Just zis Guy, you know? wrote, in response to:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I wonder if difficulty with weighting the wheels
has anything to do with some recumbent bicycle designs
being rather sluggish on upslopes?Quoted message said:Nope, it's being unable to stand.
Nope, it's partly blood flow dynamics and partly the weight of the
bike. The ability to stand is more than offset by the ability to push
against the seat, giving tractive effort greater than your mass alone
would allow.
I'm not sure about that last idea. Yes, you can get more force out of
your legs than your weight, and a recumbent gives you the chance to do
that.
But ISTM that on an upright, climbing when standing, you're bringing
many more muscles into play. I believe I use my arms, etc. to
partially lift my weight, which I then "deposit" onto the upper pedal.
I thus put some work done by upper body into forward propulsion.
It's obvious to me I can do this even when my quads are so fatigued I
can barely pedal uphill seated, so there's _something_ contributing
beyond what my quads can produce.
Quoted message said:A lightweight recumbent with a fit rider can climb every bit as well
as a wedgie (e.g. the hill climb contest at last year's Cyclefest
which was won by Howard on a recumbent trike with a chainwheel the
size of a dustbin lid, against a field which included lightweight
spaceframe Moultons and other uprights).
This may be true for the very lightest recumbents, but certainly not
for most of them. And part of the gain may be aerodynamics (depending
which way the wind was blowing that day). I was surprised when I
noticed that even a slight breeze still makes a detectable difference
climbing the hill on my way home. The slope in the steeper parts runs
from about 5% to 10%, so I'm not moving fast; but a tailwind still
helps!
- Frank Krygowski