Recumbent Climbing

DIscuss anything relating to non-standard cycles and their equipment.
fatboy
Posts: 3477
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Calculate your advantage

Post by fatboy »

squeaker wrote:
fatboy wrote:As far as I know on the flat once moving weight makes no difference and wind-resistance is much more important. This is why I don't get the flat-barred racer concept of bike and why I like the sound of a bent!
Get an idea of the advantage by plugging some numbers in here.


I did some calculations and drop-bar tourer with wide tyres on the drops is faster than flat-bared racer with skinny tyres :lol:
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
david143
Posts: 516
Joined: 11 May 2008, 9:37am

Post by david143 »

CJ wrote:What's yours?

114/65 with resting heart rate of 56 per min. Age = 50 (measurements taken yesterday).
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Post by Si »

Re the blood circulation thing, I did know one chap who was forced to give up his 'bent on medical orders due to having glaucoma (sp?) and the act of doing exercise with his feet on a level that was near that of his head, with his body in a more horizontal position, was having an effect on his eyes. On an up right bike he was fine.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56361
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Post by Mick F »

Dunno what my BP is, other than when it was last checked by the doc
(I have a horrendous cholesterol problem - I was 11.4 before I started on the huge dose of statins - a genetic/familial problem)
it was absolutely fine.
Doc said it was because of all the cycling I do!!!!
Mick F. Cornwall
Mothy
Posts: 34
Joined: 5 Aug 2008, 9:18pm
Location: S Shropshire

Post by Mothy »

This questtion of how a recumbent behaves up hills is interesting to me too. I bought a trike a couple of months ago (1999/2000 Trice Classic NT - pic to follow when I get time) but have not had much chance to ride it. I'm also the front end of a Rohloff tandem, and an occasional Audax rider on a good "upwrong" as well as the tandem.
Going uphill isn't easy on any of the three machines (no surprises there), but the tandem gets down to its 21 inch bottom gear alarmingly quickly on steep hills, and is often in 3rd/4th on long drags too, whereas my upwrong is significantly easier and quicker on hills; rarely in its 28 inch 1st gear. MrsMothy is lightweight and reasonably fit, so I feel we ought to be better than a solo unless we get down to really low speed (where wind resistance isn't a factor) but experience is very different - as other tandemists confirm.
My limited experience on the trike suggests that there's a mental shift required: it's very easy to go uphill so long as you do it slowly: 5-6 mph on a moderate slope. I reckon the 15 inch first will winch me up anything: the 9 miles to the Cat & Fiddle is mostly uphill so I'm looking forward to putting the theory to the test. Then I'll post more idiot's questions!
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

Mothy,
I ride a QNT and a Kettwiesel, both with a 15" bottom gear.

I'm no light weight and 57 so anything steeper than 1 in 7 or so has me winching. My limit so far is 1 in 4 on the QNT an 1 in 5 on the Kettwiesel.

The Kettwiesel tends to lift its front wheel under power on a 1 in 4 and I feel 1 in 3 would be beyond it on safety grounds. The QNT would probably get me up a 1 in 3 if I needed to do it. The main provisor is how many times I need to stop and restart on steeper hills. On both I regularly ride 1 in 5s.

We need to remember that very few DFers ride up 1 in 3s or even 1 in 5s and many riders routinely walk these hills with no problem. So why should we be expected to ride them?

Finally I'd say I am slower up hill on my trikes than I was on a DF. Yet my journey average speeds are the same. It's a case of swings and roundabouts.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56361
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Post by Mick F »

byegad wrote:Finally I'd say I am slower up hill on my trikes than I was on a DF. Yet my journey average speeds are the same. It's a case of swings and roundabouts.


This puts me in mind of a small conundrum I ponder sometimes when I'm out.

How long do I stay in low gears whilst climbing?
(As opposed to how far.)

Time-wise, I must spend the majority of the time in climbing hills, as flat and downhill are over-with fairly quickly. Hence a hilly mile takes longer than a flat mile.

Therefore, if you are a slow climber, your average speed is lower.

I've yet to quantify this. I must take a stopwatch!
Mick F. Cornwall
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

Mick F wrote:
byegad wrote:Finally I'd say I am slower up hill on my trikes than I was on a DF. Yet my journey average speeds are the same. It's a case of swings and roundabouts.


This puts me in mind of a small conundrum I ponder sometimes when I'm out.

How long do I stay in low gears whilst climbing?
(As opposed to how far.)

Time-wise, I must spend the majority of the time in climbing hills, as flat and downhill are over-with fairly quickly. Hence a hilly mile takes longer than a flat mile.

Therefore, if you are a slow climber, your average speed is lower.

I've yet to quantify this. I must take a stopwatch!


My rides tend to have reasonably flat sections and I do travel that bit quicker on them, down hill my top speeds are way higher than my DF days as I rarely need to brake on them. I base all my average speeds on the moving average from my cycle computer. As I tend to stop and do a bit of bird watching now and again while out this seems a fairer measure than overall average.
User avatar
Robert
Posts: 460
Joined: 13 Oct 2007, 8:58pm
Location: West Sussex

Post by Robert »

I bought a recumbent after injuring my wrist playing the fiddle. I was two months off typing, six months off playing and about two years off doing any cycling.

I bought an ultimate bikes Cobra 2000 LWB USS, which was probably a mistake - especially as I intended to use it for commuting from Croydon to Central London. It was fine in the test ride, but absolutely hopeless pulling out of suburban T junctions. It is also uncontrollable at anything under 5 mph, and positively frightening over 20, the front bounces about so much.

I then lashed out and got a Street Machine. (A bit of post divorce boys' toys buying 8) )

The street machine is a fantastically stable bike. Absolutely no problems with ballance, I test rode it in Central London - no problems. No more sore bum, no more aching wrists.

But for me there was a downside. After about a year of not cycling I went at it too hard. I entered a 100k Audax and got a knee injury, which kept me away from cycling for a while.

In February I took it out to a pub music session - the week before I took the Airnimal, and couldn't play after 16 miles on it, so decided to take the Street Machine - It was cold, I had cramp and ripped a calf muscle.

I would imagine there's a lot of difference between a bike and a trike. The problem I find with hill climbing is that once the going gets tough, you're clipped in, it's very difficult to get out without falling off. That's what happened when I ripped the calf. I find being flat on your back going up a stiff hill, clipped in and unable to get out a bit stressful; I can imagine that riding a trike with a 15" bottom gear is a piece of cake in comparison.

I have often wondered about the contention that recumbents are good for people with bad backs. That's a generalisation, and therefore like all generalisations can't be true for all cases. My Cobra 2000 is not suspended and all upper body weight is sitting above the back wheel, and you do get all the bumps from the road - that's not comfortable, I wouldn't like to ride it if I did have anything wrong with me.

Since I've been with my partner (5 years a couple of weeks ago) the bents have spent a lot of time in the shed and we do much more on the tandem we bought ourselves. I occasionally take the street machine out, but she doesn't like it because I can't keep up with her. The last time I took it out was a couple of weeks ago, and I found it a struggle and had quite a bit of pain down the inside of my left knee when I was riding.

I'm wondering what to do with it, and have been thinking of selling the street machine and was quite cheered up by seeing one go for £999 on ebay recently. I'm also wondering if the other one could be converted into a trike - but that's a question for another thread once I've got round to taking some pictures of it.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4113
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Post by squeaker »

Robert82 wrote:In February I took it out to a pub music session - the week before I took the Airnimal, and couldn't play after 16 miles on it, so decided to take the Street Machine - It was cold, I had cramp and ripped a calf muscle.
Bummer! What clipless are you using? I use standard SPD with the tension backed off to near minimum on my Grasshopper, but with the trike pedal tension is wound up more.

Robert82 wrote:I would imagine there's a lot of difference between a bike and a trike
Yep - get tired, pull over and have a rest with no worries about feet sliding out from under you :)

Robert82 wrote:I find being flat on your back going up a stiff hill, clipped in and unable to get out a bit stressful
It gets better with practice, like most things in life....

Robert82 wrote:I have often wondered about the contention that recumbents are good for people with bad backs. That's a generalisation, and therefore like all generalisations can't be true for all cases.
IME, a fully suspended recumbent (Grasshopper, and Mistral before that) is positively good for my lower back issues: the former bike giving me an excellent massage in all the right places. However I can believe that an unsuspended 'bent with minimal foam on a hardshell seat (of the 'wrong' shape) could be distinctly painful. Although, with lots of seat recline, the actual jolting of one's spine would be more in shear than compression. But at least there is a chance that you spine could be supported in the right shape (lumbar support, shoulder support and headrest): all sadly lacking on DFs....
"42"
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4113
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Post by squeaker »

CJ wrote:What's yours?
134 / 89 (aged 60: but I had just cycled to the local surgery to get it measured).
"42"
Richard
Posts: 423
Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 5:01pm

Post by Richard »

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this post. I've been fortunate enough to have been lent a Kingcycle and it's been interesting comparing it against my normal mtb ride over some local roads and felt some feedback was appropriate.

The Kingcycle has a lowest gear of just over 30inches - somewhat higher than on the MTB but it is lighter. Tyre pressures are around 60psi compared to 80psi in the mtb slicks. Although I've not ridden a 'bent before other than at DTEK, my 'bent muscles are probably partially developed from fitness training at the judo club.

My local routes have some long steady climbs as well as some short sharp ones and I had fully expected to have to dismount on more than one of them based on the comments here and elsewhere on the internet. I was concerned about whether a lack of "bent legs" would hinder me as well as a nagging knee injury.

On the two rides I've done, of 11 and 25km with 200 and 400m of climbing respectively, I've not had to dismount. Climbing speed appears lower than on the mtb and the 'bent is less stable at low speed, causing me to weave a bit which would only occur on very steep climbs on the mtb.

I'm climbing in a gear that is probably 3 cogs higher than I would do on the mtb. The extra gears would have been welcome and necessary if I'd been faced with anything steeper. I don't think a lower gear would have increased my climbing speed. Heart rate doesn't appear anywhere near as high as it would be on the mtb and I'm not breathing as heavily. I think this may be due to a combination of the lower cadence and lower speed but I'd have to try and replicate it on the mtb. Comfort is noticably better. No numbness, aching neck or pins and needles in the hands. No need to get out the saddle because I'm uncomfortable in the saddle. I noticed a big difference in attitude to climbing. I think there was an acceptance that it would likely be slower so I literally sat back, looked at the scenery and let it take it's course. On the mtb my head is either down looking at the front wheel or I'm straining my neck to look forward. The climbs on the mtb are more of a fight - but this could be because the higher speed makes you want to try harder.

The tops of my legs hurt initially but this soon passed and I'm not suffering any major aches or pains. A lower gear would help me to get the cadence up and spin which wasn't always possible.

Overall I'm really impressed. Obviously it's early days. My fitness will get better and it will get easier. Maybe I'll become less content to climb slowly and sniff the flowers and want to push harder, making it more like an mtb "fight". It's also the honeymoon period with the 'bent where it can do no wrong because it's different. However, there is no doubt the 'bent will remain more comfortable for me than the mtb. What it has shown me is that a 'bent is perfectly suitable for riding in a hilly area. What goes up has to come down and the descent is worth the climbing. Also, though not related to climbing, I didn't feel the effects of the wind anywhere near as much; and if there's anything worse than climbing it's dragging along for hours into a headwind.

Anyway, to summarise my findings; Climbing on a 'bent is fine. You're not as quick as a DF but you're more comfortable doing it and it's more enjoyable.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4113
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Post by squeaker »

Richard wrote:Overall I'm really impressed.
.
.
Climbing on a 'bent is fine. You're not as quick as a DF but you're more comfortable doing it and it's more enjoyable.
Welcome to the dark side :)
But watch your knees with that 30" bottom gear! It's better to spin, IME.
"42"
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

I second the knee warning. If you ride steep enough hills you will find yourself winching up the steep bits, but spinning is preferable and far better for your knees.
I have two trikes and had an AZUB-4 bike. All of them had 14/15" bottom gears and, living in county Durham, I use/used bottom gear regularly.
User avatar
syklist
Posts: 1243
Joined: 19 May 2008, 6:43pm

Post by syklist »

Cunobelin wrote:
This was a german yachtsman - the bike was ouside a pub in Fareham. I simply asked if he objected if I took photos...

It is a JUlian Neuss conversion kit, unfortuately no longer available.


[snip]
Hmmm the website is still there. Are they not making them any more?

http://www.junik-hpv.de/html/brompton_liegerad.htm

Regards
Stan
So long and thanks for all the fish...
Post Reply