taking the impact.)

I've also let dozens of people try my bike and no disrespect but "experienced cyclists" are the ones that scare me. Strong, fast, confident, they are definitely the run-before-you-walk folks. Recumbents, tricycles, bmxes etc. all handle differently, especially at speed. They are all just as easy to get up to speed but most people won't try that first.

I ride both and don't pretend the extra visibility of the upright makes me any safer. You have to ride like you are invisible because to cars you just are.

jacquesm13• 3 years ago

I've had three different recumbents and you're going to have to take my word for it that I know how to ride them. You feel a lot safer because you're closer to the ground but that's part of the problem: leg suck has a feed-forward mechanism that you can not overcome at speed. I'm fortunate that there were no cars nearby or I probably wouldn't be writing this at all, it was over and done with in a split second, like that you're riding comfortably and like that you're out of control.

Of course I'm not going to convince you, just like nobody would have been able to convince me prior to my accident. That's fine. I hope that if and when you do fall you end up with just a scare so you'll realize I wasn't kidding: the illusion of safety and control is just that, you have neither.

Brian_K_White2• 3 years ago

That thought experiment is worthless junk.

The differences in dynamics of the two designs are not just different but equivalent. There are countless ways in which a standard diamond frame is practical and handles a given situation that a recumbent can't.

And I love recumbents because I love weird things. I have both 2 wheel and tadpole trike recumbents. They are the only bikes I ever ride given any choice.

But they are actually quite unsafe for both myself and everyone else, and quite, even ridiculously, comically impractical.

You can't do the simplest thing like just hop a curb or a tree root, because you can't pull up on the front wheel. There is no amount of life long 'grew up used to it' that magics that away, nor about 100 other similar typical situations.

Climbing hills is ridiculously difficult, even with highly practiced spinning technique, because simply standing up on the pedals one at a time is just far simpler, and preserves your momentum better,with no special expert technique.

The simple fact that you are already upright makes crashing on a DF infinitely more navigable. There is no such thing as just hopping off a crashing recumbent and landing on your feet. That happens all the time on a df.

There is just not even remotely a comparison, not even in the same universe when it comes to either safety or practicality all day every day in all the infinite random situations from parking, storing, threading through narrow pathways and gaps anywhere a pedestrian could go, bringing on a train/bus, up the stairs to your appartment or office, wearing a backpack and not needing any other on-bike cargo space...

Recumbents are great in a few particular ways, but they are neither safe nor practical.

nradov2• 3 years ago

While the UCI rules on road bike frame design are a bit ridiculous, there are non-double-diamond upright bikes available for those who want them. Aerodynamics may be marginally better but otherwise it doesn't make much difference.

The extra visibility of an upright makes you safer because you can see farther and proactively avoid hazards.

mkl• 3 years ago

The title should say "80 times more efficient". These are also trikes, not bikes.

As a rider of a regular e-bike I won't be getting into one of these; compared to an upright bike, the rider can't see or be seen well at all.

tcfhgj5• 3 years ago

Being seen: add a flag

jacquesm13• 3 years ago

Doesn't work. Not lit at night and too small. Besides that they ruin that precious aerodynamic shape and look dorky so nobody uses them.

klyrs• 3 years ago

A tiny orange triangle floating at hood-height isn't visible by any stretch. People miss entire motorcycles behind their A-pillar when turning a corner. What recumbents need is a 10' flag (with lights) at eye level of jacked trucks. But that's aerodynamic suicide; nobody would want to ride a bike with that much drag.

deeviant3• 3 years ago

A toy-sized tear drop with barley enough room to fit a person in it, and the safety profile of a soapbox car is only 80(x?) more efficient than a full-sized EV? That is surprising.

dgan4• 3 years ago

it is enough for 1 person, and plenty of bags around :) also, 450km range when used with 2 more batteries (only 6kg) 80 times more efficient

deeviant3• 3 years ago

Is there a breakdown of the human-supplied vs battery-supplied energy for 450km range. Is this going down hill, uphill? How much cargo? "Plenty of bags", what type, plastic lunch bags filled with air? In the "80x" more efficient, does it just count human calories as free, because I don't think human calories are as green as you think they are.

Let's say I want to do something actually useful, like grocery shop, and I need 30kg of groceries taking up something like .3 m2 space. Where does this vehicle fit into that use case? Also, I want to not die if I impact anything more substantial then a tumbleweed.

It's pretty annoying when people put forward a totally unpractical solution then throw their hands up with a "well we had the solution that could save the world but nobody listened!"

ok1234562• 3 years ago

Need to normalize by vehicle weight and engine output to compare efficiencies.

Yes, in absolute terms a smaller, lighter vehicle that only needs to produce a maybe 1kW to move will be more efficient.

tcfhgj5• 3 years ago

You should rather normalize regarding payload weight

ok1234562• 3 years ago

I don't want to have to swap out my engine if I decide to carry an extra passenger.

zer0-c00l• 3 years ago

Recumbents are more efficient than regular bikes too but it turns out nobody rides them because they make you look like a complete dweeb.

r00fus2• 3 years ago

That's only because the UCI regulated them out of existence a century ago [1].

Otherwise every single cyclist in races today would be using recumbents. They're that much more efficient.

My (aging, limited mobility) mom often uses her recumbent electric bike for grocery grabbing (bike score of 75, ymmv).

[1] https://daily.jstor.org/who-killed-the-recumbent-bicycle/

timbit42• 3 years ago

That's just your opinion, man. I think people in SUVs look like dweebs.

andrewstuart• 3 years ago

Only Unix admins with beards are allowed to ride recumbent bikes.

jacquesm13• 3 years ago

Hehe, I know what that reference is to.

https://microship.com/behemoth/

agg23• 3 years ago

Wow very neat. I had not seen this before. Thanks!

dbuscher• 3 years ago

Is there a reason why this links to the French translation rather than the (as far as I can tell) original English version [0]?

[0] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobiles...

djbusby• 3 years ago

The trike in the article looks like a modernized version of an electric car featured in Murdoch Mysteries (Canada) which is set early 1900s.

That show has a lot of other cool (but old school) "modern" technologies.

jacquesm13• 3 years ago

It's called a velomobile. https://www.velomobiel.nl/ (Dutch)

Steltek2• 3 years ago

The article is specifically talking about velomobiles: fully enclosed recumbent trikes.

They're distinctly not better than a regular e-bike:

* Where do you park this monstrosity? Are you really gonna hop the curb chain it a post? If you're a cyclist, why would give up the amazing parking opportunities that regular bikes provide?

* Protected from the rain, sure, but hot as hell inside. Every cyclist knows that rain gear is just bad as the rain. You're either soaked from your own sweat or nature.

* Visibility, both for you and of you, is nil. Covered by nearly every other comment here.

* Maintenance looks like hell. Bike shop people will hate you because it won't even fit through the door. Or you could DIY at home, regularly removing the fairing for trivial jobs like brake pads or chain cleaning.

* The speeds mentioned in the article, 40-50kph, aren't even particularly notable for e-motorcycles (class III e-bikes). Long ago, recumbents had an advantage over acoustic bikes but times have very much changed.

dgan4• 3 years ago

I thought "acoustic bike" was referring to some type of obscure sound propulsion technology I never encountered in any of the blogs or press articles. Turns out, "acoustic bike" means "regular bike"... go figure

notacoward2• 3 years ago

And a human-driven bike (recumbent or not) is infinitely more efficient than an electric one. That's the real comparison, because functionally this is a lot closer to a regular bike than to a car. The efficiency argument doesn't seem very compelling to anyone coming from either alternative. Better IMO to focus on ease of use for those who would use a regular bike except for physical limitations.

jaclaz• 3 years ago

Not exactly a recumbent bike like the one in the article, but there was an attempt to mass-produce a tiny electric trike in the UK in the '80's (which failed miserably):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

TacticalCoder• 3 years ago

aussi Rapides et Confortables que les Automobiles

"As quick and comfortable as cars"

Yeah. Sure. About the "comfortable" part by looking at that picture about 99% of all the cars on earth want to have a word with you. That's plain bullshit.

Electric recumbent bikes are 80 more efficient than EV (2018)

Related Stories