In article
,
Simon Mason wrote:

On Jan 17, 12:17*am, Roger Merriman wrote:
In article ,
*Phil W Lee wrote:





Bret Cahill considered Mon, 16 Jan 2012
09:35:20 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

For the same craftsmanship and components a recumbent should cost at
most 2X - 3X more than a conventional bicycle.

Volume production brings down the price a lot in the beginning but
diminishing returns soon kicks in.

Bret Cahill

But there are additional costs throughout the supply chain, not just
in production.
It's much easier to sell a bike if you have examples on display, and
available for test ride.
That is much easier (less expensive) to arrange on an item that you
will sell several a week of, than something that an individual dealer
will shift a few of per year (or maybe none, for some models - while
it's necessary to offer a good range, you won't necessarily sell one
of everything in it each year).
And the majority of those sales will need far more attention (time is
money), due to the variability between different models and the lack
of experience which most customers will have of them.

All this is only solvable with an increase in sales.

indeed which is why i suspect they will remain a small market.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I would never buy one even though I could afford it.
They are too low and not visible enough, plus you would breathe in a
load of crap that cars chuck out.

--
Simon Mason

I have used a double one for cycling around Bushy Park with lads with
learning difficulties.

not sure I like the postion.

But I don't any are great commute bikes, more your sunday special any
how.

though some folks clearly do but they tend to have open fast roads to
let the bike play to it's strenghts.

Roger