Are recumbents really slower on climbs? Why?

[email hidden said:

"]Hi,

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things
like getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of
the things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an
accepted fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is
this really true? Or is it a case of certain recumbent riders being
able to keep up with certain riders of regular bikes on the flats due
to less wind resistance, but getting dropped on climbs due to less
conditioning? Or a recumbent rider comparing their performance on
climbs on a normal bike vs their recumbent without taking into account
the weight differences between the bikes?

Isn't climbing just power to weight with some wind and rolling
resistance tossed in? Why are recumbents slower on climbs?

Joseph

My own experience is that on long steep climbs, I actually climb better on a bent, even when pulling a Bob fully loaded with camping gear. I think this is due to the fact my back is braced against the seat back, and all my exertion goes to the pedals. Of course with a DF, you have the option of standing on the pedals. Pretty hard to do on a bent. 😄
Dan

Quoted message said:

Hi,

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things
like getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of
the things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an
accepted fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is
this really true? Or is it a case of certain recumbent riders being
able to keep up with certain riders of regular bikes on the flats due
to less wind resistance, but getting dropped on climbs due to less
conditioning? Or a recumbent rider comparing their performance on
climbs on a normal bike vs their recumbent without taking into account
the weight differences between the bikes?

Isn't climbing just power to weight with some wind and rolling
resistance tossed in? Why are recumbents slower on climbs?

Because you can't rock the bike, getting extra power from your arms.
They are always heavier, too.

Quoted message said:

Hi,

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things
like getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of
the things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an
accepted fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is
this really true?

The first thing to realize is that anyone who provides an answer that
appears definitive is blowing smoke. The second thing to realize is
that there is no simple answer due to the many variables involved.
Thirdly, throw out all the anecdotal stories you hear, since there are
important variables such as the level of the conditioning of the
riders' that are not known.

Certainly weight, drivetrain friction and rolling resistance are
important, and in most cases upright bicycles will have the advantage
here (and certainly if we compare bicycles of equal cost).

For an average rider, aerodynamic will play a lesser role, so the high
frontal area presented by an upright rider in a typical climbing
position is not of much detriment. For a very strong rider (i.e. near
professional level) high enough speeds will be obtained on relatively
steep grades (e.g. 6-7%) that the reduction in drag that occurs in
putting the rider in a low frontal area position [1] will be quite
significant. Is this enough to make up for the slightly greater weight,
drivetrain friction and rolling resistance (assuming a performance
recumbent design)? The answer will depend on rider power, road surface,
riding position of both the upright and recumbent rider and gradient.
To the question everyone seems to ask, "Would a recumbent be
competitive in the TdF?" the answer is I don't KNOW and neither does
anyone else.

The second issue is the advantage produced by standing while climbing.
Studies seem to indicate that alternating sitting and standing brings
different muscles into play, with the partial rest of certain muscles
increasing overall performance. However, there is insufficient data to
quantify exactly how much advantage this provides to the upright rider
in comparison to the recumbent rider. Similarly, there is insufficient
data in long term rider power production in the recumbent position
versus the upright position (short term anaerobic power production
appears to be significantly greater in the upright position).

Quoted message said:

Or is it a case of certain recumbent riders being
able to keep up with certain riders of regular bikes on the flats due
to less wind resistance, but getting dropped on climbs due to less
conditioning?

This will certainly happen with typical upright road bikes and more
performance oriented recumbents (tandem riders often have the same
issues).

Quoted message said:

Or a recumbent rider comparing their performance on
climbs on a normal bike vs their recumbent without taking into account
the weight differences between the bikes?

Not only weight difference, but training differences on each riding
position will make a difference.

Quoted message said:

Isn't climbing just power to weight with some wind and rolling
resistance tossed in? Why are recumbents slower on climbs?

Some riders of state of the art performance recumbents (highly reclined
seating position and bike weight of less than 8 kg) claim they are not
slower, but this has not been substantiated with test data.

[1] Please note that many recumbents have rather upright seating
positions, and the range of frontal area between different recumbent
types is VERY significant.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

Zog The Undeniable said:

Because you can't rock the bike, getting extra power from your arms.
They are always heavier, too.

Certain European builders are producing carbon fiber composite
lowracers with a riding weights (including pedals) in the 7 to 8 kgf
range, which is only a small penalty compared to a high end upright
bicycle.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

Johnny Sunset wrote -

Quoted message said:

Similarly, there is insufficient
data in long term rider power production in the recumbent position
versus the upright position (short term anaerobic power production
appears to be significantly greater in the upright position).

Could this not be answered by fitting SRM canks or other accurate power
measuring device to both with a test rider experienced on both types?

Whenever a 'bent has joined our road group for a ride there seem to be
inhererent differences in velocity sufficienrt to make the bunch
unworkable - ' bent much faster on downhills, the reverse uphill.

I think the beasts need to be with their own kind.

best, Andrew

Andrew Price said:

Johnny Sunset wrote -

Quoted message said:

Similarly, there is insufficient
data in long term rider power production in the recumbent position
versus the upright position (short term anaerobic power production
appears to be significantly greater in the upright position).

Could this not be answered by fitting SRM canks or other accurate power
measuring device to both with a test rider experienced on both types?

I believe it would only be instructive if experience levels and
training regimens on both bicycles were approximately equal. However, a
POSSIBLE complication is that the best training program on the upright
may not be the best for the recumbent.

Quoted message said:

Whenever a 'bent has joined our road group for a ride there seem to be
inhererent differences in velocity sufficienrt to make the bunch
unworkable - ' bent much faster on downhills, the reverse uphill.

I think the beasts need to be with their own kind.

Yes and no. If the upright ride involves strict pacelines (especially
rotating pacelines) the recumbent will not fit in. On more casual group
rides it is not a problem as long as the riders learn to cooperate - a
slower recumbent should stay to the right on uphills and the uprights
should not impede the faster recumbent on downhills - and accept that
there will be some "yo-yoing" between the two types of bicycles.
Another solution is for the recumbent rider to take turns pulling at
the front [1] and riding at the back.

[1] An unfaired or front faired only recumbent with a higher seating
position provides a useable draft.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

Quoted message said:

Hi,

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things
like getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of
the things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an
accepted fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is
this really true? Or is it a case of certain recumbent riders being
able to keep up with certain riders of regular bikes on the flats due
to less wind resistance, but getting dropped on climbs due to less
conditioning? Or a recumbent rider comparing their performance on
climbs on a normal bike vs their recumbent without taking into account
the weight differences between the bikes?

Isn't climbing just power to weight with some wind and rolling
resistance tossed in? Why are recumbents slower on climbs?

Joseph

As Tom pointed out, it all depends. All of the things you mentioned
come into play, and it's very, very hard to eliminate the variables.

In some cases, recumbents can hold their own up hills, then use their
aerodynamic advantage coming down. That's what happened on last year's
Race Across Oregon: http://www.ohpv.org/albums/rao2005/index.htm . Note
that this started at sea level (Portland Airport- about 80 feet
altitude) and finished at 6,000 feet. Support, strategy, and surprise
all came into play in this event.

Jeff

joseph.santaniello said:

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things
like getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of
the things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an
accepted fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is
this really true? Or is it a case of certain recumbent riders being
able to keep up with certain riders of regular bikes on the flats due
to less wind resistance, but getting dropped on climbs due to less
conditioning?

I've ridden with a number of (always enthusiastic) bent riders. Usually
I can easily outclimb them, and with my excess avoirdupois there aren't
all that many upright riders I ride with who I can outclimb. There was
one exception to this rule, but he was really in much better shape in
general than I was.

There are two problems with climbing fast on (in?) a bent: 1) they do
weigh considerably more than an upright, and you do have to get that
weight up the hill, and (more importantly) 2) you cannot get out of the
saddle.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

Johnny Sunset said:

Quoted message said:

Hi,

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things
like getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of
the things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an
accepted fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is
this really true?

The first thing to realize is that anyone who provides an answer that
appears definitive is blowing smoke. The second thing to realize is
that there is no simple answer due to the many variables involved.
Thirdly, throw out all the anecdotal stories you hear, since there are
important variables such as the level of the conditioning of the
riders' that are not known.

Certainly weight, drivetrain friction and rolling resistance are
important, and in most cases upright bicycles will have the advantage
here (and certainly if we compare bicycles of equal cost).

For an average rider, aerodynamic will play a lesser role, so the high
frontal area presented by an upright rider in a typical climbing
position is not of much detriment. For a very strong rider (i.e. near
professional level) high enough speeds will be obtained on relatively
steep grades (e.g. 6-7%) that the reduction in drag that occurs in
putting the rider in a low frontal area position [1] will be quite
significant. Is this enough to make up for the slightly greater weight,
drivetrain friction and rolling resistance (assuming a performance
recumbent design)? The answer will depend on rider power, road surface,
riding position of both the upright and recumbent rider and gradient.
To the question everyone seems to ask, "Would a recumbent be
competitive in the TdF?" the answer is I don't KNOW and neither does
anyone else.

Well, getting DQ'd at the starting line *could* be seen as a definite
disadvantage. :-)

Good discussion, though - I've often wondered the same as the OP. I am
reminded of a similar truism - "tandems can't climb." When we were much
fitter, my wife and I surprised a few people on that one. Therefore I
am inclined to suspect that the OP is onto something: Upright riders
find themselves riding with a recumbent on the flats who can keep up due
to the recumbent's aero advantage, but the hill brings out the truth of
the riders' unequal strengths. That would fit with my anecdotal
experience. The 'bent riders who are equally strong as the upright
rider may be far ahead down the road.

I also expect that it takes a while to adjust to riding a recumbent, so
I suspect that one-day tests putting a competitive rider on a recumbent
aren't telling the whole story.

Mark

David L. Johnson said:

...
I've ridden with a number of (always enthusiastic) bent riders. Usually
I can easily outclimb them, and with my excess avoirdupois there aren't
all that many upright riders I ride with who I can outclimb. There was
one exception to this rule, but he was really in much better shape in
general than I was.

And what was the conditioning of the other riders?

Quoted message said:

There are two problems with climbing fast on (in?) a bent: 1) they do
weigh considerably more than an upright, and you do have to get that
weight up the hill...

MOST recumbents weigh more that typical upright road bikes. I have seen
carbon fiber composite lowracers that weigh less than 8 kgf, which is
less than many upright road bikes.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

Ryan Cousineau said:

...
The broad answer is that when the road gets steep enough, bents suffer.
It's interesting that at the sharp end of recumbent performance, the
most aerodynamic (faired) bikes are notably heavier than conventional
(delta frame, "DF"😉 bikes, and recumbents that are close to the weight
of DF bikes are unfaired, and thus their aero advantage, while still
potentially present, is not as great as that of faired bikes....

That is where a bike like this comes in:
<http://www.velokraft.com/-nc.htm> [1]. It is reasonably light (9-10
kgf), very stiff with low drivetrain friction, has reasonably low
rolling resistance, and better aerodynamically [2] that most recumbents
with flexible fairings.

[1] Note to the doubters. Yes, this bike can be ridden on the street,
but chain/wheel interference does preclude tight U-turns.
[2] At least with disc wheels.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

Quoted message said:

Hi,

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things
like getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of
the things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an
accepted fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is
this really true? Or is it a case of certain recumbent riders being
able to keep up with certain riders of regular bikes on the flats due
to less wind resistance, but getting dropped on climbs due to less
conditioning? Or a recumbent rider comparing their performance on
climbs on a normal bike vs their recumbent without taking into account
the weight differences between the bikes?

Isn't climbing just power to weight with some wind and rolling
resistance tossed in? Why are recumbents slower on climbs?

Joseph

When I first built my bent I timed myself around my favourite rides and paid particular
attention to the hills (of which there where lots). Compared to my diamond frame I was a noticeably
faster up the hills. I feel that a person is faster simply because you can push harder against the
pedals. Naturally I was bagged at the top of the real steep/tall ones.
Bob.

In article <[email hidden]>,

() said:

Isn't climbing just power to weight with some wind and rolling
resistance tossed in?

Precisely. There is a school of thought which contends that power
output depends, among other things, on the angle between thigh and
torso, and that the more open this is, the less power is generated.
IIRC multiple world record holder Sam Whittingham once said that his
peak sprint power on his track bike was almost double what he could
generate in the Varna. The fact that many recumbents err on the lardy
side doesn't help either. However, studies rarely seem to allow the
victim^w subject sufficient time to become accustomed to the different
positions.

Personally I can't climb to save my life and have found no appreciable
difference in speed up hills on any of my geared machines, though the
fixer is appreciably - 5-7 km/h - faster up the only hill of note on my
commute than anything else.

Going down the other side, however, is a different matter entirely.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Wood is an excellent material for making trees, but is otherwise not to
be trusted.

joseph.santaniello said:

Hi,

With masses of snow around, my brain keeps thinking of strange things like
getting a recumbent! Who knows if I ever will get one, but one of the
things I've been reading seems strange to me. It seems to be an accepted
fact that recumbents do not climb as well as regular bikes. Is this really
true? Or is it a case of certain recumbent riders being able to keep up
with certain riders of regular bikes on the flats due to less wind
resistance, but getting dropped on climbs due to less conditioning? Or a
recumbent rider comparing their performance on climbs on a normal bike vs
their recumbent without taking into account the weight differences between
the bikes?

Isn't climbing just power to weight with some wind and rolling resistance
tossed in? Why are recumbents slower on climbs?

Well, they're heavier, but...

The main difference is that the rider can't shift between sitting and
standing, to spread the work among different muscle groups, and do this in
concert with the terrain. A recumbent rider is stuck in one position and
type of motion. It's an ergonomic constraint that limits hard climbing
the same way it limits sprinting. If you're a sit-and-spin type of rider,
the difference may bother you less.

On normal recreational rides, recumbents don't seem to be at
any disadvantage compared to the rest of us. It's only while racing that
the difference matters.

I wonder how recumbent riders fare on extreme distance rides. I imagine
this is where they may shine.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

On normal recreational rides, recumbents don't seem to be at
any disadvantage compared to the rest of us. It's only while racing that
the difference matters.

I wonder how recumbent riders fare on extreme distance rides. I imagine
this is where they may shine.

Matt O.

It hasn't hurt my buddy Rand:
http://www.bentrideronline.com/reviews/rand/rand.html

Jeff

Matt O'Toole said:

I wonder how recumbent riders fare on extreme distance rides. I imagine
this is where they may shine.

There were quite a lot of them on the 2005 Dunwich Dynamo (112 miles),
including a Windcheetah trike which was drawing lots of attention. They
all arrived later than me on my overloaded tourer, but I am notorious
for not wasting time at rest stops ;-)

Dave Larrington said:

Sam Whittingham once said that his
peak sprint power on his track bike was almost double what he could
generate in the Varna.

That's peak sprint power, and except for very short hills that doesn't
really matter. MAP doesn't appear to depend much on the body's
orientation, as long as you control for thigh-torso angle.

Robert Chung said:

Dave Larrington said:

Sam Whittingham once said that his
peak sprint power on his track bike was almost double what he could
generate in the Varna.

That's peak sprint power, and except for very short hills that doesn't
really matter. MAP doesn't appear to depend much on the body's
orientation, as long as you control for thigh-torso angle.

Perhaps ill-fitting recumbents is the cause of this "myth"? Ill-fitting
is probably the wrong way to phase it, as folks have different needs
for comfort, etc. I have never seen a racing style recumbent on the
road, so perhaps it is a different crowd, who put more emphasis on
power efficiency, and power-optimized positioning, but all the folks
I've seen did not seem too concerned about that sort of thing.

What is an optimal thigh-torso angle range for max power anyway?

Joseph

Zog The Undeniable said:

There were quite a lot of them on the 2005 Dunwich Dynamo (112 miles),
including a Windcheetah trike which was drawing lots of attention. They
all arrived later than me on my overloaded tourer, but I am notorious
for not wasting time at rest stops ;-)

Instead you waste time after the ride?

Others view rest stops as rewarding places to spend time.

Dan (typically rushing through rest stops, myself...)