Recumbent - Poor hill climbing vs. "Recumbent Knee"?

Okay, here's another newbie question: It seems to be generally acknowledged, even by recumbent fans, that bents don't climb as well as uprights. The reason given for this seems to be that you can't stand up on a bent, so you can't exert as much force on the pedals.

On the other hand, I keep reading that recumbent riders are more prone to injure their knees because they can exert MORE force on the pedals.

So--which is it? Do you climb more slowly on a bent because you exert less force? Or are you prone to injure your knees because you exert more force? Or do some riders climb slowly, while others climb faster but injure their knees? And if you can exert more force on a bent than you exert on an upright, why don't bents climb faster? (Or do they?)

I ask this because I just got back from my second test-ride session (this time on a Bacchetta Giro 20), and I couldn't help noticing how easy it was to push back on the seat and jam the pedals. It reminded me a little of a leg press machine--and the last time I tried one of those (many years ago), I was able to lift 500 pounds (much more than I weighed.)

P.S. Today's ride was longer than the ones I took last week, and I was surprised at how quickly I got the feel of the Giro. Within 10 minutes I felt almost competent. I didn't want to get off the bike!

On the other hand, I keep reading that recumbent riders are more prone to injure their knees because they can exert MORE force on the pedals.

So--which is it? Do you climb more slowly on a bent because you exert less force? Or are you prone to injure your knees because you exert more force? Or do some riders climb slowly, while others climb faster but injure their knees? And if you can exert more force on a bent than you exert on an upright, why don't bents climb faster? (Or do they?)



Isn't bent riding just a blast!? Glad you like your Giro.

I've never injuried my knees on my bent even though in the past I've had a lot of pain in them due to kneeling a lot on my job.

About the time I started riding bike and then my bent my knees started to get better. So much better I now have no pain at all. I haven't ridden a DF in more than 3 years.
I climb more slowly on my bent because I try not to put too much pressure on my knees. I've heard of people injuring their knees by using too much force. Most of the time climbing a hill has a lot to do with the engine.

One of the things I discovered on my EZ Sport is the high gear inches in even the lowest gear. I pushed my bent up some hills because of this, not wanting to possibly hurt my knees. The Catrike Road I own also now has a lot lower gear inches so I feel I'll be able to climb most any hill(albeit very slowly sometimes).

Isn't bent riding just a blast!? Glad you like your Giro.

Unfortunately, it's not my Giro (yet). I didn't explain that very clearly. I was just taking a test ride. The sales guy said I could take it around the block, but then I didn't want to stop after only one block, so I went around again, then rode down some side streets, through some parking lots, etc. I had to remind myself to lean back and relax--but once I did that, riding was easy. I'm now sure that I want a bent!

So--which is it? Do you climb more slowly on a bent because you exert less force? Or are you prone to injure your knees because you exert more force? Or do some riders climb slowly, while others climb faster but injure their knees? And if you can exert more force on a bent than you exert on an upright, why don't bents climb faster? (Or do they?)

What you've written isn't nearly as inevitable as all that. Bents may be slightly slower than uprights due to various reasons including not being able to use gravity by standing, however, practice and muscle developement can negate a lot of that. With time, the difference really isn't that great if any.

Also, knee problems aren't a given either. I read of people having problems, so I know they exist. However, my own experiences and experiences of other recumbent riders that I ride with just don't bear that out.

I guess what i'm trying to relate, is ride easy and give the body time to adapt. All will be well. :)

Okay, here's another newbie question: It seems to be generally acknowledged, even by recumbent fans, that bents don't climb as well as uprights. The reason given for this seems to be that you can't stand up on a bent, so you can't exert as much force on the pedals.

Yes and no. The problem is that most "experts" who formulate these judgements usually ride uprights and are trying out a bent. However, bent muscles are different from upright muscles, and these reviewers fail to take into account that they aren't as efficient on a bent as on their upright. A trained bent rider can climb very well indeed.

This said, in my opinion, a bent climber has one disadvantage over a regular roadie: he can't stand up, which means he's "stuck" in one style of riding all the time while he climbs. If you like to switch stance and change cadence regularly, tough luck.



On the other hand, I keep reading that recumbent riders are more prone to injure their knees because they can exert MORE force on the pedals.

That's true.. and not true :) On an upright, for mundane riders, it's true that the force you can exert on the pedals (and on your knees) is limited by your weight. Trained cyclists however can exert a lot more force because they don't push down with only one leg, they also pull up with the other, which means that the pedalling torque isn't limited to what their body weighs on the pedals. But they know what they're doing.

On a bent, a good cyclist who is well prepared and knows his limits won't be at risk. The problem comes from untrained dud pedal pushers who can push as hard as they can on the pedals, with their back against the seat. What's more, beginner cyclists often tend to run a high gear/low cadence, and this is even more true on a bent. If you combine low rpms and unlimited pushing force, you end up with knee problems.

To alleviate these problems, you need to spin. If you train to spin efficiently in a lower gear, you'll avoid hurting your knees, and you'll also be more efficient when you climb. What I did when I re-trained myself to ride on a bent was to consciously make the effort of downshifting one or two cogs under what I thought was my comfortable rpm. After 2 or 3 weeks of that, my legs got the knack of spinning a bit faster, and that became my new comfortable rpm. I also acquired the reflex of downshifting as soon as I hit a suspiciously low rpm, my legs just can't stand mashing gears anymore.

Finally, there is a known issue with recumbents: some people who have no problem with upright bikes experience knee pains on recumbents. It only happens with some people, on some recumbents, but the problem is known. The cure is usually to run shorter cranks: they help you spin, and apparently put less strain on the knees because the range of motion is reduced. I had that problem on my latest bent, for no particular reason, and it went away when I installed 150mm cranks.

In short, learn how to spin to protect your knees. It's very important on a bent. Don't overdo the spinning of course, otherwise you'll strain something else in your legs, but riding a bent definitely requires a different (and I think generally higher) cadence than on an upright. It's really a matter of finding a new rythm on a totally different bike, as opposed to trying to transpose the techniques you use on an upright.

Al; my experience with sore knees was very similar to Megaman's in that my knee problems went away when I got back into cycling. Wherher on a DF or a 'bent, you can hurt your knees if your bike is not set up properly or you mash on too big a gear. The key for most people is spinning. A good cadance will save your knees.

There are lots of very good articles on knees and cycling. Most bike fitting sites will cover knee pain and corrective adjustments, all this stuff can be found by a Google search, but, I would start with Sheldon Brown's site. Most of the availabe information will relate to DF bikes, but, the basic action is the same.

I also agree with what "trsnrtr" says about 'bent vs DF bikes (oops! edit:..and "ppc" since he posted when I wasn't looking). With conditioning and practice you should be able to overcome most of the hill climbing disadvantages of 'bents. Two you won't overcome; a good road bike will have a stiffer bottom bracket and more efficient chain line and, standing on a DF gives the rider a chance to use different muscles. I plan on keeping up with my DF riding pals on the hills this spring when I get my new recumbent on the road and I have it in my trainer right now trying to get a head start. If I can't get to the top first, I hope to pass them on the way down :D .

Thanks for the advice. My plan is to pay attention to my knees and shift down at the first sign of trouble. Actually, during today's test ride, I didn't feel any pain at all--in fact, I enjoyed the feeling of being able to push back on the seat. But I tend to get carried away with things.

I've been riding recumbents for the last 6 years with the last 4 years being on lowracers. I've found that on shorter hills where you can gain some speed before the hill, the lowracer is way faster than an upright going up the said hill. Rollers are extremely fast. There is not an upright out there that will come close to catching a lowracer on rollers. Now, 5 mile climbs can be a different story. Last year in tennessee I found that on a 6 to 8 percent uphill grade I could climb steadily at 7 to 9 mph while the upright riders of comparable strength to mine could go between 9 and 12mph. It didn't matter even on a 5 mile climb because 15 minutes after cresting the top and going back down into the flats and rollers I would catch and pass the uprights at sometimes double their speed.

Now if I were to do an uphill 50 miler, I might want to ride an upright or a trike. Anything flat, rolling to 1/2 mile climbs........... give me the recumbent or better yet the lowracer.

also, I mash as hard as I want to without having knee problems. The rotor cranks seem to be very easy on the knees.

...However, bent muscles are different from upright muscles...

Took the words out of my mouth. If you have the right muscles hill are nothing on a bent, even a 70lbs trike, with 30lbs of gear, and a 200lbs rider (but the bike not might handle it, found out the hard way). After you get the muscles have fun!

Super Geek

One problem with bents on the hills is simple physics - they are heavier than roadies. And that is about that. I agree with lowracer, though. On rollers, where you can use your superior aerodynamics to exploit your downhill momentum, well bye bye uprights. that is the optimum killing ground for lowracers. The environment I hate the most vs uprights? Long, gradual hills. The kind of hill that knocks maybe 3 mph off you. It just seems that the upright riders can grind you down on one of them.

also, I mash as hard as I want to without having knee problems. The rotor cranks seem to be very easy on the knees.

My knees are very bad (nothing to do with bikes though). They're almost done up enough that I'll have to stop cycling if they get any worse. As a result, I am keenly aware of the fact that your knees are like a bank account: you start out with a certain amount in the bank, and you can choose to spend it fast or slow. It won't be a problem as long as you have money, but eventually you reach zero and then your life becomes miserable.

What I'm driving at is, you may think mashing is okay because you don't feel pain, but beware, you might be spending your knee's potential too fast without knowing it. Surgery may help you if you get bad knees, but you can only 2 or 3 times, and it's never quite as fun on a bike after the first one. It'd be too bad if you get bad knees at an age when the rest of your body is still okay. Of course, you may well have good knees that can take any abuse, but you'll only know for sure when they start to be damaged, so a little prevention goes a long way.

As for rotor cranks, well, I've heard a lot of good things about them, but I'm still gasping for air since I saw the price tag :)

also, I mash as hard as I want to without having knee problems. The rotor cranks seem to be very easy on the knees.

So, are these "rotor cranks" the same thing (elliptical) as what the biopace used to be?

http://www.thertr.com/rotorreview.htm

no, they are round cranks but with a special cam system incorporated.

I'm a Giro 20 owner and I did serious damage to my knees in High School Wrestling. The first time I took it on serious hills I felt what I would call "knee strain". That sensation went away when I changed my technique to a fast cadence spinning up steep hills.

My ability to climb hills is the same with my Giro as it is with my mountain bike.

I agree with the responses to your posts so I don't want to add to your confusion. Every person who does their homework comes across these sometimes conflicting opinions. I did as well. A recumbent is different enough from a diamond frame that it requires a learning curve to ride one with the same confidence as you have with your current bike. After logging on some miles, you will be very happy in your lawn chair on wheels.

My advise to you is to try as many bikes as possible. If you end up with a Giro 20 you will be very, very happy with your choice.