Ever had trouble explaining why you ride a recumbent?

[hercule]

I do a lot of running - it's the "serious" sport for me, cycling is for transportation, fun, and to a degree cross-training. What I have found is that recumbent cycling has made a big difference to my ability to run up hills. Must be that effect on my quads!

Also, as a longstanding wearer of spectacles I can now actually see where I'm going clearly, rather than squinting across the tops of my glasses' frames!

[mrjemm]

I'm still coming at this from the outside, having not yet got one (nearly had, but... that's another story), but already Madame teases me about this intention, with reference to the apparent often expectation of them being related to injury or infirmity. Also, when colleagues have seen me looking into them (shhh, don't tell the boss!) there've been a lot of questions as to why I want one, but much of this is genuine curiosity about these unconventional machines.

I find myself being pre-emptively defensive about the choice to some extent, and occasionally questioning my own intentions. This is not helped by the fact that I prefer discretion (read: a bit of a wallflower who hides in the shadows), and already concerned about the likelihood of being noticed and getting more attention- all my route ideas involve avoiding 'civilisation'.

But... I am totally fascinated by them, and my love of tinkering with toys can't wait. Think I should grow a bigger beard to hide behind.

[[XAP]Bob]

You will get noticed - but that's a good thing on the roads...

What are you getting defensive over?
I justified my first 'bent purchase quite simply: buy second hand and look after it a bit and you will get your money back in 12 months time...

From then though, it could get expensive. I'm holding back from buying something like a raptobike low racer - I really like the look of them, and their simplicity of design. Of course, last tiem I tried to ride one it didn't end too well, but hey... (5:10 into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIWMIxs ... er&list=UL)

[Stradageek]

I agree with Bob, nothing to be defensive about.

I see people slavishly buying the 'latest' racing bike as reviewed by the cycling mags, much as people have to buy a black Audi (sorry that's just changed to white now hasn't it) to keep in with the fashion/crowd/Joneses.

Why let these considerations stop you from buying a demonstrably faster, more comfortable and more efficient form of transport. It's great fun too!

[mrjemm]

I guess it's what seems to be the marmite aspect of them, with many (of those who are aware of them) having strong opinions regarding them, probably due to them not being what they choose, or having the traits and (perceived) advantages of their choice, much like disc brakes on any other bike (around this site anyway).

[Geriatrix]

How much difference does it make to all up weight (bike, you, kit, luggage)

On the straight and level not much, but on the uphills gravity won't be denied.

[[XAP]Bob]

How much difference does it make to all up weight (bike, you, kit, luggage)

On the straight and level not much, but on the uphills gravity won't be denied.

How much difference ...
I weigh about 80kg, and carry a few kg of kit, and some water....
Call me 90kg all up. Now the difference between a 10kg bike and a 20kg bike isn't 100%, it's 10%.
That 10% could better be saved from my waistline than a bike

[squeaker]

Weight discussedhere. IMHO drivetrain and frame stiffness is more significant.

[Geriatrix]

How much difference does it make to all up weight (bike, you, kit, luggage)

On the straight and level not much, but on the uphills gravity won't be denied.

How much difference ...

Enough. I can traverse steep inclines with less effort on my upright than on my recumbent (I live in the midst of the Surrey hills so I get enough opportunity to test). On milder inclines I'll hold my own. On the level I can beat my upright times in all circumstances on my speedmachine. A recumbent bicycle puts you under a bit more pressure on a steep incline than a trike or a upright because of the balance issue. On a trike there is no balance issue, and on an upright there is less of a balance issue because you have more freedom to move your body around.

I would love to get the opportunity to test the M5 Carbon or the Fujin SL on Ditching.

[Geriatrix]

Weight discussedhere. IMHO drivetrain and frame stiffness is more significant.

Dave McCraw's assessment is excellent. The one thing to note though is that a recumbent's advantage is aerodynamics. This advantage is nil if you are cranking your way up Ditchling at between 3-5mph. We know from the British team successes that marginal gains are important and those few extra kilo's make a difference.

[[XAP]Bob]

And we know that 'bents weren't banned for being too slow up the hills...

[byegad]

And we know that 'bents weren't banned for being too slow up the hills...

Exactly. If being slow up hills was so true the UCI would have laughed and allowed them. That they didn't speaks for itself.

I watched news programme which spoke to the elite women in Team GD. They said they often topped 40mph! (Down hill of course.)

I do that practically every time I take my recumbent trikes out. It is no big deal.

[Si]

http://mccraw.co.uk/recumbent-position-power-loss/
Not sure that I understand this (just got back from the pub and I don't normally imbibe incahol...hic)...but if I got it right he does seem to be saying what I have suspected but been unable to prove. That is, my 'bent is much slower up hills, but despite going as fast as I can my heart rate doesn't/can't get up as high as on the upright.

I just wish I knew why it was slower on the flat! Av 'bent speed: 12mph, av upright (on a heavy tourer with quite an upright position): 13.5mph for the same 40mile ride done a number of times on both, over what you'd probably class as very gently rolling terrain. I know that you have to bed-in your 'bent muscles but I've been riding the thing for about four years now!

[hercule]

If memory serves, Si, you have a Pashley PDQ. I found it pretty quick (easily able to equal my DF times on the flat/rolling terrain), but it has been significantly overshadowed by its replacement, a Nazca Fuego.

Various theories as to why...

- no hub gear soaking up the power (though the Sachs gear did seem fairly efficient)
- pretty upright riding position making for a bit less aero effect (at a guess I'd say the PDQ's seat back was a bit off bolt upright, my Fuego is reclined at somewhere between 25 and 30 degrees)
- rather scrunched up position versus more open position on Fuego might contribute to power issues
- other drivetrain losses? The Fuego has one idler on the return side, the PDQ has (in effect) two idlers on both the power and the return side.
- bigger wheels. The 20" unsuspended front / suspended 26" rear wheel on the Fuego probably has lower rolling resistance than the PDQ's two unsuspended 20" wheels.
- I suspect the PDQ's seat "doughnut" absorbs a bit of effort too.


It's certainly not weight. The PDQ I had was a vey light machine, perhaps 50% less than the Fuego!

[Si]

Yes, it's a PDQ I have...and have often had similar thoughts to those that you state.
Certainly it's not the weight as my DF weighs more.

Another thing that I've wondered about is if it is a type of rider thing? That is to say, on a DF I ride out of the saddle far more than virtually anyone else I know, I find that I go better out the saddle up any small bump let alone the big hills, and that I can stay out the saddle for long climbs. I wonder if 'bents favour people who are more used to sitting most of the time?