"Jack" wrote in message
...
On 28 jul, 12:56, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
snip
I think to be fair about this, you would have to pit a faired recumbent
against a faired upright in a largely mountainous terrain. Otherwise, you
are comparing apples to oranges and not getting to the heart of the
question, which is - can recumbents climb hills as well as uprights? I
say
no.


Ed,
the going philosophy is that the size of the frontal area makes up
most of the aerodynamic advantage that a recumbent has. An upright
bike will possibly have a larger frontal area.
When you really want to compare the same rider should ride both
machines. In fact, the Chris Boardman and Greame Obree records are at
a high level and set at high altitude race tracks, these are not yet
broken by unfaired recumbent amateur riders.

Jack

Recumbents have an aerodynamic advantage, but is it enough to compensate for
how the human body functions in the upright position as opposed to the
recumbent position. I think not, at least not when it comes to climbing
steep hills.

By the way, I can already see the argument against using the same rider on
both a recumbent and an upright. It will be argued that the rider is not as
proficient on one as on the other. Anyway, I am not that fussy. I would just
like to see a race (no drafting allowed) in the mountains with recumbents
pitted against uprights - and I would prefer that they not be faired. I
think that way we could plainly see once and for all that recumbents can't
climb worth a damn.

But anyone who has ever ridden a recumbent in the mountains already knows
how slow they are. It is the first thing you learn about recumbents after
your initial enthusiasm has worn off. If Mr. Sherman were to ride his
recumbent in the mountains of the West or East he would soon be relieved of
his illusions.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota