Grudge Match Time: Recumbent vs DF



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Eugene Cottrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> < 3% grade is hardly a hill. Try >8-10% grade and see how many DFs you pass. I rode through
> Albuquerque on my cross country. Most of the hills
in
> the west were long and shallow and the descents were not curvy at all
except
> for the occasional switchback.
>
> Gene

When you rode through Albuquerque mountains, did you notice that the mountain passes are not
perfectly graded? In other words, a 3% average grade for roughly 20 miles does not mean that it is a
perfectly flat surface with a continuous 3 % incline for 20 miles. Surprising as that might be, real
roads go up and down at different grades and parts of them go up much more than 3 %.

The road here are not curvy in the mountains, really now? Okay, so you're trying to tell me the
following: a DF is 50 to 100 % (or more faster) up a hill, you can't turn a bent well on a curvy
road, the Sandia mountains are hardly even a hill, and the mountain roads around here are not curvy.
Well, how can I put this Gene? I guess I'll just say I don't believe much of anything you write.

Brian
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > "B. Sanders" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > When and where should we hold these events?
> >
> > They've developed some nice routes around France. From what I hear, there's a pretty big race
> > there each year.
> >
> > Have any recumbent fans done that route (after the race, of course) for comparison?
>
> Yes. See < http://www.rowingbike.com/english/tourdefr.htm >
>

I thought there was going to be some information on his overall time, etc. Did I miss it?

FWIW, I recently read _French Revolutions_, about an out-of-shape (at the start) British cycling
novice who rode the Tour route on a standard touring frame. He was, of course, much slower than the
Tour riders. Still, I think that most days, he too could describe his "Temper" as "Fine," "Happy,"
"Optimistic" etc.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
brian hughes wrote:
>
>
> The whole point to my post was the ludicrous claim that a DF was 50 to 100% (or more) faster than
> a recumbent up a hill. And that a recumbent couldn't turn as well as a DF bike. But since you
> posted nothing about those claims, and instead challenge my statements, I must assume you believe
> that ****. Oh well, you are not convincing me of anything except your bias.

My skepticism comes from my observations. I _know_ I've climbed hills at least 50% faster than
certain recumbent riders, ones that would be with me on DFs. I'm sure it depends on the bike, and I
_know_ it depends on the hill. Again, just south and east of here, the terrain gets very steep and
choppy. The guys I know who bought or built recumbents immediately stopped using them for rides in
those directions. They stayed to the flatter west and, especially, north.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my skepticism, but I've come across many misleading statements by
fans of certain equipment. I've taken to noting the details of phrasing and asking "What did he
_really_ mean?" Your phrasing left much that was open to question.

I will never disagree that a well-designed faired recument will be faster than almost any
upright on flat ground, on downhills, or on slight uphills. I remain very skeptical when
recumbent riders give the impression that they climb serious grades faster on bents than they do
on uprights. It's not "bias"; I've seen too many counterexamples, and I've felt what it was like
to try to climb on a bent.

Way back in this thread, I asked for postings of recumbent successes in various hill climbs, etc.
I'm talking things like Mount Washington, Assault on Mount Mitchell, or even the short hill climbs
I've heard about on the streets of San Francisco.

Are there any such successes? Let's hear about them.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
AA,

This would be a good event for even Mike "Mr. Habenero, home of the CHEAPY Ti FRAME upwrongs."

I'm sure his AZ hills have properly trained him for the Iowa course.

I'll even pay for his entry fee, lodging, breakfast, lunch, (assuming he can eat after riding), and
dinner if he rides further than you. Value up to $200.00

And guess what, they even allow drafting, so please bring your buddies? Last year their 3 man
rotation did them no good!

Ed - giving away $$ if Mike has the intestinal fortitude to accept the challenge - Gin

AA wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Bent riders, racers and promoters spend literally years searching for the "perfect" road:
> > Straight, smooth, high altitude for less air density, slight downhill grade just exactly within
> > specs, slight tailwind just exactly within specs, etc. for that one "perfect" record run.
> >
> > Upright riders, racers, and promoters ride and race everywhere. Literally everywhere.
> >
> > One's a technical exercise in an outdoor laboratory. The other is a real-world test.
>
> Frank, For your info the UMCA 6, 12 & 24 hr TT in Eldridge, Iowa in Sept. is an event that allows
> bents to participate. That event is not on smooth roads by any means. There are some very rough
> and broken asphalt surface sections, cattle grates, gravel and hills to deal with. The course is
> not at all flat.
>
> This is another example of yours "that bent require perfect roads" which is fictional at best.
>
> I currently hold the course record for the 6 hr TT of 133 mi. or 7 - 19
> mi. loops in a 5:44 finish. the DF riders that participates in the 6 hr went no farther than 6
> loops. I plan to do the event again this season and my goal is for 8 loops which will be 152
> mi under 6 hrs.
>
> Perhaps you would like to race with me on a real-world course with imperfect roads and hills with
> your diamond frame. I'd love to have some serious competition and am curious to see if you are
> capable of surpassing the current 7 loop distance.
>
> Regards, AA
 
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote in message news:sEila.37105

> Most of the folks around here are interested in "real world" kinds of issues, of which top speed
> is only one factor.

Also- If there is a speed improvement of say 2mph, so what? A rather long commute might have 5 mins
knocked off, a good day out could be a few miles more.
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "B. Sanders" wrote:
> >
> >
> > When and where should we hold these events?
>
> They've developed some nice routes around France. From what I hear, there's a pretty big race
> there each year.
>
> Have any recumbent fans done that route (after the race, of course) for comparison?

Interesting word there - "fans" - I doubt if there are any that have the physical gifts or the huge
amount of training TdF riders do.

And what about drafting?
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> FWIW, I recently read _French Revolutions_, about an out-of-shape (at the start) British cycling
> novice who rode the Tour route on a standard touring frame.

Worse than that actually - a middling race frame with panniers cobbled on.

> He was, of course, much slower than the Tour riders.

About 12mph average!
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:
>.... snipped
>
> For another take on this, look at the choice of terrain for the most-publicized races for each
> type of bike. Compare the Tour de France route with Battle Mountain, for example.
>
> Bent riders, racers and promoters spend literally years searching for the "perfect" road:
> Straight, smooth, high altitude for less air density, slight downhill grade just exactly within
> specs, slight tailwind just exactly within specs, etc. for that one "perfect" record run.
>
> Upright riders, racers, and promoters ride and race everywhere. Literally everywhere.
>
> One's a technical exercise in an outdoor laboratory. The other is a real-world test.

Frank,

You are correct about searching for the perfect road. However, that is just for one very specific
event - the world 200M sprint record, which current stands at 82 mph. It is a flat-out speed record
attempt, equivalent to Bonneville or Black Rock in the automotive world. It is a record attempt, not
a race. By the way, Olympic cyclists, including Gold Medal winners have competed in this event.

It is a very specialised event that combines athletic ability with technology and it has no
comparison whatsoever with the Tour de France, or any other races. It is only one of many different
types of HPV event, which (to my the best of my knowledge) has no equivalent in the diamond-frame
racing world.

HPV riders, racers, and promoters also ride and race everywhere. Literally everywhere, including
above and below water, in the air and on rails.

Please come along and observe or ride in some of the events. You might find them interesting.

-- Chris Broome HPVA
 
Ed Gin & Shirleen Kajiwara <[email protected]> wrote:

>This would be a good event for even Mike "Mr. Habenero, home of the CHEAPY Ti FRAME upwrongs."

It's amazing how many things you can get wrong in a single sentence. Hey everyone, I think I've
figured out what "Baghdad Bob" is up to these days... ;-)

>I'm sure his AZ hills have properly trained him for the Iowa course.
>
>I'll even pay for his entry fee, lodging, breakfast, lunch, (assuming he can eat after riding), and
>dinner if he rides further than you. Value up to $200.00
>
>And guess what, they even allow drafting, so please bring your buddies? Last year their 3 man
>rotation did them no good!
>
>Ed - giving away $$ if Mike has the intestinal fortitude to accept the challenge - Gin

I'm not sure who Mike is, but I don't recall saying anything about a 'bent's ability on flats and on
rolling hills. I was talking about climbing.

Tell ya what - I do the AZ state hill climb championship every year - on a tandem no less (also
known for not climbing well). Why don't you come out and show me if I was wrong when I intimated
that DFs may be at an advantage when climbing "real hills". And hey, it's not all that steep, only
about 6,000 feet of climbing in 20 miles. Surely that's no worse than those "Iowa mountains". Heh.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

>AA wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Bent riders, racers and promoters spend literally years searching for the "perfect" road:
>> > Straight, smooth, high altitude for less air density, slight downhill grade just exactly within
>> > specs, slight tailwind just exactly within specs, etc. for that one "perfect" record run.
>> >
>> > Upright riders, racers, and promoters ride and race everywhere. Literally everywhere.
>> >
>> > One's a technical exercise in an outdoor laboratory. The other is a real-world test.
>>
>> Frank, For your info the UMCA 6, 12 & 24 hr TT in Eldridge, Iowa in Sept. is an event that allows
>> bents to participate. That event is not on smooth roads by any means. There are some very rough
>> and broken asphalt surface sections, cattle grates, gravel and hills to deal with. The course is
>> not at all flat.
>>
>> This is another example of yours "that bent require perfect roads" which is fictional at best.
>>
>> I currently hold the course record for the 6 hr TT of 133 mi. or 7 - 19
>> mi. loops in a 5:44 finish. the DF riders that participates in the 6 hr went no farther than 6
>> loops. I plan to do the event again this season and my goal is for 8 loops which will be 152
>> mi under 6 hrs.
>>
>> Perhaps you would like to race with me on a real-world course with imperfect roads and hills with
>> your diamond frame. I'd love to have some serious competition and am curious to see if you are
>> capable of surpassing the current 7 loop distance.
>>
>> Regards, AA
 
W K wrote:
>
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "B. Sanders" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > When and where should we hold these events?
> >
> > They've developed some nice routes around France. From what I hear, there's a pretty big race
> > there each year.
> >
> > Have any recumbent fans done that route (after the race, of course) for comparison?
>
> Interesting word there - "fans" - I doubt if there are any that have the physical gifts or the
> huge amount of training TdF riders do.

Well, you guys need to get going! "Ride lots!"

But seriously, people have posted the names of recumbent racing champions. Those guys
should do this.

> And what about drafting?

It's fine with me if they draft.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
Chris Broome wrote:
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >.... snipped
> >
> > For another take on this, look at the choice of terrain for the most-publicized races for each
> > type of bike. Compare the Tour de France route with Battle Mountain, for example.
> >
> > Bent riders, racers and promoters spend literally years searching for the "perfect" road:
> > Straight, smooth, high altitude for less air density, slight downhill grade just exactly within
> > specs, slight tailwind just exactly within specs, etc. for that one "perfect" record run.
> >
> > Upright riders, racers, and promoters ride and race everywhere. Literally everywhere.
> >
> > One's a technical exercise in an outdoor laboratory. The other is a real-world test.
>
> Frank,
>
> You are correct about searching for the perfect road. However, that is just for one very specific
> event - the world 200M sprint record, which current stands at 82 mph. It is a flat-out speed
> record attempt, equivalent to Bonneville or Black Rock in the automotive world. It is a record
> attempt, not a race. By the way, Olympic cyclists, including Gold Medal winners have competed in
> this event.
>
> It is a very specialised event that combines athletic ability with technology and it has no
> comparison whatsoever with the Tour de France, or any other races. It is only one of many
> different types of HPV event, which (to my the best of my knowledge) has no equivalent in the
> diamond-frame racing world.

Nonetheless, as I said, it is the most-publicized racing event for the HPV crowd. It maximizes the
most specific advantages of the faired recumbent design. And to put it back into context: we've had
a few extremely obnoxious recumbent fans ragging on "upwrongs" and the like, using speed and racing
as their justification. At least some have used events like that one as their trump card.

To me, the differences in the "most important" racing venues are indicative of the fans' priorities.

> HPV riders, racers, and promoters also ride and race everywhere. Literally everywhere, including
> above and below water, in the air and on rails.

I know, and that's fine. Lots of people have quirky, unusual interests. I certainly have my own.

But we don't have railbike freaks telling us we're fools for riding on roads. We don't have Kramer
prize winners mocking us for riding at ground level. The human-powered watercraft guys haven't made
fun of my kayak.

It seems to be a small contingent of low-racers who feel the need to defend their fringe interests
by mocking those who choose more versatility over more speed.

> Please come along and observe or ride in some of the events. You might find them interesting.

Chris, I'm a past member of the IHPVA. Two friends of mine won the practical vehicle competition*
one year. And the engineering college in which I teach has student teams entering ASME's HPV
competition. I published an article in Human Power a few years ago. I'm not ignorant of the field.

If an HPVA event were held in my immediate area, I'd probably attend - but I wouldn't get involved.
After a few years of intense interest, it became clear to me that the HPV machines were too
specialized for my taste.

(*I don't know if that "practical vehicle" competition is still held. If it is, it gets no
publicity.)

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
> My skepticism comes from my observations. I _know_ I've climbed hills at least 50% faster than
> certain recumbent riders, ones that would be with me on DFs. I'm sure it depends on the bike, and
> I _know_ it depends on the hill. Again, just south and east of here, the terrain gets very steep
> and choppy. The guys I know who bought or built recumbents immediately stopped using them for
> rides in those directions. They stayed to the flatter west and, especially, north.
>

Understand, my skepticism also comes from my observations, which are also backed by my personal bike
logs that I religiously keep. I find that my DF road bike goes uphill only marginally faster than my
SWB recumbent (<10%) and <25% faster than my LWB recumbent on a steep grade. And in general, my DF
road bike is a fraction of a mph slower overall than my bents when you include all the thousands of
miles of road riding. I don't know the actual grade of the road leading into my neighborhood from
where I base my uphill speed observations, but I can assure you there are a couple of very steep
sections (as any non 4-wheel drive neighbor would testify each winter when it snows and they're
unable to make it into or out of the neighborhood). The two sections I'm thinking about are steep
for about 1/4 mile or more. When I have a chance I'll measure the grade with my Garmin GPS as best I
can, but I have no doubt these sections approach 10% grade or more (I coast down these short
sections and hit 41 mph on my LWB, 39 mph SWB, 36 mph DF road bike, & 29 mph MTB). These are hardly
3% grades as you indicated earlier. Unless it's just me, there is nowhere near a 50% or more
increase in speed when I ride my DF road-bike up these steep sections. I should caveat that I don't
have the latest and greatest DF road-bike in the world, but neither is my SWB recumbent.

I am not anti-DF nor a religious zealot about bents. I ride both types a lot. I just object to
obvious erroneous information. If a person doesn't like the concept of a bent, that's fine, ride
what you like. But why post misinformation or baseless assumptions against another type of bike?
What's the deal with spreading false propaganda about bents? I certainly objected to the poster that
claimed he owned a SWB, trained for months on it, and it was 50% to over 100% slower up a hill; and
furthermore, it was also slower downhill because it couldn't lean and thus turn corners as well as a
DF. And he also mentioned that bents only have an advantage on the salt flats. Sorry, my BS warning
flag went soaring up so high it flew off the end of the flagpole when I read those charges.

> Way back in this thread, I asked for postings of recumbent successes in various hill climbs, etc.
> I'm talking things like Mount Washington, Assault on Mount Mitchell, or even the short hill climbs
> I've heard about on the streets of San Francisco.
>
> Are there any such successes? Let's hear about them.

I don't know much about any hill climbing competitions. Nor have I ever claimed a bent is better on
a hill, in fact I've always stated my road bike would win if I raced myself on my bent. However the
margin of victory would not be great. The statements that DFs are 50 - 100% (or more) faster uphill
are false. In my personal experience, there is a marginal advantage in an upright up a steep hill,
not a huge advantage. Nor do I know anyone that only rides bicycles uphill on steep grades--seems
like what goes up must come down at some point. In short, I believe that the advantage of good road
bikes over good quality bents on an uphill climb are way overstated by people inexperienced with
decent quality bents (NOTE: with certain exceptions, the average Joe homebuilt recumbent isn't a
decent quality bents). Plus I believe the percentage of time a person actually spend riding a bike
up a steep grade is small in overall mileage.

Finally, I noted last weekend I took a ride on a very popular route through the East Mountains up to
Oak Flats and back and saw about 100 cyclists. You noted they were probably going the other way. Of
course, you always see more that are going the other direction. But my point was there were many
other cyclist out there all riding DF roadbikes taking this same tour at roughly the same time I
was. Many started before me, many started after. Assuming (wrongly) that it is true that DF's are 50
to 100% (or more) faster up a hill, then why didn't any pass me during the 18 to 20 mile stretch
that is mostly an uphill climb? And furthermore, why did I pass a couple (men, riding road bikes,
certainly no older than me) that were well ahead of me when I started? In my observation it is
because I'm probably a little above average in bike speed, and recumbents (certainly decent quality,
light, stiff, SWB recumbents) are not as significantly slower up a hill, as you tend to believe
(50-100% factor stated is completely false).

Brian
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> W K wrote:
> >
> > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > "B. Sanders" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When and where should we hold these events?
> > >
> > > They've developed some nice routes around France. From what I hear, there's a pretty big race
> > > there each year.
> > >
> > > Have any recumbent fans done that route (after the race, of course)
for
> > > comparison?
> >
> > Interesting word there - "fans" - I doubt if there are any that have the physical gifts or the
> > huge amount of training TdF riders do.
>
> Well, you guys need to get going! "Ride lots!"

err. I've only got DFs and not sportingly gifted anyway.

> But seriously, people have posted the names of recumbent racing champions. Those guys should
> do this.
>
> > And what about drafting?
>
> It's fine with me if they draft.

This really is a grudge match isn't it? The one claimed advantage of aerodynamics a recumbent is
beaten by the aerodynamics of riding in a 100 strong peloton.
 
"Chris Broome" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> You are correct about searching for the perfect road. However, that is just for one very specific
> event - the world 200M sprint record, which current stands at 82 mph. It is a flat-out speed
> record attempt, equivalent to Bonneville or Black Rock in the automotive world. It is a record
> attempt, not a race. By the way, Olympic cyclists, including Gold Medal winners have competed in
> this event.

Yes. An odd thing indeed for Jason Quealy. He couldn't even keep it upright at first, and the team
was surprised he couldn't produce as much power lying down as he could on his track bike. I've
wondered whether the same logic would have a javelin thrower doing the shotput saying "you throw
things don't you?"
 
bandjhughes wrote:
>
>
> Understand, my skepticism also comes from my observations, which are also backed by my personal
> bike logs that I religiously keep. I find that my DF road bike goes uphill only marginally faster
> than my SWB recumbent (<10%) and <25% faster than my LWB recumbent on a steep grade. And in
> general, my DF road bike is a fraction of a mph slower overall than my bents when you include all
> the thousands of miles of road riding.

Now this sounds realistic to me.

...

> Unless it's just me, there is nowhere near a 50% or more increase in speed when I ride my DF
> road-bike up these steep sections. I should caveat that I don't have the latest and greatest DF
> road-bike in the world, but neither is my SWB recumbent.

Perhaps you should measure the grade. As I've stated in other posts, I can believe that a recumbent
might climb a slight grade faster than a DF (other things - like rider characteristics - being
equal, of course). But I _know_ that on truly steep grades, the guys I know who got recumbents were
suddenly much slower than they had been. Now those were long wheelbase designs (Tour Easy, for
example), but it was cause for considerable discussion in our bike club, and considerable wonderment
on my part. Until that happened, I'd figured 'bents would be good and fast uphill, because of the
ability to push against the seat back. I was wrong.

> The statements that DFs are 50 - 100% (or more) faster uphill are false. In my personal
> experience, there is a marginal advantage in an upright up a steep hill, not a huge advantage.

No more so than the statements that "Faired recumbents can cruise for an hour at over 30 mph." It
depends on terrain, rider, etc.

One long ride I lead for my club has hills that make bring moans and groans from the riders. They
are literally at the limit of what many club riders can do. I have no doubt that most riders on most
recumbents would _not_ be able to climb the hills. I have no doubt that the 50% difference in speed
would apply to some recumbent riders who were able to climb them.

(Unfortunately, the hills I'm mentioning are about 35 miles from here, so I can't run out and get a
grade measurement, but I'm pretty sure that certain pitches hit 20%.)

> Finally, I noted last weekend I took a ride on a very popular route through the East Mountains up
> to Oak Flats and back and saw about 100 cyclists. You noted they were probably going the other
> way. Of course, you always see more that are going the other direction. But my point was there
> were many other cyclist out there all riding DF roadbikes taking this same tour at roughly the
> same time I was. Many started before me, many started after. Assuming (wrongly) that it is true
> that DF's are 50 to 100% (or more) faster up a hill, then why didn't any pass me during the 18 to
> 20 mile stretch that is mostly an uphill climb? And furthermore, why did I pass a couple (men,
> riding road bikes, certainly no older than me) that were well ahead of me when I started? In my
> observation it is because I'm probably a little above average in bike speed, and recumbents
> (certainly decent quality, light, stiff, SWB recumbents) are not as significantly slower up a
> hill, as you tend to believe (50-100% factor stated is completely false).

Please give us an estimate of the typical percent grade for the hill you're talking about. It might
clear up a lot.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
Oh heck, I might as well. The posting do seem to have got out of hand, but here goes:

The only way to find out whether a 'bent or DF is the fastest is by proper scientific investigation,
not various contradictory anecdotal evidence -all variables set to the same as much as possible with
the exception of the configuration of the bike (and even then, one could argue that you shouldn't
for example, use a Huffy DF versus a GoldRush, or a Litespeed versus a BigWheel!). This means using
the same differing courses for each bike, a large sample of riders who have trained optimally for
the bike configuration, representative samples of both bike types, same differing sets of weather
conditions, blah, blah, blah. And of course you could argue what meaningful representation of those
variables are even then.

I'll offer up the prediction that if this was done, I'm sure we'd find out that 'bents or DFs both
have their advantages and disadvantages based on differing conditions. Needless to say it doesn't
keep me at night though.

But this doesn't answer the only question that matters IMHO -why do we need to know? Is anyone
unhappy riding their bike knowing they could be faster? Maybe this could be summed up by the phrase:
"Paper or plastic?".

FWIW, I ride both DFs and 'bents, enjoying both, not worrying about either.

cheers, get out and ride and don't worry,

Nige
 
[email protected] wrote:

> But this doesn't answer the only question that matters IMHO -why do we need to know? Is anyone
> unhappy riding their bike knowing they could be faster?

Apparently a lot of people are, judging by bicycle advertising. It's unfortunate for those of us who
prefer things like durability over speed.

That said, if I thought I could improve my brevet times by 30% just by spending a couple hundred
dollars more I might well go for it. I'd love to be able to shave 10 hours off a 600 km randonnee.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
 
You may call it what you want but I know what I know. There are hills that I go up at 5-6mph on my
DF with comparative ease and struggle to stay upright on the bent at 3-4mph. That's >50% faster on
the DF than the bent. Which equates to about 3540 minutes to climb 2 miles on the bent and ~20
minutes on the DF. If the downhill side is fairly straight I'll do about 40 on the DF and 45 on the
bent. That's 2 1/2 minutes on the bent and 3 minutes on the DF. The DF is >15 minutes ahead of the
bent for the next uphill already. If the downhill is very narrow and has sharp curves, the bent will
be slower. Believe it or not, bents just don't handle as well as DFs (this is not an opinion, it's
fact and you're the first bent rider I've ever heard dispute it). I've never seen a bent rider stand
on the inside pedal and lay the bike down to negotiate a sharp curve at speed. Regardless, the time
gained on the downhill can never make up for the time lost on the uphill.

Gene

"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The whole point to my post was the ludicrous claim that a DF was 50 to
100%
> (or more) faster than a recumbent up a hill. And that a recumbent
couldn't
> turn as well as a DF bike. But since you posted nothing about those
claims,
> and instead challenge my statements, I must assume you believe that ****. Oh well, you are not
> convincing me of anything except your bias.
>
> Brian
 
> One long ride I lead for my club has hills that make bring moans and groans from the riders. They
> are literally at the limit of what many club riders can do. I have no doubt that most riders on
> most recumbents would _not_ be able to climb the hills. I have no doubt that the 50% difference in
> speed would apply to some recumbent riders who were able to climb them.

I ride a 60 lb homebuilt recumbent trike. I ride in a quite wide selection onf enviroments -
including 10 cm mud and similar. Just yesterday I climbed a local coal mine waste heap. It the climb
is a ~100m and climbs for ~20-30
m. While i didn't sprint there I did get to the top eventually. I did around 2 mph. I tried that
hill on df but I failed. OTOH I hade the lowest gear of 26" on df and 16" on recumbent so this
might have been the deciding factor. Also - we have here a hill around mile long with approx 10%
grade. I managed to keep 7 mph on that one which is around the same I did on DF. I weigh 250 lb
btw, and I like hills.

As for the whole ben't hillclimbing issue. Ot is a matter of drivetrain efficency, frame flex,
weight and power. Bents mostly have loong chains with numerous pulleys and that reduces efficency,
bent's are also have longer power transfer path so the frame will flex more and waste even more
energy. The weight issue was already discussed. As for the power - no one did any mesurement or
research in this field including various bb height and body angles. However there is some data
(which link to i lost :/) that gives some hints:

1. Trained cyclist in upright position could maintain ~380 W of continuus power while the same
cyclist in reverse recumbent exherted ~355 W continuus and in normal recumbent exherted ~340 W
continuus power.
2. In short term anaeorobic power exherted was the same for upright and recumbent position.

This data suggestst that if all other variables were equal (drivetrain efficency, weight, training
etc) rider on recumbent will be around 10% slower then rider on upright. Or they will get 10 and 9
mph on the example hill. Note however that bents are still more or less in "happy craftmanship"
state while uprights benefit from quite a few years of scientific research so we don't really know
if the difference could be reduced or even eliminated.

--
Adam Kad³ubek uz - a.t - katowice - d.o.t - msk - d.o.t - pl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Pro-team sponsor match made in heaven?
Replies
1
Views
122
Road Cycling
Michael Press
M
P
What bikes match this profile?
Replies
11
Views
322
Road Cycling
Will
W
A
Match Sprint Tactics
Replies
12
Views
851
Road Cycling
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
M
G
Cork tape to match green Brooks?
Replies
5
Views
545
Road Cycling
[email protected]
J
A
"Speedy LeMond meets his match "
Replies
0
Views
366
Road Cycling
Arth
A
Top Bottom Back