How long to bend my legs?

[tonycollinet]

I've done 150 miles on the trike now, and while things are improving, I recognise there is still a way to go.

So how long (distance) does it typically take to get bent legs?

[Kim]

I'd done just short of 2000 miles before the Dun Run, and they still weren't quite there yet.  (I was about as fast as on an upwrong, but really feeling it in the leg muscles at that point.)

[arallsopp]

It may depend on how often you ride, the type of ride you do, and whether you're switching between DF and trike, or any other sport.

From my experience, it took me about 10 round trip commutes (350 miles) to be able to push confidently enough to begin really developing muscles. With 2 days at home per week, the rest days saw the most improvement, and I hit the beginning of each new week a little stronger.

By the time I was up to the thousand, things were pretty much good. They're still getting better, some 17k miles later.

[tonycollinet]

Ok - clearly am going to need to put more miles in.

Need to start getting it out for the commute then, 2 or 3 days a week.

[redshift]

I bought Speedy in the summer(ish) of 2001, and rode little else on the commute for at least 5 years.  It took me something over the first 1000 to get the primary legs, but the good/smooth pedal cadence/action took longer - more like the second thousand.  For me, it was a subtle distinction:  I suddenly realised that I was much more relaxed around the knee joints, without realising precisely when it had happened.

[henshaw11]

I only really started riding my SPM regularly last summer - mebbe an average 2 or 3 commutes a week from may - october, 25+ miles round trip. So I guess that's getting on for 2000 miles...my speed's definitely increased in that time, and my spin rate's got higher - probably through getaways at a few junctions on my commute.

Tho' trying to elevate my speed much - or after a break of a few weeks - feels like doing leg-presses, compared to riding a DF (where the effort seems more distributed over quads/hamstrings). I'm still relatively crap on hills - my normal hill-training on the df would be just to push way harder on the flat  (=leg presses on the 'bent)

By comparison, I got back on the mtb just before christmas having not ridden it much for 12 months, and didn't feel like I'd lost any speed. I suspect time on the 'bent transfers to the df somewhat better than t'other way round..

I keep meaning to get some sort of computer on the thing - it feels like I'm doing about the same speed as on the mtb (slicks kinda speed, on pumped-up knobblies), tho' I've had the occasional roadie comment about being fairly quick on it...before slowly pulling ahead..bugger !

[mAsTa RiDaH]

Roughly 800 miles.

[Tigerbiten]

It may depend on how often you ride, the type of ride you do, and whether you're switching between DF and trike, or any other sport.

From my experience, it took me about 10 round trip commutes (350 miles) to be able to push confidently enough to begin really developing muscles. With 2 days at home per week, the rest days saw the most improvement, and I hit the beginning of each new week a little stronger.

By the time I was up to the thousand, things were pretty much good. They're still getting better, some 17k miles later.

+1 to all this apart from I'm only upto 9k miles.

What really improved my bent legs was going on tour on my Trice Q.
The increased weight from all my camping kit, plus increased mileage, plus more days per week cycling made the most difference.

Luck ........

[EdinburghFixed]

For what it's worth, I've maybe 4000 miles in my legs now and still don't feel it's really "there".

Certainly under 1000 miles and you can be confident there's more to gain...

[Wendy]

I still feel I'm getting better, I have some 30-40k km on my recumbents.

[tonycollinet]

Short update - 270 miles in, and I've progressed from "This hurts" to merely "bloody hard work" 

Only another 750 miles or so to get to " "

[Wothill]

It's interesting that recumbent riders all think there is enough of a difference in pedalling a recumbent that it takes a (long) while to adapt apart from the relatively straightforward bit of making the thing stay upright, that is. I am not really doubting that is true but it strikes me that there isn't a great basis for it and the pedalling action is pretty well indistinguishable. On the face of it, the differences are in the much reduced bend at the hips; the fact that you can't stand up and put your weight on the pedals; and that there isn't much to be gained by pulling on your arms. It may be that a combination of those differences ends up meaning that you can use your back muscles much less on a recumbent than on an upright. It's just a thought, but if there is anything in it, it would mean that getting your bent legs amounted to having to rely on your leg muscles more than on an upright; ie your back muscles don't come into it.

[tonycollinet]

There are all sorts of differences. You've mentioned a couple (inability to stand up/only legs are used). Others I am aware of:

Your legs are horizontal - possibly blood flow has an impact.
Gravity acts to pull your legs down, and hence tends to cause you to push on the pedal without muscular effort. (more so than on an upright, because of the leverage advantage from straightening the leg at the knee - not explained very well, but hopefully you understand what I mean) It becomes more important to actively fight this, and pull back on the pedal.

I am sure there are others. One thing I know from my limited experience is that there can be some pain at first. I am convinced that this is muscles not used in upright pedalling are now being brought into play - but in a system where there are already powerful muscles in place from 3 years of daily cycling.

[Wothill]

Gravity acts to pull your legs down, and hence tends to cause you to push on the pedal without muscular effort.

Surely if one leg is going up, the other is going down so there isn't any net effort against gravity?

I am sure there are others. One thing I know from my limited experience is that there can be some pain at first. I am convinced that this is muscles not used in upright pedalling are now being brought into play - but in a system where there are already powerful muscles in place from 3 years of daily cycling.

I can't say there aren't any new muscles involved but I can't think what they might be.

[tonycollinet]

1 - the problem is the gravity on the upward leg. It creates a strong push against the pedal, significantly conflicting with the active leg. Result is increased pressure/force in both legs for the same effort - if you don't actively pull back.

2 - for the first couple of hundred miles, I've had intermittent pain around knee, shins calves and ankles. I can't say for certain it is muscular - but it IS something.

[ruggtomcat]

You also dont push against anything (except gravity) on a DF. Thats got to recruit a different muscle set.

[henshaw11]

>but it strikes me that there isn't a great basis for it and the pedalling action is pretty well indistinguishable. On the face of it, the differences are in the much reduced bend at the hips; the fact that you can't stand up and put your weight on the pedals; and that there isn't much to be gained by pulling on your arms. It may be that a combination of those differences ends up meaning that you can use your back muscles much less on a recumbent than on an upright. It's just a thought, but if there is anything in it, it would mean that getting your bent legs amounted to having to rely on your leg muscles more than on an upright; ie your back muscles don't come into it.

I think you pretty much answered your own question.

If I'm riding an mtb, to put more power down I find it's easier if I drop my shoulders - closing up even more. Riding something more upright/open - eg full-sus, gym bike or a jump bike - admittedly the later hasn't got spds, and I'm too old to jump - seems harder to put more effort in. I imagine the back/core is part of it, whether through stabilising everything or some other connectivity, but one area I notice I can work hard on the mtb (and harder the more closed I am) is the hamstrings (or glutes if I think about it). Possibly the very different range of motion is a large part the issue.

The same effort on the 'bent just seems to hit the bottom end of the muscle to the upper/inside of the knee (vastus medialis).
'Course, if could be that, that area of the quads is taking a while to catch up and when it has, the hamstrings might then have more of a part to play.

How does that compare for anyone with a *lot* more 'bent miles on their legs ?

[Tigerbiten]

I admit it been over 20 years since I was fit on an upwrong but my take on it is .........

Riding a bent, I don't think you can use your gluteals as much as you can on a DF.
So you rely more on your quads, hence needing bent legs.

The reason being that on the bent, I can max out and blow the legs before I can max out and blow my breathing/heart. I can get close but the legs always go first.
Whereas on a DF, I found it much more 50-50 as to where the legs would go before the breathing/heart when working hard.
Because I cannot hit such a bad oxygen debt, I think my max sustained power output must be slightly lower.
The only major muscle group I can see working different is the gluteals.
You sit on them on a bent, they are free to work on a DF.

Just my £0.02 worth ........ 

[Wendy]

My impression is that your glutes work more on a recumbent, not less.  I'm pretty sure I remember people posting as such when I first got a recumbent, too.  Certainly I get sore muscles when riding longer/harder than usual (ooh errr), and I've never had that same pain in the glutes from riding an upright.

My impression is that sustained power delivery on a recumbent is limited a little partly by position (i.e. more open than an upright) and partly because blood flow isn't as good with your legs mostly horizontal.

[Wothill]

I quite like the gluts idea. My knowledge of anatomy is pretty rudimentary but I think they connect to the upper body whereas quads are purely leg muscles. That being so, the gluts might well be in action on a DF when you work hard and pull on the bars, use your back etc. We need a physio to analyse it!

Another thing that could be fairly easily resolved now would be the question of how much power you can put out on a bent compared with a DF. You just need one of these power meters and get the same rider to test it. Despite not having done much on a DF for a few years now, I am pretty sure I still go uphill faster (even after equalising the weight) and that would be shown by a power meter. Pity I am unlikely ever to buy one!

[Jedrik]

Another thing that could be fairly easily resolved now would be the question of how much power you can put out on a bent compared with a DF. You just need one of these power meters and get the same rider to test it. Despite not having done much on a DF for a few years now, I am pretty sure I still go uphill faster (even after equalising the weight) and that would be shown by a power meter. Pity I am unlikely ever to buy one!

It has been done. I found a few links in a discussion on Bentrideronline about why recumbents don't climb as well as uprights, that might contain useful information in this respect:
http://people.msoe.edu/~eckersoa/cadence/documents/me491%20-%20FINAL%20design%20report.pdf
http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/46-v13n3-1998.pdf

There was one rider, a triathlete, who claimed that in watts he got about 10% less power on the cranks than on his DF, but his speed on the recumbent was still higher on the same course (in a competition).
I can well believe that because I got much better at climbing with my DF since I ride a recumbent. Not with the recumbent, though. 

Another thing: Obviously it is not as easy to breathe lying down as it is when upright. That came up in a least one other thread there.
From personal experience: Up to now I mostly run out of strength before I had that feeling that oxygen was scarce I get when climbing on the DF.

[Mr Larrington]

There was one rider, a triathlete, who claimed that in watts he got about 10% less power on the cranks than on his DF, but his speed on the recumbent was still higher on the same course (in a competition).
I can well believe that because I got much better at climbing with my DF since I ride a recumbent. Not with the recumbent, though.  

Sam Whittingham once said his peak power on a track bike was of the order of 2000 W whereas in the Varna it was about 1100.

[PaulM]

I can't climb out of the saddle on a DF, but even so the bottom gear I need/use is about 33% higher than on a recumbent so I guess that means I only produce around 75% of the power on a recumbent.

[nashd]

I’m beginning to feel a bit despondent about my lack of bent legs! 

Since recently making the switch to using a recumbent, I’ve ridden about 1500 miles on my Windcheetah.  In the couple of years prior to that I also rode upwards of a couple of hundred miles on it, plus a few hundred on a LWB recumbent.  I’d hoped to be seeing some improvement by now, but it’s still a thought to go out on the contraption!  In fact, the only good things I can say about the trike (I have a long list of its negative qualities!)  is that it doesn’t get blown off course in strong side winds, and I don’t have to unclip when I come to stop.  I couldn’t say either of those things about the LWB! 

It just feels like every pedal stroke is taking a lot more effort than the equivalent on a normal bike.  I’m not always slow – with a tailwind I can spin along at 25 – 30mph, but it’s still a struggle, and there’s never that feeling of effortless gliding.  Into a headwind I find myself grimacing and groaning, and wondering where the aerodynamic advantage I’d read about has disappeared to.  On a normal bike I’d just get my head down and pedal away without feeling any sensation in my legs.  Even on the descents I’m not sure there’s much advantage – I’ve hit almost 40mph a few times on one local hill, and it felt even faster than that.  When I later descended the same hill on a road bike, even though I wasn’t hunched up in a full aero-tuck I still managed 37.5mph (a mere 2mph slower than the trike). 

I rode a 200k a couple of weeks ago, and was the last man back, and the ride was an exercise in survival.  On Saturday I rode about 40miles (with some steady climbing), and the final eight miles or so were sheer purgatory. I’d hoped to manage a DIY 200k in mid-March, building up to a full SR series later in the year, but I don’t think I’m going to be up to it! 

I’ll keep putting the miles in, hoping my body contorts itself into becoming a recumbent power house, and generally see how things progress.  I suppose it might be the wrong machine for the job (or for me) but I’m not confident I’d fare much better on another type of recumbent.
 

[Tigerbiten]

I’m beginning to feel a bit despondent about my lack of bent legs! 

........... snip ...............

I’ll keep putting the miles in, hoping my body contorts itself into becoming a recumbent power house, and generally see how things progress.  I suppose it might be the wrong machine for the job (or for me) but I’m not confident I’d fare much better on another type of recumbent.

Remember that a bent trike is around 10-15% slower than a bent two wheeler.
You have greater rolling resistance, wind resistance and weight to overcome.

The best thing to add if you want to go faster is an aero tail-box.
That will give you ~5-8% increase in speed.
Which is about double what a front fairing will give.