How do DS cyclists cope with hills?

Discussion in 'Recumbent bicycles' started by Gadget, May 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gadget

    Gadget Guest

    Recent meeting about the Rome to the Dome meeting we had a interesting topics about 'bents. How do
    the DS cyclists cope with hills? Going up I mean. The point that was brought up was that it must be
    hard work considering the fact all the weight is on the back wheels and you can't really stand on
    the pedals. The reason why I ask is because if they do the ride again in future, I might consider
    doing rome to the dome on a recumbent. That is if the hills don't cause a problem.

    Gadget
     
    Tags:


  2. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 11 May 2003 11:37:41 +0100, "Gadget" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >How do the DS cyclists cope with hills? Going up I mean.

    Turn the twisty bits at the front and the bike does the rest :)

    >The point that was brought up was that it must be hard work considering the fact all the weight is
    >on the back wheels and you can't really stand on the pedals

    You'd have to be going up about 45 degrees before the front wheel was in any danger of lifting, and
    you can push against the seat back so you can actually apply more pressure to the pedals than you
    can standing up on a wedgie. The only issue is that staility below 6mph can be poor, so for heavy
    touring or really long steep ascents the extra wheel is Highly Recommended.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  3. "Gadget" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Recent meeting about the Rome to the Dome meeting we had a interesting topics about 'bents. How do
    > the DS cyclists cope with hills?

    If I gear down to a low gear enough; I could take on any hill in this area. But I had to slow down
    and spin more. My solution was a power assist and drastically shortening crank arms. Now I maintain
    level speed uphill.

    That is not popular, but a hybrid recumbent workedfor me. No competition since racing probably bans
    boxed non-human power. but I can maintain that recumbent grin full time while others find out about
    "tacking" (side to side steering) and how low they can go,.

    Chris Jordan Santa Cruz, CA.
     
  4. John Foltz

    John Foltz Guest

    Gadget wrote:
    > Recent meeting about the Rome to the Dome meeting we had a interesting topics about 'bents. How
    > do the DS cyclists cope with hills? Going up I mean. The point that was brought up was that it
    > must be hard work considering the fact all the weight is on the back wheels and you can't really
    > stand on the pedals. The reason why I ask is because if they do the ride again in future, I might
    > consider doing rome to the dome on a recumbent. That is if the hills don't cause a problem.
    >
    I'm not sure what "DS" stands for, but I'll presume it's not Downtube Shifters. Perhaps "Darned
    Speedy?" :)

    On an upright, there are two ways to take big hills: stand and winch yourself up at low rpm, or
    downshift to a lower gear and remain seated. Both are valid methods, and both will get you to the
    top; but option #2 requires lower gears on the bike and will probably result in slower climbing
    speeds. With recumbents, as you observed, option #1 is not available. So, ask yourself which is your
    preferred method, and you'll know whether or not you should try a recumbent.
    --

    John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24/63 --- _\\/\-%)
    _________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____
     
  5. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Sun, 11 May 2003, Gadget <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Recent meeting about the Rome to the Dome meeting we had a interesting topics about 'bents. How
    > do the DS cyclists cope with hills?

    Personally, I point it uphill and turn the pedals.

    There's more weight to lift, so I probably go up slower, but since I have the one true number of
    wheels (3), and appropriate gearing, there's no problem with going up at about 3mph if needed. Any
    less than that and my gearing's run out, but I could fit smaller chainring if I wanted.

    Actually, on a steep ascent I feel better at the top than on a wedgie, since I _can_ go up very
    slowly without finding I have to concentrate on balance and/or veering across teh road as my speed
    drops. The only problem I have found on road (or road-like) is a steep tarmac surfaced bridle-path
    near me that gets very little traffic. It's quite mossy and algae-y, and if I've got my daughter in
    the trailer on the back I wheel-spin. If it were raining I probably wouldn't get up it with daughter
    in tow. Off-road I've come across things on a couple of occasions where I couldn't get enough
    traction to get up / over them.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  6. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 11 May 2003 11:52:17 -0400, John Foltz <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I'm not sure what "DS" stands for

    "dark side" - uk.rec.cycling slang for the enlightened.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  7. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > standing up on a wedgie. The only issue is that staility below 6mph can be poor,

    Eeek!

    That'll be why noone has them around here then. There aren't many journeys you can make around here
    without some steep sections.

    --
    Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
    Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
     
  8. In news:[email protected], Nick Kew <[email protected]> typed:
    > In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard
    > of "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> standing up on a wedgie. The only issue is that staility below 6mph can be poor,
    >
    > Eeek!
    >
    > That'll be why noone has them around here then. There aren't many journeys you can make around
    > here without some steep sections.

    Whereas here in Walsall, where it's fairly flat, you can't move for recumbents. Even the kids
    lounging around on their bikes in town are pleasantly slouched over a netting seat, and the baggy
    trousered ones in the skate park are controlling their jumps with under seat steering, etc. etc.
     
  9. Seamus

    Seamus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Down to 3mph I find to be no problem, even slower when I had the Peer Gynt. The Challenge Mistral isn't so good at such low, uphill, speeds.

    Just fitted a triple chainset with 50/40/30 rings to go with the 11-32 sprokets.
    Although it's possible too run the 30/32 it doesn't seem possible to balance.

    Just have to practice I suppose.
     
  10. Guy Chapman

    Guy Chapman Guest

    [email protected] (Nick Kew) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > > The only issue is that ['bent] stability below 6mph can be poor,

    > That'll be why noone has them around here then. There aren't many journeys you can make around
    > here without some steep sections.

    Note "can be" - actually stability of some 'bents is so good that you can do an indefinite track
    stand. Although there are those who claim that the extra wheel amounts to cheating, I'm sure Ian
    Smith will vigorously rebut them ;-)

    I find double-chevron hills are a bit punishing on my recumbent bike, so I usually fit the winter
    cassette if I'm doing long climbs. That gives me a bottom gear of about 25" which is OK for anything
    I meet hereabouts.

    Although following last Sunday's experience I am forced to consider the possibility I might be
    fitter than I thought...
     
  11. Tom Blum

    Tom Blum Guest

    OKAY!! I GIVE!!

    What does "DS" stand for. all I can think of ,in my cynical head, is "Dumb Sh**"

    --
    Miles of Smiles,

    Tom Blum Winter Haven, Florida Homebuilts: SWB Tour Easy Clone Speed Machine Clone

    www.gate.net/~teblum
     
  12. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > Whereas here in Walsall, where it's fairly flat, you can't move for recumbents. Even the kids
    > lounging around on their bikes in town are pleasantly slouched over a netting seat, and the baggy
    > trousered ones in the skate park are controlling their jumps with under seat steering, etc. etc.

    The well-known trials recumbent. :)

    --
    Dave...
     
  13. Gary Mc

    Gary Mc Guest

    Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sun, 11 May 2003, Gadget <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Recent meeting about the Rome to the Dome meeting we had a interesting topics about 'bents. How
    > > do the DS cyclists cope with hills?
    >
    > Personally, I point it uphill and turn the pedals.
    >
    > There's more weight to lift, so I probably go up slower, but since I have the one true number of
    > wheels (3), and appropriate gearing, there's no problem with going up at about 3mph if needed.

    I too have a trike for climbing. Hardly seems fair once you try it. It has been easier for climbing
    (not faster) for me than a 2 wheel recumbent or a mountain bike with street tires.

    Before the trike I had a Rans Stratus, LWB. It had good stability down to about 4 mph for me. That
    was not quite low enough for the mountain canyons around here, at least with this rider. There is a
    rider in the area that formerly owned a Bike E CT. It had good balance and he was quite capable of
    climbing the local canyons, even as part of century. So, it can be done.

    In one of last year's Recumbent Cyclist News, Kelly Iniquez wrote about a tour in the mountains of
    Colorado on a Rans Stratus that included the 11000 ft pass over Wolf Mountain.

    I suppose it is up to each individual to find out what they are capable of on mountains and hills.

    Gary McCarty, Greenspeed GTO, Salt Lake City
     
  14. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

  15. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Mon, 12 May 2003 11:26:50 -0400, Tom Blum <[email protected]> wrote:

    > OKAY!! I GIVE!!
    >
    > What does "DS" stand for. all I can think of ,in my cynical head, is "Dumb Sh**"

    Dark Side. On uk.rec.cycling, recumbent riders are labelled the Dark Side, probably because they are
    truly enlightened. Wedgie riders are afraid to join us. ('Wedgie' being the opositte of DS, for more
    obvious reasons).

    Actually, recumbent riders sometimes also get implied to be Jedi. Personally, I don't really care
    which side I'm on, as long as I get a light-sabre.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  16. Redshift

    Redshift Guest

    On Mon, 12 May 2003 19:05:51 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:

    > Dark Side....
    >
    > Actually, recumbent riders sometimes also get implied to be Jedi. Personally, I don't really care
    > which side I'm on, as long as I get a light-sabre.
    >

    I *knew* there was a reason why I was drawn to taking up Aikido!

    L
    --
    http://www.redshift.uklinux.net/ Windcheetah No.176 Linux Counter No. 275325 *Remove Spamcatcher and
    x for email reply
     
  17. Rorschandt

    Rorschandt Guest

    "redshift" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:p[email protected]:

    > On Mon, 12 May 2003 19:05:51 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Dark Side....
    >>
    >> Actually, recumbent riders sometimes also get implied to be Jedi. Personally, I don't really care
    >> which side I'm on, as long as I get a light-sabre.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I *knew* there was a reason why I was drawn to taking up Aikido!
    >

    "<hhhhurhh huurhh> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side." ~Darth Vader
     
  18. weird you grow up on an upright DF, you see the light and get bent and NOW you are on the Dark Side?
    Suppose the dark side could be that on a bent you are in the dark shadow of everything above 3 foot
    tall. Then again this is an expression common ONLY in the U.K.
    -----------------------
    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 12 May 2003 11:26:50 -0400, "Tom Blum" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >What does "DS" stand for.
    >
    > It means Dark Side - uk.rec.cycling slang (see
    >
    <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/mini-faq-darkside>)
    > Guy
    > ===
    > ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    > dynamic DNS permitting)
    > NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    > work. Apologies.
     
  19. Gadget wrote:

    > How do the DS cyclists cope with hills? Going up I mean. The point that was brought up was that it
    > must be hard work considering the fact all the weight is on the back wheels and you can't really
    > stand on the pedals.

    Actually, most recumbents *don't* have "all the weight on the back wheels" - if the example of my
    Kingcycle was anything by which to go, which wheel lost grip first under extreme cornering
    provocation was largely dependent on rear tyre choice - indicating that the weight distribution must
    surely have been close to 50/50. Recumbent trikes, or at least those with two front wheels, tend to
    have 1/3 of the weight on each wheel, thus the combination of very low gears and a wet or slippery
    surface may lead to wheelspin. Thos LWB contraptions do have a rearward weight bias, admittedly, but
    you wouldn't find me on one of those out of choice...

    Standing on the pedals is for people who can't cope with wide-ratio gearing ;-)

    It is important to distinguish between the statements "recumbents can't climb" - which is Clearly
    Bollocks - and "power output is less for any given rider in the recumbent position" - which *may* be
    true but has not yet been subjected to rigorous analysis by those without blunt axes. The average
    recumbent being heavier than the average upright doesn't help either, of course, but the fact that
    Ymte Sybrandy and Theo van Andel did Lelystad (~50 km NE of Amsterdam) - Magliano Alpi (100 km SE of
    Turin) and back in 17 days, in Alleweder trikes with an all-up weight of 50 kg, and including such
    delights as the Grand St. Bernard, St Gotthard, Grimsel, Furka and Susten Passes means that all
    things are possible to those with bionic knees.

    Or something.

    Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  20. Morgan Jones

    Morgan Jones Guest

    "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...

    > It is important to distinguish between the statements "recumbents can't climb" - which is Clearly
    > Bollocks - and "power output is less for any given rider in the recumbent position" - which *may*
    > be true but has not yet been subjected to rigorous analysis by those without blunt axes.

    I'd say that recumbents have more power going up hills since you can push into the seat, but is
    offset by the extra weight of the bike. It seems to pretty much balance out for me. The advantage
    to standing climbs on an upright isn't that it gives you more power - in the net, I think it
    reduces power to the pedals since it's less efficient than spinning. The advantage to standing
    climbs is that long climbs are tiring and being able to stand lets you use different muscles, or at
    least use the same ones differently. Long climbs on a recumbent are largely sustained aerobic
    affairs so you need to be in better shape aerobically than you would need to be on an upright where
    you could stand.

    MHO, of course.

    Morgan.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...