How long before you got up to speed?

[[XAP]Bob]

The quotes I have put above aren't me making stuff up.

'handily beaten their competitors at road races'

I'm sure you could design a course which favours max power output over efficiency - but there's the rub... 'bents are more efficient uphill as well, the max power output is limited by the fact that you can't throw your whole body around - but the work done is converted into height gain more effectively.

Mind you - if you believe some of the reports at Cruzbikes - they manage to get pretty good performance on mountains in the US...

[firedfromthecircus]

The quotes I have put above aren't me making stuff up.

'handily beaten their competitors at road races'

And it's also worth noting that Faure was an average rider. He had not been troubling the best of his day for victories before he got on the 'bent.

[Tigerbiten]

Just found this -> http://crookedlettercycling.com/2015/04 ... winner-is/
Very good review to the question "recumbents vs upwrong".

My understanding is that recumbents are slower uphill but you use less effort on a bent to climb the same hill.
So if you want to do a short lumpy route quickly then an upwrong is best.
If it's long rolling and you want to finish in comfort then bents starts coming into the picture.

[Mick F]

Yep, that's the way I see it.
It's the "how far" question that's a variable.

Now I have a super-low gear on the Moulton (long story) I can come up a steep hill and bottle out and change the Sturmey Archer down to 1st, giving me a 16" gear.

It seems quite odd being that low geared.
If I take the same hill in "normal bottom gear" (2nd gear SA - direct drive) I'm using 22".
Yes, it needs more "push", but I go faster and get up the hill ............. arguably easier?

However, 16" is lazy and very slow ............ and very hard to balance.

[[XAP]Bob]

Yep, that's the way I see it.
It's the "how far" question that's a variable.

Now I have a super-low gear on the Moulton (long story) I can come up a steep hill and bottle out and change the Sturmey Archer down to 1st, giving me a 16" gear.

It seems quite odd being that low geared.
If I take the same hill in "normal bottom gear" (2nd gear SA - direct drive) I'm using 22".
Yes, it needs more "push", but I go faster and get up the hill ............. arguably easier?

However, 16" is lazy and very slow ............ and very hard to balance.

It might feel easier and still be less efficient - but if you are at the edge of balancing then that almost certainly introduces new inefficiencies

And of course you are a self confessed 'masher' (no judgment on that, just an observation) which will likely make your 'critical balance' speed higher than that of a 'spinner'.

On a full day's run I know which vehicle I'd rather be on (although it is a while since I have voluntarily taken a long journey on a saddle)

[swscotland bentrider]

Always an interesting dispute!

In last years Tour o' the Borders one of the first bikes home was a recumbent. This course is not flat! Several major climbs and one that is exceptionally steep.

There is a good account by the rider concerned at http://mccraw.co.uk.

He was riding a High Baron.

Nevertheless he had a race strategy which acknowledged that on the climb in question he would lose ground to the better upright riders.

[Dave W]

I agree with that article too (http://crookedlettercycling.com/2015/04 ... winner-is/ and the replies.) I really like the recumbent for lack of nasal congestion, dripping nose and also the lack of rasping lungs- you just don't get into that depleted oxygen state at the top of a hill, in fact I reckon I can hold a conversation up most hills. I love the cornering in the dry when you crank the bike over and power through the bends rather than freewheeling, you also seem to get a boost in power through your back. I don't like T junctions much or heavy traffic, uphill starts are very difficult and I don't like not being able to glance over my shoulder. Servicing a bent is difficult without a proper stand and changing a tube might prove awkward on the roadside. Costs are also high (£60 for a chain anyone?). Speed downhill is brilliant, such a laugh. If it were as fast uphill as my carbon racing bike then I think I'd be totally converted.
Knee pain is another issue that I didn't have before but neck pain,shoulder pain and sit bone pain are non-existent. Every trip gets better as I learn more and my legs become more accustomed.

[UpWrong]

I use an eye-wear mirror for a view behind. Highly recommended. I'm sure you are aware of the crank length issue. Most riders seem to benefit from a shorter crank when riding 'bents. My cranks are 148mm I think (shortened from 170mm by Mike Burrows).

[Dave W]

Not really sure of the crank length issue, I have picked up that some people use shorter cranks - is this because of knee pain or heel strike or something else? I was advised to simply use the same crank length as normal.

[UpWrong]

Ah, really? Orthodox wisdom is to use shorter cranks to reduce knee bend. You'd think that lower gearing would be required to compensate for the lack of leverage, but it doesn't entirely follow the simple law of physics. You may or may not want to lower the gearing a bit.

EDIT: It improves the aerodynamics if you have big feet . No, it is to be kinder to your knees and to facilitate spinning.