Recumbent - Aren't recumbent bikes inefficient?

This is probably the oldest and newbiest question you'll ever get in the recumbent forum, but I'm intrigued. There's a chap (or woman, I'm not sure) who works at the Home Depot near me and has a really cool recumbent. It had me thinking: Sure, it looks very comfortable, but it also looks inefficient (read: slow). Is this true?

I know nothing about recumbents other than how they look and what I can imagine they feel like to ride.

Are they fast? Is it easier to push hard against the pedals or harder than standing while riding a roadbike?

Thanks for entertaining such a lame and newbie question.

A slow recumbent might be a slow design. Having owned one I'd say the slowness was the motor, me. The non-drafting human power only record is held by a recumbent. 82 MPH on a level road. Going uphill recumbents have no real advantage over often lighter stock bikes. Going down hill they can often beat much lighter bikes ridden by better cyclists. Check out the recumbent forum.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=475158

Most "regular bike" riders say that their average speed increases when they switch to a recumbent.

... Check out the recumbent forum.

This IS the recumbent forum! :innocent:

It's generally accepted that riders put out slightly less power in the recumbent position. My MHR is about 10 BPM slower when reclined. But regardless of that, I'm faster on the 'bents. Why? Aerodynamics is a big part of it for me, but also that I don't have to stop for butt breaks on longer rides. Even when I got my first, slower recumbent, it didn't take long for my roadie friends to figure out that if they stopped even once for a butt break on a century ride, I was nearly impossible to catch again.

I have fast bikes, though. It's best to compare a recumbent to its upright equivalent; your average 'bent has 1.5" tires and doesn't stack up well against a skinny-tired road bike.

Darn you vik, I am trying to resist getting a lowracer.

I was a Cat 2 racer in the '80s and went to bents in 2003 for medical reasons. I can attain speeds, averages and times in my 50s that I did back then. I could never do that on an upright. My fastest century ever was done on a bent at 55 years of age.

There are slow bents and there are fast bents. :)

Okay, I see a lowracer is the fastest cycling machine for the road. Now, I noticed it is also impossible to have USS on a lowracer because it's too close to the road - is that correct? Also, for anyone who has ridden a lowracer on roads, I'm curious: how is your vision (ability to see other cars coming & pedestrians) on a lowracer?

I was a Cat 2 racer in the '80s and went to bents in 2003 for medical reasons. I can attain speeds, averages and times in my 50s that I did back then. I could never do that on an upright. My fastest century ever was done on a bent at 55 years of age.

There are slow bents and there are fast bents. :)Similar story here. I was a Cat 3 in the late 70s / early 80s. Found myself slowing down over the years then tried a Corsa because I thought they looked cool. Bought it on the spot. Now at 50 I'm faster than I've ever been.

One thing I've noticed is not inefficiency, but it seems the drive train inherently gets more awkward. An upright bike consists of a bike made for maximum simplicity, and then the person contorts himself to fit. The recumbents start with the person and contort the bike around them.

The issue of pushing hard against the pedals I suspect is a non-issue. I ride a single-speed upright bike. But I don't know if I've ever had to stand on the pedals. The problem isn't needing to give a mighty heave-** one time, the problem is having to put 30% of your weight on that pedal over and over and over. If you were having a hill-climb on a 10' course, then there might be an advantage to having something to brace your butt against while you pedaled.

Similar story here. I was a Cat 3 in the late 70s / early 80s. Found myself slowing down over the years then tried a Corsa because I thought they looked cool. Bought it on the spot. Now at 50 I'm faster than I've ever been.

It would be interesting to see how you perform on a current technology road bike. There's a bit of a difference between late 70's and 2008.

Bob

Fred Flintstone's car certainly 'looks inefficient', but I cannot for the life of me see how any bicycle, particularly a recumbent, can 'look inefficient'. The original post seems like a classic case of 'what I don't understand, I fear'.

On a low racer the only vision restriction is what is beneath you. Forward and up line of sight is not the problem. I suspose a squirrel, small dog or cat might run in front of you and be below your line of sight. Or you might hit a pot hole if you are not paying attention to what's way out in front of you.

On a DF, while riding in the drops or on aero bars it's exactly the opposite. You see what's under your front wheel just fine, but have to wrench your neck to look forward. Looking at that pot hole as your front wheel drops into it is not much help; especially if it's a really big one and your next action is to fly over the bars and test the integrity of your helmet.

Being seen is a whole other story, however. It's fairly easy for a low racer to be invisible to driver in a car in traffic. You can be below the hood at a stop light, for instance.

On a DF, while riding in the drops or on aero bars it's exactly the opposite. You see what's under your front wheel just fine, but have to wrench your neck to look forward. Looking at that pot hole as your front wheel drops into it is not much help; especially if it's a really big one and your next action is to fly over the bars and test the integrity of your helmet.

Your post would have had a lot more credibility if you hadn't shown such an obvious bias through emotional exaggeration in your description. Its BS to talk about a particular bike design causing the rider to miss a pothole so big that it results in flying over the handlebars. That's riding with your head in a dark spot.

Bob

One thing I've noticed is not inefficiency, but it seems the drive train inherently gets more awkward.

Depends on the design. Mine has a short and simple drive train.

Every bike has its own purpose. I road an upright bike for 50 years, got my first bike when I was 5 years old. When I was young I could ride 23 mph for an hour non stop with no problem. I have been riding recumbents for 3 years. Each recumbent has a different wind resistance. The low racer is the fastest wind resistance is 65% less than an upright bike. I am out of shape and have not ridden a bike in 25 years it is a struggle for me to do 15 mph on an upright bike. I can cruise 15 mph on a Tour Easy and 22 to 24 mph on a low racer.

Tour easy is an extremely nice ride but the down side is the bike is very long and hard to haul inside an SUV, the bike is too large for a bike rack, and it is about 10 lbs heaver than an upright bike. I am going to sell my Tour Easy and get a SunRay. http://www.easyracers.com/11-ez_sunray_sx.htm

I love my Low Racer bike. This has to be the ultimate bike. This bike is FAST, real FAST. Even though I am old, out of shape, over weight, I can pass the young guys on my low racer bike on a flat road and down hill. The big advantage to the low racer is everyone that sees you wants to stop and talk and ask questions. I will stop and talk to the attractive ladies as long as they like. The down side to this bike is, it takes practice to ride but once you get use to it you will never want to ride anything different. Visibality is different on the low racer you have to get use to it and you have to keep a closer eye on the road. Sand, gravel, mud, wet leaves, ice, water are all several times more likely to wreck you on a low racer than an up right bike. You will need a mirror on left and right side of your helmet. After I do a 5 mile warm up ride I can cruise along on flat level road 22 to 24 mph fairly easy. If I pedal hard I can do 28 mph on flat level road for about 1/4 mile. Down hill is totally awesome it is like a free fall I have to ride the brake to keep from doing 70.

My P-38 type bike is really fun to ride. It is so manoverable it is unreal. Light weight bike only 21 lbs and not quite as low wind resistant as the low racer bike but still very fast bike. Easy to ride and easy to haul in an SUV or on a bike rack. The P-38 is sorta like driving a sport car extremely quick and manoverable.

All recumbents have a disadvantage up hill they are a little bit slower than most upright bikes but on the flats and down hill the recumbents have the advantage.

Every bike has its own purpose. I road an upright bike for 50 years. When I was young I could ride 23 mph for an hour no problem. I have been riding recumbents for 3 years. Each recumbent has a different wind resistance. The low racer is the fastest wind resistance is 65% less than an upright bike. I am out of shape have not ridden a bike in 25 years it is a struggle for me to do 12 mph on an upright bike. I have do 15 mph on a Tour Easy and 22 to 24 mph on a low racer.[/URL]

So you're ummm, 95 years old?

According to info from my Garmin 305, a typical 20 mile trip involves 1000' - 2000' of climbing. 25+% of my distance is climbing. Since I mainly ride loops out from home, there's a net gain of zero, of course.

At what point does the climbing inefficiency of a recumbent offset the speed gains on the flats and downhills?

According to info from my Garmin 305, a typical 20 mile trip involves 1000' - 2000' of climbing. 25+% of my distance is climbing. Since I mainly ride loops out from home, there's a net gain of zero, of course.

At what point does the climbing inefficiency of a recumbent offset the speed gains on the flats and downhills?

I don't think there is any way to answer your general question without inserting some data.

Depending on the bikes and rider, a particular bent may or may not be slower in climbing than a particular DF. The biggest general uphill speed difference, I think, is that bents run heavier than DF's.

On a loop like yours, I would be faster on my bent than on my DF both uphill and down, but I would also enjoy the breeze as fitter DF riders on lighter bikes went by. <G>

Your post would have had a lot more credibility if you hadn't shown such an obvious bias through emotional exaggeration in your description. Its BS to talk about a particular bike design causing the rider to miss a pothole so big that it results in flying over the handlebars. That's riding with your head in a dark spot.

Bob

Please be civil on the forums. There is no call for writing things that you would never say to someone's face.

Please be civil on the forums. There is no call for writing things that you would never say to someone's face.

Noted on the basis of being civil, period. However, I say in writing what I would have no qualms about saying in person. Factual discussion about any viewpoint is fine. Emotional ranting has no value.

Bob

It would be interesting to see how you perform on a current technology road bike. There's a bit of a difference between late 70's and 2008.

BobI've only been riding a bent for a couple of years. Before that I had always bought a new higher-end DF every couple of years. I've had Klein, Le Mond, Specialized and Cannondale with the best component groups and wheels I could buy. The Corsa is faster, while also being a lot more comfortable.

Maybe the OP's friend rides a Sun EZ-Speedster or something. There's no doubt that some designs look like kludges on wheels, with excessive chain management or unduly complicated frames. The remarks that really leave me scratching my head, though, are the ones questioning how a recumbent can be comfortable.

I've only been riding a bent for a couple of years. Before that I had always bought a new higher-end DF every couple of years. I've had Klein, Le Mond, Specialized and Cannondale with the best component groups and wheels I could buy. The Corsa is faster, while also being a lot more comfortable.

I'd love to try one out some day, without a salesman breathing down my neck. I did spend an hour riding an LWB recumbent about 3 years ago. At the time, I was convinced I was not going to be able to ride a conventional road bike because of degeneration in my neck vertebrae. The LWB was a real disappointment to me. While it was comfortable, it felt like I was driving a train, instead of riding a bicycle. I am sure that impression would change a bit after a few hundred miles, but I still think it would be more "cruiser" than "sport". I ended up getting a road bike and have recently upgraded.

For all the talk about speed in trying to compare bikes, that is not in the top criteria for me. I am 60, but still ride with "young" guys. My goal was to be able to ride with them without getting dropped. As long as my conditioning has kept up, I could hang with their 22-24 mph pace lines. But I found myself getting dropped about 35 miles into a 50 mile ride, when they would accelerate away from a stop light. I simply could not accelerate fast enough to get up to speed and remain with the pace line. My most recent upgrade (Cervelo R3) solved that problem. It accelerates significantly easier than any bike I have ever ridden. I also enjoy a bike that handles very well, especially in cornering.

My impression, unbacked by any comparative experience, is that the same rider can go faster on a performance low rider recumbent, but will experience superior acceleration and handling on a performance DF road bike. My priorities are for the latter qualities.

As far as comfort goes, I am all too familiar with the general viewpoint that a road bike is not as comfortable. My experience is that a road bike comfort is very sensitive to good fit and conditioning. If you are lacking on either count, you will suffer. It took me almost 3 years to get the right fit and my conditioning has improved substantially. Fifty mile rides are nothing to me now.

Why do I get the feeling I am writing opinions that have been expressed 100's of time before? I'm sorry for the redundancy, but just felt writing my thoughts.

Bob

If the only bent you've tried is a LWB you need to try a high racer like a Bacchetta or RANS. The difference will be similar to a full size pick-up and a sports car.

As far as acceleration and handling. A high racer handles like a dream. One of the main things you first notice is how quick they steer. Everyone wobbles like a drunk the first few miles. Once you get used to the quick steering the lower center of gravity + the quick steering lets you take turns like an F-1 race car. Acceleration is a slight problem. Since it takes a 1/2 second longer to get my feet to the pedals from a stop the DF riders get 20 feet or so on me. But I can catch them with no problem. Rolling acceleration is about the same.

Comfort can't be compared. A high racer is a rolling back massage. A fast rolling back massage.

acceleration is about power and shifting. I notice most people stand up to get going. but even on my df I just shifted all the way down. I get across the street faster then anyone around me even on my lwb. using gearing will get youg going faster with less effort then power alone.

The only two differences on hills i've noted, one is design-specific.
1: On a recumbent, you can't stand up to slowly grind your way up the hill. You have to spin no matter what. That means you need a gear low enough to spin on any hill you encounter. One of mine is low enough that staying upright is a bit of an issue, but I get up the hill just fine.
2: On my specific design, when I hit grades of say, 40-60%, the front wheel likes to break and spin a bit when I hit the more power parts of my stroke. I manage, but it's annoying and unnerving. This is really only an issue for front wheel drive bents, though.

Your post would have had a lot more credibility if you hadn't shown such an obvious bias through emotional exaggeration in your description. Its BS to talk about a particular bike design causing the rider to miss a pothole so big that it results in flying over the handlebars. That's riding with your head in a dark spot.

Bob

Dear Bob,
I may be emotional due to a good friend who was laid up in a hospital last year after doing an ender over the bars exactly because she was riding in the drops during a cross country tour. I am not biased, however, since I tried to point out defeciencies of both designs. The OP was questioning ability to see traffic from a lowracer position. I tried to point out, with examples, that it depends on the distance to the traffic.

Maaybe you need to lay off the coffee a little.

Hmmm, my Stratus LE IS kinda like driving a train. I'ts probably well over 35 pounds with water and other stuff.
How will we get more people into cycling if we tell them that they must spend more money for that perfect fit and three years at the gym exercising? No amount of fitness/exercise will keep the wrists from pain when there is pressure on them. Can I climb as well on this bike? No, but I can use my wrists after a 50 mile ride, and when the hemerrhoids are acting up a bit from the coumadin, I can still sit on the seat.

No, it's the engine not the bike!

2: On my specific design, when I hit grades of say, 40-60%, the front wheel likes to break and spin a bit when I hit the more power parts of my stroke. I manage, but it's annoying and unnerving. This is really only an issue for front wheel drive bents, though.

More power to you if you can go up a 40-60% grade. I am not capable. Where do such grades exist?

How will we get more people into cycling if we tell them that they must spend more money for that perfect fit and three years at the gym exercising? No amount of fitness/exercise will keep the wrists from pain when there is pressure on them. Can I climb as well on this bike? No, but I can use my wrists after a 50 mile ride, and when the hemerrhoids are acting up a bit from the coumadin, I can still sit on the seat.

Core strength development and riding style absolutely will keep pressure off the hands. Riders who lean on their hands and sag on their seat suffer immensely. Its just like sitting at a desk with poor posture will lead to issues. You have to have good posture on a DF bike to be able to be comfortable.

I can use my hands and do not have hemorrhoid issues after 100 miles. I am tired for sure.

It took me a year to achieve the level of fitness I have. The next two years have been spent maintaining it.

Where did this discussion get into recruiting people into cycling? I must have missed that part of the discussion.

Bob

I may be emotional due to a good friend who was laid up in a hospital last year after doing an ender over the bars exactly because she was riding in the drops during a cross country tour. I am not biased, however, since I tried to point out defeciencies of both designs.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I've just not experienced the inability to see ahead that you talk about. My brake hoods are 3 1/2" below the seat and I can see ahead without a problem. I did remove the visor on my helmet- that part does not work. My neck flexibility is much higher than when I started riding a road bike and that might explain it - my body adapted. But that's my own experience. I'm not saying its representative of a majority of the bike riding populace. In face most of the DF riders I see have the hoods at or slightly below the level of their seat.

Bob

acceleration is about power and shifting. I notice most people stand up to get going. but even on my df I just shifted all the way down. I get across the street faster then anyone around me even on my lwb. using gearing will get youg going faster with less effort then power alone.

It'll get you across the street quicker. But the crowd I try to keep up with will leave you in the dust by the end of the first block. I'm sneaky. I coast the head of the line at a stop light and jump before the guys in the rear can get going. When they catch me, I'm already up to paceline speed and they have no need to power past me.

Bob

As far as comfort goes, I am all too familiar with the general viewpoint that a road bike is not as comfortable. My experience is that a road bike comfort is very sensitive to good fit and conditioning. If you are lacking on either count, you will suffer. It took me almost 3 years to get the right fit and my conditioning has improved substantially. Fifty mile rides are nothing to me now.

Why do I get the feeling I am writing opinions that have been expressed 100's of time before? I'm sorry for the redundancy, but just felt writing my thoughts.



First of all whatever bike works for a rider is the right one. I have friends who ride beautiful, mid-high-end CF upright bikes that weigh next to nothing compared to my bikes. They love their bikes. I'm jealous of the light weight. %^) But I don't think their bike is better than mine, for me. Or mine for them.

I don't take you comments as an attack on recumbents or recumbent riders. And there is a Rodney Daingerfield respect effect by recumbent riders. But there is an element of indirect critisism, that recumbents are for people "not fit or fitted" to ride uprights. That *all* ergonomic and comfort issues of upright bikes are *just* a matter of lack of proper fit or lack of fitness of the rider.

Recumbent bikes can be efficient and inefficient. Upright bikes can be effcient and inefficient.

What is arguably the most *ineffecient* of the recumbents I own is also in some ways the most fun to ride. It's certainly the most practical, dare I say efficient for running short errands. What is that about? A bike ride not about keeping up with the Jones? %^)

I'm not a club/team/paceline rider, never have been. I would hazard to guess that few recumbent riders are. For that matter, few of the general population of upright cyclists are competitive/club riders. Most bicycle use wolrd wide is utilitarian. I ride recumbents recreationally and for fitness, utility and touring. My riding partners are almost all upright riders. We may draft a bit, informally, if the headwind is strong. We're generally riding side-by-side or a few yards ahead/behind.

I'm probably not "fit" to ride an upright bike. So since I can keep up with upright riders, perhap better fitness, certainly younger, with similar distance and speed goals, I tend to think that my recumbent bikes may be slightly more efficient overall for the type or riding I do. Anecdotal, case in point: I was riding with two friends. Me on my Voale (650x650) "high-racer" recumbent. One friend on his Bacchetta (700x700) "high-racer". The other on his upright road bike. We were going down a very gentle slope into a moderate headwind and my recumbent friend and I are coasting. My upright friend was pedalling to keep up.

All bike designs are compromises. Ride what works for you. "A bad day on the bike is better than a good day in the office." (Last time I said that out loud while riding, I broke a spoke within 2 minutes!) %^)

Jon

"We were going down a very gentle slope into a moderate headwind and my recumbent friend and I are coasting. My upright friend was pedalling to keep up." (jonmein)

Advantage: Recumbent

Where did this discussion get into recruiting people into cycling? I must have missed that part of the discussion.

Bob

It's always in the mix, and the requirements you state are some of the things that turn off people thinking about riding bicycles.

It's always in the mix, and the requirements you state are some of the things that turn off people thinking about riding bicycles.

...and so it goes. Lots of people get into and become avid about riding all kinds of bikes. Riding any kind of a bike requires some will and has some learning curve. Some people just don't have the desire or the time to put into it. I don't think its because of comments from anyone in particular. I"m glad there is a wide variety of bike forms available. I love to see anyone having fun and having a positive attitude about it, no matter what they ride.

Bob

"We were going down a very gentle slope into a moderate headwind and my recumbent friend and I are coasting. My upright friend was pedalling to keep up." (jonmein)

Advantage: Recumbent

You win. So what.

But I don't think their bike is better than mine, for me. Or mine for them.

I don't take you comments as an attack on recumbents or recumbent riders.

Thanks for the balanced discussion. In fact, there is no such thing as a typical "recumbent rider" or typical "DF bike rider". There are stereotypes in people's minds. And some people seem to have to prove and argue some point about better than or worse than. That's wasted discussion.

Bob

You win. So what.

Kind of like riding a tandem; my wife and I can fly past fitter folks on singles if the terrain is right. Great fun but doesn't mean much in the overall scheme of things.
It's all bicycling - it's all good.

Recumbents are a ton of fun. So are DF road bikes. So are mountain bikes. I love my recumbent trike too. On my fuji cross 50 miles was easy too, 70 miles and I started noticing various discomforts. I don't have the same issues on my recumbents. In fact each of my bikes behaves differently as you push up the milage.

At the moment I have the most fun on my recumbents and I sold my fuji cross. My Corsa hi-racer is great fun, fast and comfortable. I am also going to pick up a lowracer in 2009 (probably a raptobike).

Regarding the OP's question, recumbents are not inefficient. In fact they are quite efficient and fun to ride. I love all of my bikes and am happy to see anyone ride any bike.

I love my Low Racer bike. This has to be the ultimate bike. This bike is FAST, real FAST. Even though I am old, out of shape, over weight, I can pass the young guys on my low racer bike on a flat road and down hill. The big advantage to the low racer is everyone that sees you wants to stop and talk and ask questions. I will stop and talk to the attractive ladies as long as they like. The down side to this bike is, it takes practice to ride but once you get use to it you will never want to ride anything different. Visibality is different on the low racer you have to get use to it and you have to keep a closer eye on the road. Sand, gravel, mud, wet leaves, ice, water are all several times more likely to wreck you on a low racer than an up right bike.


Hey Crash2Much,

Got my Lowracer this late summer. I also feel it is the most comfortable fun filled ride out there. Have not spent siginificant time on an upright in years. Have been riding a SWB duel 20" Trek R200 and then a 26" AB Hiracer before getting the LowRacer.

Your assessment of wrecking on a LowRacer on wet/slippery road conditions has left me a little concerned. Have really not had this bike out on those conditions. What do you think the factors are which raises the probability? Weight distribution, length of bike, low center of gravity??? Does riding a LowRacer have something to do with your forum name?

Would putting wider tires on a LowRacer help in slippery conditions. Is it really that much significantly hazardous on wet conditions than a narrow tired upright roadbike?

Karjak

Crash2Much has reported trikes as too hard to ride without crashing, I would not worry to much, yes the front wheel can washout on slippery surfaces (all 2 wheelers can, bents are probaly more prone to it due to not be able to us body weight to recover) but look how far you have to fall. :)

I think geebee's got it. Uprights balance mostly by using body english, and bents balance mostly by steering. In wet, just slow down for corners; because recovering from a slide will be more difficult with your feet in the air and your butt glued to the seat. In slippery, icy stuff, I use an upright. As far as trikes go, very few trikes lean; but that doesn't mean the rider doesn't have to. Sitting upright in a tight fast turn is a good way to get flipped out. In HPRA races, the riders will lean so far to the inside that they have to stop pedaling.

At the moment I have the most fun on my recumbents and I sold my fuji cross. My Corsa hi-racer is great fun, fast and comfortable. I am also going to pick up a lowracer in 2009 (probably a raptobike).



Please give us a report if you get a raptobike!
Mark

Uprights balance mostly by using body english, and bents balance mostly by steering.
[...]
recovering from a slide will be more difficult with your feet in the air and your butt glued to the seat.

> and bents balance mostly by steering

Not in my experience. Above "stall speed" balance is mainly body position for me. With experience, steering input becomes less necessary even at stall speed and stall speed becomes slower.

> recovering from a slide

The "correction" time for recovering is indeed lower on recumbents. All of my "leave a mark" recumbent falls have been front wheel traction loss on slippery or loose surfaces. All were "instantaneous".

You win. So what.

Not trying to "win" only offering an example of a recumbent efficiency...

Another "efficiency" is in non-bike specific clothing choices. %^) Padded shorts? I haven't owned a pair in more than a decade. Or a bike jersey, for that matter, but that's not a recumbent issue.

Of course, recumbents are generally less efficient in cost compared to low-mid priced upright bikes! $$$

And for some of us difficult to own just one. %^)

Jon

Not trying to "win" only offering an example of a recumbent efficiency...

Ok, if you're going to give one-off non-scientific comparisons, I'm going to challenge it. In general a recumbent will have lower wind resistance than an upright. But you have to compare apples to apples. I pass other riders going downhill all the time, sometimes getting up to 3-4 mph faster and that's coasting. I ride Cervelo - there I just proved Cervelos are faster than other bikes. Right?

Wrong.

Let's look at some of the factors. I am heavier than many of the other riders (more downhill force). My wheels are generally higher quality than the average upright bike. Lastly, I like to put my hands in drops and tuck down flat when I am coasting downhill. Most other riders don't do that. That's a huge change in wind resistance. Invariablly I have to brake going downhilll to keep from running over other riders, or pull out wide to the left and zoom past them.

So in your comparison, how did your weight compare to the upright rider? Were they in the drops or riding with their hands on the hoods? How was the quality of their bike compared to yours? I read about riders on here riding low racers and high racers. Those are high end recumbents aren't they? A lot of upright riders are riding aluminum frames with low end wheels. What kind of recumbent were you and your buddy riding, when you blew past the upright rider?

Bob

Ok, if you're going to give one-off non-scientific comparisons, I'm going to challenge it.

In general a recumbent will have lower wind resistance than an upright.


I clearly identified my example as anecdotal. But you seem to recognize the observed effect may be due in part to an aerodynamic advantage. I don't know how up to date/accurate this speed/power calculator is, but it is interesting when the issue of "efficiency" is raised. Air resistance increases with the square of speed, right?

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm



I read about riders on here riding low racers and high racers. Those are high end recumbents aren't they? A lot of upright riders are riding aluminum frames with low end wheels. What kind of recumbent were you and your buddy riding, when you blew past the upright rider?


Please cite where I claimed to "blow past" anyone. You are projecting a claim I have not made. And no, bikes such as my Volae model are not high-end recumbents, not even close. High-racer refers to a fairly broad category of dual "large" (26/650/700) wheel SWB (short wheel base) recumbents. My bike would probably be considered a low-mid-level price and performance model.

Interesting you mention "drops and tucks". Another possible efficiency advantage for some recumbents is that the riding position by default may offer somewhat smaller frontal profile. This clearly isn't necessarily the case for all recumbent designs. The seat recline on my Volae isn't extreme, but it offers a smaller profile than my Tour Easy, or BikeE (very upright). I do have a front fairing on my Tour Easy.

Jon