'Bent Legs

[Lucasshmucas]

How long did it take to acquire yours? How did you get there? Did you get any injuries along the way?

The reason I ask is that I did a Trainerroad Ramp Test on Tuesday. I was expecting my FTP score to be lower than the recent one I did on Sufferfest on my DF, which it was, but not by much - 10W or so. The problem is that although I can generate a decent amount of power for a short period of time on the recumbent, as required by the ramp test, I suspect my sustainable power is quite a bit lower because I haven't developed 'bent legs yet.

This suspicion was confirmed when I did my first proper workout yesterday. I'm doing a traditional base training programme so the intensity requirement was quite low (about 60% FTP). On the DF this would have been nice and relaxing and to a degree it was on the recumbent too, but I felt like my legs were working much harder. So much so, that after about 40 minutes I reduced the intensity of the workout because I was feeling a deep burn in some of the muscles and some slight pain down the side of my knee. I continued for another 20 minutes before abandoning the workout as I didn't want to risk injury. My plan for the next workout is to reduce the workout intensity to 70%. If I get through that OK then I'll increase the next one by 2-3% but I'm not going to force or rush anything. I'm also going to spend a bit of time in the gym doing some strength work.

I'm curious to know what your experiences were of adapting to recumbents.

[OldBloke]

I think it took me three or four months to develop my 'bent legs.

[pjclinch]

No idea what any of those acronyms mean (I presume we're not talking File Transfer Protocol?), but it took me about a month of fairly concentrated riding to get completely happy, including power and endurance. I'd have been in my early to mid 30s at the time.

These days I'm in my early 50s and not using the 'bent so much because it's my tourer and other commitments are keeping me from touring, and I do find my 'bent legs go off the boil, and it needs a couple of good rides to get them back on line. Day after the first I'm really stiff, but I can go twice as far a couple of rides later and not really suffer afterwards.

Pete.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
You only need to do 20 mins for FTP but you need to warm up first which takes time
Bents are more aero but no idea if they are more or less efficient?

[[XAP]Bob]

Significantly more efficient - though peak power is usually lower

[NUKe]

Just ride, unless you are training for something specific. I would say it took a couple of months doing 20 miles per day. 2 years and 10000 miles later , I still find room for improvement, but my goals are distance related rather than speed. Learn to relax, spin and use the gears, better to get used to bike before worrying about power output.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Significantly more efficient - though peak power is usually lower

Ignoring aero effects?

[pjclinch]

Hi,

Significantly more efficient - though peak power is usually lower

Ignoring aero effects?

(a) I don't know the answer but...
(b) why would you ignore the aero effects?

Pete.

[Cosmicbike]

I have no idea about FTP etc etc, I simply ride for fun (and commuting). Still haven't found my 'bent legs but then I've only done 375 miles on the ICE Q so far. A recent acquisition on an Optima Lynx will help

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Hi,

Significantly more efficient - though peak power is usually lower

Ignoring aero effects?

(a) I don't know the answer but...
(b) why would you ignore the aero effects?

Pete.

I was just trying to see if the actual mechanics is more efficient, or is it just the aero, which we all know puts it ahead of an upwrong overall on the flat.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=82273

[[XAP]Bob]

Puts it ahead over hills too - in efficiency, not necessarily speed.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Puts it ahead over hills too - in efficiency, not necessarily speed.

OK, any info on that?....Please.

[belgiangoth]

Hi,

Significantly more efficient - though peak power is usually lower

Ignoring aero effects?

(a) I don't know the answer but...
(b) why would you ignore the aero effects?

Pete.

Because there are conditions (say uphill) where you aren't going fast enough for aero to be an advantage?

Dave McCraw has done some investigating into this, check his blog. IIRC he found that he couldn't raise his heart rate as high on the bent*. I don't think anyone has yet to compare Power at pedals with power at rear hub Laidback vs DF.
http://mccraw.co.uk/recumbent-power-training/
http://mccraw.co.uk/recumbent-position-power-loss/
etc.
If you are training to try and get faster (say looking to do an ultra audax, OR you want to do a normal sized audax but have only a short amount of time because of work/family etc) then the current general method involves heart rate and power - if laidbacks have a significant different HR/power to function you need to know this to train.

* I recall incorrectly, he couldn't get the power up for the same heart rate.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Interesting.
I would imagine that the recumbent is more efficient but only when you enter the aero zone (wind), which cripples a upright.
As most recumbent riders quote higher cadence, I am not sure that they are exceeding the efficient zone for most power by leaving a sweet spot on muscle dynamics?
There has got to be an ergo difference which will include thorax position to legs? gravity? and on the recumbent you cannot alter thorax to legs whilst on the bike, an upright this is easy to sit up or crouch.

Bit surprised that the author in links cannot get HR as high as running, this will limit power out put of course.

[belgiangoth]

I would expect HR for running would be >> than HR for cycling, on any bike (including an ordinary).