My DF friends say...

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right? If I get one with the 26" rear wheel, wouldn't that help with the
hill climbing?

No, in my opinion climbing hills is in the engine not what type of bike you
ride,

Quoted message said:

Another guy said, "I'd never buy one because I don't want my face to be at
the same level as a big dog's mouth!" That one doesn't bother me, though.

I

Quoted message said:

can deal with the dogs.

I'm even lower but I outrun them 🙂

Pat said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right? If I get one with the 26" rear wheel, wouldn't that help with the
hill climbing?

This is a common topic of discussion and in the Bacchetta mailing list,
there seems to be some consensus that it's not so much that 'bents are
no good on hills, but that they're so good everywhere else that you can
hang with a faster crowd on those other parts only to get dropped on the
hills because the hills represent your actual cycling level, and that
the recumbent's superiority in other aspects does not help you overcome
your level in that one specific area (climbing).

I think there's some truth to that, but I think it ignores the fact that
a lot of riders of a given fitness level who are acclimated to both
bents and uprights, as I am, can climb significantly faster on the
upright than the recumbent.

Basically, I think the
bent-is-making-you-better-than-you-are-except-on-hills view ignores the
same rider's actual ability on hills on an upright bike. It may well be
100% correct for some people because they've given up entirely on
uprights cannot (or will not) ride them, period, so their climbing
ability on uprights is zero.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

I'm sure that you will get many answers on this subject. Some will tell you
they are faster on the hills, while others will tell you they are much
slower.

On modest hills I seem to be faster on my recumbent. On the steep hills I am
slower. A large part of the hill climbing is the right gearing. I find that
the RANS Rocket with a 20" rear wheel seems a bit more nimble on steep hills
than does my Vision R-50 with a 26" rear wheel.

My overall speed is faster on the recumbent as compared to my DF. When
riding with my DF friends I usually pull away as we approach the hill, they
pass me going up the hill, and I blow by them going down the hill. At the
end of the ride I am not having to ice down my tender bits nor do I walk
funny for the next few hours.

Before the recumbent I was riding for my health. Now that I am bent I ride
for fun (and put in more miles to boot).

William Higley, Sr.
Vision R-50
RANS Rocket
"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right? If I get one with the 26" rear wheel, wouldn't that help with the
hill climbing?

Another guy said, "I'd never buy one because I don't want my face to be at
the same level as a big dog's mouth!" That one doesn't bother me, though.

I

Quoted message said:

can deal with the dogs.

Pat

Mark Leuck said:

No, in my opinion climbing hills is in the engine not what type of bike you
ride,

Saying it's just the engine is incomplete at best.

It should be self-evident that the vehicle does matter, in addition to
the engine propelling it.

Put a Porsche turbo engine in a 911 and you've got a high performance
speed machine on any road you'd care to drive, hills, flats, whatever.

Put it in a Kenworth lugging a load of logs and you not going to climb
over a speedbump much less a twisty mountain pass.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

Well, judging from the age and size of the majority of Bentriders, we
probably are slower up hill. I'm 250 pounds and I climb just about anything,
but I can't hang with the 160 pound whippits on uphills, I fly by them on
the downhills though. Even when I rode uprights ( and I did alot) I couldn't
keep with them on climbs.
I think a fit Road Biker and a Fit Recumbent rider of same size weight and
ability will be pretty even at the end of the day. Indeed I've witnessed it
in a road race.
The dog issue, try to look tough, hard to chew and not that tasty.
Denny in Sayre,Pa
"Bent but not Broken"

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right? If I get one with the 26" rear wheel, wouldn't that help with the
hill climbing?

They will be slower on hills. Properly geared and with good spinning
techniques, you will be marginally worse than you are on a DF. But this
is not 'right out of the box'. The mistake I think most people make in
making the transition to recumbents is gaging their climbing ability in
the first few rides. It takes several hundred miles to develop the
different 'bent conditioned muscles. I am a much better climber now
than when I started in '99. Also some 'bents climb better than others.
The P-38 is a good example. It climbs slightly better than my Giro.
Both are far ahead of the LWB that I used to own.

Quoted message said:

Another guy said, "I'd never buy one because I don't want my face to be at
the same level as a big dog's mouth!" That one doesn't bother me, though. I
can deal with the dogs.

Actually it is my horizontal leg that is mouth high to BMF dogs. Since
I can out distance almost any DF around me, I just need to ride in dog
country with a few DF friends.

Also my face is about the same level as the DF riders butt. This has
its good points and bad points depending on the gender of the butt.
--
Cletus D. Lee
Bacchetta Giro
Lightning Voyager
http://www.clee.org
- Bellaire, TX USA -

Dogs? Like they say, ride with someone slower.
"Denny Voorhees" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well, judging from the age and size of the majority of Bentriders, we
probably are slower up hill. I'm 250 pounds and I climb just about

anything,

Quoted message said:

but I can't hang with the 160 pound whippits on uphills, I fly by them on
the downhills though. Even when I rode uprights ( and I did alot) I

couldn't

Quoted message said:

keep with them on climbs.
I think a fit Road Biker and a Fit Recumbent rider of same size weight and
ability will be pretty even at the end of the day. Indeed I've witnessed

it

Quoted message said:

in a road race.
The dog issue, try to look tough, hard to chew and not that tasty.
Denny in Sayre,Pa
"Bent but not Broken"

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right?

For whatever it's worth my average riding speed on long hilly / mountain
rides (rest stop time excluded from calculation) is virtually identical on
my touring lwb recumbent and my touring diamond frame. However my total
elapsed ride time from point to point is lower on the recumbent because of
fewer and shorter rest stops. As a tourist it's irrelevant to me which bike
climbs faster - my concern is elapsed time and how I feel at the end of the
day.

I remember riding up what must be the steepest hill in Tennessee. It was
long, straight up, and steep, real steep. Naturally it came at the end of
the days ride. I was on a recumbent and next to me was a guy on a DF. We
were both in our lowest gear, seated, and spinning away. We went up the
hill exactly together at about 2 mph. I figure I would have been faster
walking the bike. In fact, I even considered walking just so I could claim I
can walk a recumbent up a hill faster than you can ride a diamond frame.
But the diamond frame guy and I persevered and we made it to the top
together. Neither of us felt much like discussing df vs.bent stuff at that
particular moment.

Going down this hill was no bargain either. At the bottom, after a short
roll out, was a stop sign for a major highway.

skip

Pat said:

Another guy said, "I'd never buy one because I don't want my face to be at
the same level as a big dog's mouth!" That one doesn't bother me, though. I
can deal with the dogs.

In a ride at one of the last GEARs for LAB, at East Tennessee a few
years ago, I was the more experienced cyclist when a couple of dogs
came charging out. Slammed on the brakes on my Vision and came to a
stand in one motion, making a roaring noise. Something about a
'victim' growing in front of their eyes to about 6'1" - 6'2" put their
tailes between their legs and we didn't see them on the way back.

I don't feel all that vulnerable on a recumbent.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Mark Leuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<fB1dc.214665$Cb.1855141@attbi_s51>...

Quoted message said:

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right? If I get one with the 26" rear wheel, wouldn't that help with the
hill climbing?

No, in my opinion climbing hills is in the engine not what type of bike you
ride,

Quoted message said:

Another guy said, "I'd never buy one because I don't want my face to be at
the same level as a big dog's mouth!" That one doesn't bother me, though.

I

Quoted message said:

can deal with the dogs.

I'm even lower but I outrun them 🙂

Hills and Bents: Probably could fill the New York Library with all the
words written about this. :o)

Personal opinion is that a recumbent is slower on long or steep hills,
but that overall you'll end up the ride in the same time or slightly
less, but feel a whole lot better.

When I first started riding a long time recumbent rider said: "You
won't be able to do long hilly rides with your DF friends anymore
unless you both want to be slower overall: They'll wait for you going
up hills and you'll wait for them going down and on the flats." To
this day I find that to be true. If we want to finish a ride like
this fast, we do the Leap Frog ride: I pull away on the flats, they
catch me on hills, I pull away on the down hills and flat, they catch
me on the hills.....

From personal experience, I can tell you that the dual 26" new
highracer bikes are much better climbers. I'm going up hills faster
on my Strada then I ever did on my V-REX. It may not be a whole
hilluva lot of difference, but the Strada does make a difference. The
bike can and does make a difference.

There are a few riders who are as fast on a recumbent up hills as they
were on a DF. These to me are special people who are blessed with
marvelous engines. I can only wish.....and keep worki'n...

Slow, but faster on my Strada, Joe Recumbo

Like many of the other comments I cannot climb as fast on a recumbent. I
have been riding them about 8 years so there is no break-in problem. Hill
climbing is just one of those comprimises I make to gain the superior
ergonomics.

As far as being on a lower level on a recumbent repulsing people, I have
suspected for a long time that this relates to the "SUV" effect; people like
to be up high. This applies to cars, trucks, bicycles, and even buildings
(e.g., Trump Towers). It may be better visibility - nicer view, or some
ego/superiority thing. I don't know.
"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right? If I get one with the 26" rear wheel, wouldn't that help with the
hill climbing?

Another guy said, "I'd never buy one because I don't want my face to be at
the same level as a big dog's mouth!" That one doesn't bother me, though.

I

Quoted message said:

can deal with the dogs.

Pat

On a DF bike, you can get your whole body into climbing, tossing the frame
from side to side, powering up the hill. If one rides in this manner, an
old-fashioned upright road bike definitely has the advantage. But most
people cannot sustain this intense level of exercise for very long (I know I
can't). I have always been a seated climber, no matter the style of bike,
so for me my recumbent is not noticeably slower on hills than my old DF road
bike, especially now that my leg muscles have grown accustomed to the
laid-back riding position. If you like to climb out of the seat and
regularly ride with a group, and you don't mind neck, back, groin, and hand
pain and numbness, then keep your upright road bike. If you want comfort
and ergonomics while giving away a little a little bit of hill climbing
ability, if you like to ride long distances in comfort, then get a
recumbent. It's no sin to have one of each, either.

As for dogs, this was more of an issue for me when I had USS, with my hands
right at doggie mouth level. Since converting to OSS, I'm much more
comfortble around canines. I find at least 90% of rural dogs around here
just want to bark at you and run alongside. Sometimes (when I have a
tailwind) I just blow them away. Sometimes I ignore them. Sometimes (and
this really works!) I come to a complete stop and yell at them, at which
point they lower their head and go home. Depending on the dog, this last
method may be useful for "training" the dogs on your regular route. The
other day I was being chased by a dog who was following to my left rear
quarter (over the double-stripe). A car coming the other way laid on the
horn and went into the grass to avoid hitting the dog. I checked my
rear-view; turned out the driver was the dog's owner. Boy did that pooch
catch hell!
--
Bill Anton
2001 Vision R-40 26x26 SWB OSS
Lubbock, TX, USA

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't get a recumbent because they can't climb hills worth #$%$#. Is that
right? If I get one with the 26" rear wheel, wouldn't that help with the
hill climbing?

Another guy said, "I'd never buy one because I don't want my face to be at
the same level as a big dog's mouth!" That one doesn't bother me, though.

I

Quoted message said:

can deal with the dogs.

Pat