Why Are Recumbent Bicycles Poor Climber?

[PabloX]

Yes, recumbents are heavier. Also, even if you don't stand on a regular bike, your body is braced by the seat and bars more so than a recumbent.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by teenerted1

have you ever seen a skinny recumbent rider?

I was..... Owned this one back in the 80s....


And I currently own 2 others..


And yes they require the use different leg muscles than a regular bike..


Now you want to talk about something that is hard to pedal up hill, try this, alone..


Was great to ride to the local pub

[fanaudical]

I'm one of those skinny recumbent riders. (5'11", 140 lbs) I moved to recumbents (I design/build my own) after spending many years developing repetitive stress injuries to arms/wrists/back and getting some numbness issues in areas that won't be mentioned from many, many miles on "regular" bikes.

The comments about fixed rider position, heavier bikes, inability to have gravity "help" you on a climb, etc are all accurate with respect to why some recumbents are slow climbers. My average speed went up ~4mph when I made the switch as I became faster on flat road and downhills, but still took a minor penalty up hill.

However, not all recumbent bikes are poor climbers. Some bikes (Lightning P-38, Rans V-Rex, M-5 Shockproof) with more "closed" rider positions climb better than others.

I have ridden with some other recumbent riders that would easily outclimb me on my old diamond-frame road bike. Training, conditioning, and endurance play a huge part in your ability to climb hills on a recumbent. Most casual riders don't bother to condition for climbing, and it does use a very different set of leg muscles as you learn to spin well under load.

JYL - I'm guessing that you're asking because you'd like to try one or are interested in riding but may have had similar "pain" issues as mine. Next time you're in Portland, I recommend you visit Marilyn at Coventry Cycles on Hawthorne. They have a broad selection of bikes to try. I suggest you investigate the physics for yourself.

Ride safe.

[look 171]

Island is right. The ability to push and pull against the down stroke on the pedal can general a lot of force. Rider weight helps also. That's an additional 100+ lbs with the help of gravity on each down stroke, not to mention the up stroke if you are attached to the pedals. Recumbent are fast, but not that fast. They eventually have to make a turn. Ever see a recumbent fly down a twisty canyon? Rolling hills will kill the rider as well.

[petrolhead611]

Recumbent tricycles make more sense than two wheeled recumbents 'cos slow speed balance then isn't an issue. My own recumbent tricycle has only a single gear but does have a 250W motor for assistance(maximum power assistance legally allowed on European roads for classification as a bicycle). It has a Y shaped chassis designed by Lotus and a streamlined bodytub. Oh, and its 21 years old.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by look 171

Island is right. The ability to push and pull against the down stroke on the pedal can general a lot of force. Rider weight helps also. That's an additional 100+ lbs with the help of gravity on each down stroke, not to mention the up stroke if you are attached to the pedals. Recumbent are fast, but not that fast. They eventually have to make a turn. Ever see a recumbent fly down a twisty canyon? Rolling hills will kill the rider as well.

So, on your logic, a 300 lb rider will have an easier time going up hill because of the downstroke forces?

Seriously, you people need to study physics.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by red-beard

So, on your logic, a 300 lb rider will have an easier time going up hill because of the downstroke forces?

Seriously, you people need to study physics.

Well duh... didn't you watch any of the tour this year?
2nd and 3rd places went to the Schleck brothers:

[john70t]

Originally Posted by petrolhead611

My own recumbent tricycle has only a single gear but does have a 250W motor for assistance(maximum power assistance legally allowed on European roads for classification as a bicycle).

Pics please!!!

I've been thinking of making a 3-wheel leaning recumbent someday out of junk parts. Not ready to spend thousands for a bike. For short and medium trips it would make sense.
Feature would include:
1). Powered hub wheel for hills:www.ebikes.ca Homepage of the revolution, or some form of motor/battery/chain drivetrain: Peter Vieth. All chains and wheels splash protected.
2). Self balancing-chassis would load the bottom of the curved/V shaped rear parrallelogram.
3). Chassis would fold up in the center for compact parking. Rear wheels would pull in during this function.
4). Some sort of lightweight rain cover from plexiglass or plastic..
5). Ball joint for a baby trailer which would have a phat battery with quick connectors and storage for long distance traveling.

Just a idea. However there are some nice practical designs already out there:electric tricycle , ebike, e bike, e-bike, e tricycle, e trike, trike , electric trike KTN-004 products, buy electric tricycle , ebike, e bike, e-bike, e tricycle, e trike, trike , electric trike KTN-004 products from alibaba.com

[vash]

why do recumbant riders need to wear cycling shorts? i see them all the time..the padding is all wrong.

they do look cool. racerbvd. i pedaled something similar to that in Mazatlan. i was drunk, and thought i could do better than the man we hired..i almost puked.

[island911]

Originally Posted by red-beard

So, on your logic, a 300 lb rider will have an easier time going up hill because of the downstroke forces?

Seriously, you people need to study physics.

hmmm . . .I think that you are completely missing what is being talked about here (which is rare for you) That is, a rider can exert more than their weight on a pedal.

Forces applied to a bicycle during normal cycling

P.D. Sodena and B.A. Adeyefaa

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, England
Received 16 November 1978.
Available online 19 March 2004.

Abstract

Forces that the rider applies to the pedals, saddle and handlebars during speeding, hill climbing and starting are estimated from cine film records using elementary mechanics. The results are compared with force measurements obtained from an instrumented pedal. Pedal forces of up to three times bodyweight were recorded during starting. Handlebar loads were always significantly large.

ScienceDirect - Journal of Biomechanics : Forces applied to a bicycle during normal cycling

[gtc]

Because normal shorts inflate like ballons from the wind going up your legs.

[gtc]

I think Red-beard's point is that rider weight is irrelevant because your body mass is not moving in relation to the bicycle frame. There is no net work being done over the period of one pedal stroke. Any work benefit that a fat guy would have on the downstroke would be negated on the upstroke when he has to lift his fat back up to the previous height.

Using the handlebars for leverage is a separate issue. Recumbents still have handlebars you can grab onto, though maybe they are in a position that reduces their effectiveness.

Furthermore, going back to the first post, the question is fairly vague. The most efficient way to get up a hill IS to sit down and spin.

[einreb]

Originally Posted by island911

hmmm . . .I think that you are completely missing what is being talked about here (which is rare for you) That is, a rider can exert more than their weight on a pedal.

Its not just 'physics' or how to apply the 'most' force to the pedals. Its about putting the human body in position to apply that force to the pedals over a long period of time while climbing.

Sprinters (or 'starting' in your link) truly utilize the bars for a bit in order to exert maximum pressure for that zone 5 over "Anaerobic Threshold" sprint.

Climbing is generally done in zone 4 (below anaerobic threshold). At that point, its not about leverage with the bars. Recumbents actually let you lever yourself against a seat... 'maximizing leverage' is not the problem. Fixed/poor position is the problem with recumbents.

Arguing on the inter-webs FML.

Originally Posted by gtc

Furthermore, going back to the first post, the question is fairly vague. The most efficient way to get up a hill IS to sit down and spin.

Efficiency only gets you so far up the hill and into the 'pain coffin'. At some point, you shift or stand to move the effort to different muscle groups... not really possible with a recumbent.

[jyl]

I asked not because I'm all that interested in a recumbent bicycle, but more because I'm interested in the velomobile concept (enclosed trike). In most (all) of these, you sit in a recumbent position. I'd sure like to see pics of petrolhead's machine, and more pics of racerbvd's trike.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by gtc

I think Red-beard's point is that rider weight is irrelevant because your body mass is not moving in relation to the bicycle frame. There is no net work being done over the period of one pedal stroke. Any work benefit that a fat guy would have on the downstroke would be negated on the upstroke when he has to lift his fat back up to the previous height.

Using the handlebars for leverage is a separate issue. Recumbents still have handlebars you can grab onto, though maybe they are in a position that reduces their effectiveness.

Furthermore, going back to the first post, the question is fairly vague. The most efficient way to get up a hill IS to sit down and spin.

Not true about the ass position. It actually stays in the same place when a rider is off the saddle. The bike is being push and pull for max tq. Notice the rider is out of the saddle, the bike always sway back and forth with each pedal stroke. That's an experience rider. The rider should never sway.

In a regular bike, the weight helps. On a recumbent, there is no weight just legs pushing against the seat.

[fanaudical]

OK - You might check out OHPV.org - And there's a fairly decent gathering of velomobiles at PIR on Memorial Day Weekend.

[Flieger]

OK, look. If the bulk of the rider is moving, then his mass only helps inasmuch as he can use the potential/kinetic energy trade off to make a powerful stroke and then rest a little as the body goes down. If the rider is using proper technique then the greater part of his mass is not going up and down so the only potential energy effect is from the legs going up and down. A recumbant rider can still use the leg's mass in the form of momentum.

I think it is just the rider position and other related effects, not to mention balance.

Upright riders can pull on the bars and rock the bike.

Recumbant riders can push on the seat.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by red-beard

So, on your logic, a 300 lb rider will have an easier time going up hill because of the downstroke forces?

Seriously, you people need to study physics.

There's a 300lbs advantage over just a pair of legs pushing up against a seat, but he still has to lug a 300lbs body up a hill or mountain. That's more of the problem. It will slow you down for sure. You know as well as anyone here, I believe you ride a bike regularly, it is the correct RPM and the right gear that can get up up a hill. And I am not talking about spinning a tiny gear jsut to get up the mountain side, but do it fast at a certain speed. STill, my money is on the 300 lbs rider on his road bike then a 300 lbs in a recumbent going up a long hill.

[look 171]

Originally Posted by Flieger

OK, look. If the bulk of the rider is moving, then his mass only helps inasmuch as he can use the potential/kinetic energy trade off to make a powerful stroke and then rest a little as the body goes down. If the rider is using proper technique then the greater part of his mass is not going up and down so the only potential energy effect is from the legs going up and down. A recumbant rider can still use the leg's mass in the form of momentum.

I think it is just the rider position and other related effects, not to mention balance.

Upright riders can pull on the bars and rock the bike.

Recumbant riders can push on the seat.

Back in the days when the Velomobiles were in its infant stage, the professional teams could have use them to win big time trails but they didn't because they would suffer as soon as they hit the hills or the turns. They were ban also in the later days. These things are just design for one thing, flat roads or be ridden in a velodrome. A road bike will excel in all conditions.

A road bike will win in a sprint all day long against a recumbent even if the recumbent rider has the advantage with the seat behind his back where he can generate huge amount of power pushing against it. A road bike can accelerate much quicker but it will loose in top speed in the long run. Inject race tactics and road condition, my bet is on the road bike. Physics aside.

[Tobra]

Depending on the course, I think a recumbent would run away from a conventional bike, just from an aero standpoint. I have ridden them a few times, and in a straight line you can really fly without that much effort. Tried one with a fairing that was ridiculous. It was a bit heavy and awkward, but once you were rolling you would really go. A windy downhill would have slowed me way down, it did not handle well.