"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
oups.com...

NYC XYZ wrote:
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:


I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
upright's comfort or my age...



My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.

700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
a 'bent ride.

It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may never
need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are athletes.
Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit from a
recumbent.

Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride than
uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota




The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
definitely riding 'bent!