Precisely how bad is a recumbent at climbing hills?

On Nov 25, 1:44*pm, wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:42*am, "Gennaro" wrote:


I am
able to climb quite steep inclines, even pulling a loaded Bob trailer.http://i15.tinypic.com/867vqps.jpg

Us beardies gotta stand together. The problem with recumbents is that
uncharitable people will think we lie down together.

But I didn't have something quite that low in mind, more like the
German Scooterbike or a Giant, on which you sit a bit higher, with the
pedals below and much more forward than on the RANS CF type of semi-
conventional cruiser that Paul has recently bought.

Andre Jute
Open-minded

On Nov 25, 5:00*pm, "
wrote:
An old post of mine on BentRiderOnline. *Might be of some help:

Regards,
Chris

The debate continues - all of it anecdotal. I've yet to see any posted
race times uphill of bents vs. DFs head to head. i wouldn't say bents
can't climb but I would say that they can't climb as fast. My own
personal test: I ride bents, road bikes, and MTBs and rotate around
quite a bit. Living on the Colorado Front Range, I've done some
massive climbing on Bents including the Mt. Evans Hill Climb Race
(highest paved road in CONUS - 7,000 to 14,000 feet - all up). General
observation - I'm much faster on a DF (and it's not the weight). Last
Spring I decided to do a little test. For 3 weeks I alternately rode
up Lookout Mtn (4 miles all 6-9% grade up) on a recumbent and on my
road bike. I then timed myself all out on each bike. Results: Road
bike 24:45, Recumbent 31:10. This seems pretty consistent with most
other rides I've done. Just one data point but that's been my
experience.

26% slower doesn't seem such a big deal, except that on the worst
incline I'm already so slow, any slower and I'd fall over from lack of
balance-inducing forward motion. The bit I like best about the advice
in this thread is the bent is likely to be very fast downhill. --
Andre Jute

On Nov 26, 9:38 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:00 pm, "
wrote:



An old post of mine on BentRiderOnline. Might be of some help:

Regards,
Chris

The debate continues - all of it anecdotal. I've yet to see any posted
race times uphill of bents vs. DFs head to head. i wouldn't say bents
can't climb but I would say that they can't climb as fast. My own
personal test: I ride bents, road bikes, and MTBs and rotate around
quite a bit. Living on the Colorado Front Range, I've done some
massive climbing on Bents including the Mt. Evans Hill Climb Race
(highest paved road in CONUS - 7,000 to 14,000 feet - all up). General
observation - I'm much faster on a DF (and it's not the weight). Last
Spring I decided to do a little test. For 3 weeks I alternately rode
up Lookout Mtn (4 miles all 6-9% grade up) on a recumbent and on my
road bike. I then timed myself all out on each bike. Results: Road
bike 24:45, Recumbent 31:10. This seems pretty consistent with most
other rides I've done. Just one data point but that's been my
experience.

26% slower doesn't seem such a big deal, except that on the worst
incline I'm already so slow, any slower and I'd fall over from lack of
balance-inducing forward motion. The bit I like best about the advice
in this thread is the bent is likely to be very fast downhill. --
Andre Jute

I guess with trike minimum speed to maintain balance is not
really an issue - you can gear it as low as you want.
But yeah - we are all SLOW uphill - on some hills I can go 11mph
but on the steepest one I do - 8-10% I barely crawl 3.5-4 mph.
Hmmm - that is 270W - I can sustain that only for a very short
climb - less than 1 mile or so.

André Jute wrote:
On Nov 25, 1:44 pm, wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:42 am, "Gennaro" wrote:


I am
able to climb quite steep inclines, even pulling a loaded Bob trailer.http://i15.tinypic.com/867vqps.jpg

Us beardies gotta stand together. The problem with recumbents is that
uncharitable people will think we lie down together.

But I didn't have something quite that low in mind, more like the
German Scooterbike or a Giant, on which you sit a bit higher, with the
pedals below and much more forward than on the RANS CF type of semi-
conventional cruiser that Paul has recently bought.

That is not a low bike!

This is low (and fast):
http://www.parnes.com/hpvsblog/archives/watt/Tero1.jpg.

Here is a good choice for comfort, ease of starting and stopping, good
low speed handling and being able to see and be seen by traffic:
http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/spirit/index_e.html. Not as fast
as a upright road bike, however.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

On Nov 25, 10:19*am, Andre Jute wrote:
Precisely how bad is a recumbent at climbing hills?

Let's not have a flame war here but a considered discussion, with all
the pros and cons of recumbents.

I highlight the hillclimbing question because I live on a steep hill,
and my favourite rides are all on hilly lanes; in fact, there is
nowhere I go, not even for a liter of milk that doesn't involve at
least one hill.


How steep are the hills - are they the short sharp type or the long
grinders. I saw someone on a 'bent in the scottish highlands
(obviously a yank! ).
They were cycling up a long grinder, pedalling a very low gear.

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

André Jute wrote:
On Nov 25, 1:44 pm, wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:42 am, "Gennaro" wrote:


I am
able to climb quite steep inclines, even pulling a loaded Bob
trailer.http://i15.tinypic.com/867vqps.jpg

Us beardies gotta stand together. The problem with recumbents is that
uncharitable people will think we lie down together.

But I didn't have something quite that low in mind, more like the
German Scooterbike or a Giant, on which you sit a bit higher, with the
pedals below and much more forward than on the RANS CF type of semi-
conventional cruiser that Paul has recently bought.

That is not a low bike!

This is low (and fast):
http://www.parnes.com/hpvsblog/archives/watt/Tero1.jpg.

Here is a good choice for comfort, ease of starting and stopping, good
low speed handling and being able to see and be seen by traffic:
http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/spirit/index_e.html. Not as fast
as a upright road bike, however.


I'm a recumbent fan - so I'll get some heat - but you'll notice that I
don't have one in my current stable. So all that to say, yes, I have
some experience with the beast. Good and bad.

No one has asked 'how good are TdF riders at climbing REALLY BIG hills?'
It's the same sort of question. And a 'test ride' is, unfortunately, not
going to tell you very much.

I'm sure most of you have several bicycles. And, I'm sure that one of
you has two bicycles that do not have absolutely identical fit (ST
relative to HT, crank length, 'Q-factor,' TT length, drop from seat to
bars, yada, yada, yada) and you will notice the difference, in your
muscles, between two bikes. That's why I rotate (oooh, bad pun)
virtually every ride.

'Bents' fit different. A one hour test ride will only reveal (and no
dis-respect to original poster) that your muscles have not acclimatized.
One guy (and, wait for it, the 'guy' has a name), Brock Davis, and I
were having a conversation one day about 15 years ago. 'How long to
acclimatize?' I asked? "Six months I guess" was his reply. And he was,
and is, a 'high-mileage,' no-car, bicycle shop owner.

I rode, in their day, Ryans, R-20s, Linears, a singular Windcheeta (sp),
a number of Rans, Easy Tour, and Easy Racer. I, meaning me, was slower
up hill on every single one of them. A couple, the Ryan (with stock bars
narrowed), and the R-20, were measurably faster downhill. The Windcheeta
wasn't mine, and I couldn't afford the goofy 17" tires, let alone the
machine, which compelled me to not try testing it's limits.

And, it occurs to me, will your jacket be completely zipped while
testing the aerodynamics of various machines in the negative-incline
phase?

The current 'fastest' bicycle (just check the definition of 'bicycle'
before you start flaming, or you'll lose, I guarantee) is a recumbent,
built in Canada, ridden by the winner of the 2008 NAHBS, on a US road,
built by, more or less, a sculptor. I don't think Sam would claim that
it's a bike faster up hills...

My apologies if I posted above, or below, the right person, the wrong
person, or if your mileage varies, your opinion differs, or you have
never actually ridden a recumbent.

On Nov 25, 3:19*am, Andre Jute wrote:
Precisely how bad is a recumbent at climbing hills?

Let's not have a flame war here but a considered discussion, with all
the pros and cons of recumbents.

I highlight the hillclimbing question because I live on a steep hill,
and my favourite rides are all on hilly lanes; in fact, there is
nowhere I go, not even for a liter of milk that doesn't involve at
least one hill.

Andre Jute
An open mind on the loose is a dangerous device

Dear namesake:

I think that they dropped a consonant when they named you.

bicycles, either bents or uprights are great for transportation, as
you already know. Going up a steep hill in either requires good form
and appropriate gears. With a recumbent, you can get up pretty much
any hill provided that you have the appropriate gear. As with an
upright, depending on your effort, and the gear of choice you can get
up faster or slower and be more or less tired. With equal fitness you
will probably climb faster with an upright and move faster on flat
ground with a bent.

Having addressed the technical aspects I must point out that the only
problem with bents is that they out you as a queer, violator of
normality, subversive, anti-establishment, far left wing trotskist,
anarchist, devil worshiper such as the well know TS.

Stick to the upright. However considering that you already posses a
queer name, the bent may not be a bad idea.

Andres

On Nov 28, 1:44*pm, "Rik O'Shea" wrote:
On Nov 25, 10:19*am, Andre Jute wrote:

Precisely how bad is a recumbent at climbing hills?

Let's not have a flame war here but a considered discussion, with all
the pros and cons of recumbents.

I highlight the hillclimbing question because I live on a steep hill,
and my favourite rides are all on hilly lanes; in fact, there is
nowhere I go, not even for a liter of milk that doesn't involve at
least one hill.

How steep are the hills - are they the short sharp type or the long
grinders. I saw someone on a 'bent in the scottish highlands
(obviously a yank! ).
They were cycling up a long grinder, pedalling a very low gear.

I have a mix of hills, but know them well so that all my rides are one-
way circular routes, the easy way with the long but not too steep
slopes on the outward journey, and the steep hills on the downsides.
There is only one place where on an upright I have to get off and
push, and this years, towards the end of a summer in which I rode much
more than previously, I've managed riding up even that hill without
killing myself.

However, this whole bent possibility arose because I moved house from
the flat beside the river to almost the top of a steep hill. I'm
getting Rohloff gears, which will give me two-and-a-half to three
gears below my current Cyber Nexus ratios. I need two of those gears
for the hill, so to speak, so I reckoned that a bent, which if
sensibly designed to be practical (some are a joke) could have some
advantages to way of using a bike, could be up to say 13 per cent less
efficient uphill, and I would still be ahead of the game. But, as we
heard yesterday from the chap who was 26% slower uphill on a bent, the
bent would probably require two out of the three of my "new, lower
gears", so I'll very likely not buy it as I have too many bikes
already, and buying two bikes the price of a used BMW each would be
pretty hard to justify for a fellow who cycles 3000 klicks and change
every year -- about 2000 miles.

Andre Jute
Calvinist

On Nov 28, 4:12*pm, Urb Anwriter wrote:
In article ,
*Tom Sherman wrote:



André Jute wrote:
On Nov 25, 1:44 pm, wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:42 am, "Gennaro" wrote:

I am
able to climb quite steep inclines, even pulling a loaded Bob
trailer.http://i15.tinypic.com/867vqps.jpg

Us beardies gotta stand together. The problem with recumbents is that
uncharitable people will think we lie down together.

But I didn't have something quite that low in mind, more like the
German Scooterbike or a Giant, on which you sit a bit higher, with the
pedals below and much more forward than on the RANS CF type of semi-
conventional cruiser that Paul has recently bought.

That is not a low bike!

This is low (and fast):
http://www.parnes.com/hpvsblog/archives/watt/Tero1.jpg.

Here is a good choice for comfort, ease of starting and stopping, good
low speed handling and being able to see and be seen by traffic:
http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/spirit/index_e.html. Not as fast
as a upright road bike, however.

I'm a recumbent fan - so I'll get some heat - but you'll notice that I
don't have one in my current stable. So all that to say, yes, I have
some experience with the beast. Good and bad.

No one has asked 'how good are TdF riders at climbing REALLY BIG hills?'
It's the same sort of question. And a 'test ride' is, unfortunately, not
going to tell you very much.

I'm sure most of you have several bicycles. And, I'm sure that one of
you has two bicycles that do not have absolutely identical fit (ST
relative to HT, crank length, 'Q-factor,' TT length, drop from seat to
bars, yada, yada, yada) and you will notice the difference, in your
muscles, between two bikes. That's why I rotate (oooh, bad pun)
virtually every ride.

'Bents' fit different. A one hour test ride will only reveal (and no
dis-respect to original poster) that your muscles have not acclimatized.
One guy (and, wait for it, the 'guy' has a name), Brock Davis, and I
were having a conversation one day about 15 years ago. 'How long to
acclimatize?' I asked? "Six months I guess" was his reply. And he was,
and is, a 'high-mileage,' no-car, bicycle shop owner.

I rode, in their day, Ryans, R-20s, Linears, a singular Windcheeta (sp),
a number of Rans, Easy Tour, and Easy Racer. I, meaning me, was slower
up hill on every single one of them. A couple, the Ryan (with stock bars
narrowed), and the R-20, were measurably faster downhill. The Windcheeta
wasn't mine, and I couldn't afford the goofy 17" tires, let alone the
machine, which compelled me to not try testing it's limits.

And, it occurs to me, will your jacket be completely zipped while
testing the aerodynamics of various machines in the negative-incline
phase?

The current 'fastest' bicycle (just check the definition of 'bicycle'
before you start flaming, or you'll lose, I guarantee) is a recumbent,
built in Canada, ridden by the winner of the 2008 NAHBS, on a US road,
built by, more or less, a sculptor. I don't think Sam would claim that
it's a bike faster up hills...

My apologies if I posted above, or below, the right person, the wrong
person, or if your mileage varies, your opinion differs, or you have
never actually ridden a recumbent.

Just ignore the kibbitzers. Fifty years they've nursed the grudge
about the midwife slapping them too hard to stop them breathing, then
the internet enabled them to whine in a million ears rather than
boring their sports bar.

I for one am happy to hear your experiences. I don't think this bent
is going to happen. I'm pretty slow uphill already, I'm not a spinner
and brute force only goes so far, and if I go any slower the police
will start charging me with being an obstruction. Still, I like a bit
of downhill speeding, and like the possibility of getting a bit more
adrenaline out of recumbent. On the other hand, from an upright bike I
can make eye-contact with the drivers of big four-wheel drives -- in
fact, I have to lean over to see into the window to explain to the
stupid ones that, "It will take me five minutes to trash your 160K
Range Rover into an insurance writeoff, after which I shall charge you
with assault with a deadly weapon, and make you uninsurable, besides
ruining your so-called career with negative publicity that will turn
you into public idiot number one." You'd look ridiculous doing that
from a bent; nobody'd believe you anyhow, whereas they have no problem
believing the guy on the biggest bike they've ever seen will trash
their precious motor if they come too near him ever again.

Andre Jute
Krowbar Kid

On Nov 28, 4:50*pm, " wrote:
On Nov 25, 3:19*am, Andre Jute wrote:

Precisely how bad is a recumbent at climbing hills?

Let's not have a flame war here but a considered discussion, with all
the pros and cons of recumbents.

I highlight the hillclimbing question because I live on a steep hill,
and my favourite rides are all on hilly lanes; in fact, there is
nowhere I go, not even for a liter of milk that doesn't involve at
least one hill.

Andre Jute
An open mind on the loose is a dangerous device

Dear namesake:

I think that they dropped a consonant when they named you.

bicycles, either bents or uprights are great for transportation, as
you already know. Going up a steep hill in either requires good form
and appropriate gears. With a recumbent, you can get up pretty much
any hill provided that you have the appropriate gear. As with an
upright, depending on your effort, and the gear of choice you can get
up faster or slower and be more or less tired. With equal fitness you
will probably climb faster with an upright and move faster on flat
ground with a bent.

Having addressed the technical aspects I must point out that the only
problem with bents is that they out you as a queer, violator of
normality, subversive, anti-establishment, far left wing trotskist,
anarchist, devil worshiper such as the well know TS.

Stick to the upright. However considering that you already posses a
queer name, the bent may not be a bad idea.

Andres

I'll have you know that I was the last man in my town whose dinner
jacket actually buttoned.

Andre Jute
with an acute accent on the e in Andre