One type is simply so danged long
It can't turn corners; that's just wrong!
Another type whose oddball wheels
Are close together looks and feels
As though the dude who did its plan
Envisioned it for some half-man.

I look at one; the question begs:
Did they remember lower legs?
Without those awkward shins and feet,
The bike's proportions might be sweet,
But with them way out front (too high),
I say, "No thanks – but hey, nice try!"

There's one kind (much less often found),
Which rides real low, down on the ground,
With no good way to route its chain
From front to back; plus it's a pain
To learn to balance and control
As you mount up and start to roll.

And WHAT is with those oddball tires?
Does that turn on recumbent buyers?
Three forty-nine, three fifty-five –
Three sixty-nine is still alive.
Five forty and five fifty-nine –
When either one is just as fine...

Four hundred versus four-oh-six?
Are 'bent designers stubborn pricks?
Uncompromising nerdy freaks,
Asocial, ego-driven geeks?
Was there some special secret prize
When one came up with some new size?

And why not spec rim size, like trucks?
This current system really sucks!
Why can't we simply standardize
On one consistent common size
In simple two-inch increments?
Why not? Does that make too much sense?

And while we're on this topic, guys,
Another thing that mystifies
All those of us who claim sound mind:
How does some 'bent designer find
The courage to produce a bike
Which spins out slower than we hike?

Most people know a cycle needs
High gears for double-digit speeds
(That's MPH of course, which God
And those of us on US sod
Use – not that Euro-metric fluff
You Frenchy-philes can take and stuff!)

Most cyclists long ago caught on
(When wheels were still made out of stone?)
That tiny drive wheels need big gears,
Yet somewhat later (many years),
We find recumbents built from plans
With wheels the size of pizza pans.

Some have huge chainwheels (which get bent),
Or geared up hubs or cranks some gent
Decided to employ despite
The simple fact that they aren't light
And also take a lot more work
To spin around... that gent's a jerk!

Folks, most recumbents compromise
So much that they offend the eyes
And deviate from sound design;
'Form follows function' – that's the line
I use to emphasize my point.
(It gets some noses out of joint.)

"So... you ride upright bikes?" you ask.
"No, that's a most unpleasant task
I wouldn't wish upon a broad
(Or faggot). That design's so flawed
I won't discuss it on the net;
The words I'd use might shock a vet."

"Oh, wait, I get it now," you say,
"You ride a trike." "Oh, go away!"
I answer, "Those disgusting things?
The little ones that Santa brings
To kids too young to start first grade
Might be okay, but I'm dismayed..."

I can't believe someone might think
I'd ever ride a trike; they stink!
That market can't make up its mind –
Two wheels up front or two behind?
They're wider than a bloated toad;
Three tracks to slog down some dirt road?

Recumbent trikes are really bad,
The worst idea someone had
For how to get from here to there,
Too heavy, plus you have to bear
The drag of three wheels versus two...
I'll leave those drag-ass crates for you.

"So you prefer to drive or walk?"
You ask; I sputter, "HOW YOU TALK!
I don't do either; I just slouch
On this ideal design: my couch."

POW Index