Should I cross to The Dark Side?

[PloddinPedro]

Thanks Jedrik. It sounds as though you've really had to do the hard miles to get where you are!

As I said upthread, in my heart-of-heart I know that whichever direction I eventually go, I have to do the 'training' (spit!)  So for the time being, I'm going to focus on that and see if anything improves and then reassess things next year - I know it can't be quick.

Thanks everyone for all the input.

[Mr Fitz]

My tuppenceworth....

I started riding (home-built) bents after a MTB crash ripped my shoulder ligaments and made it hard to support my weight on my DF bike handlebars.  As Kim has noted, the bike you can ride is better than the one you can't.  If, one day, you find that it's just too much wear and tear on your (our!) aging body to go long distances on any DF, then a recumbent may be the solution.

But as others have noted, don't expect magic performance increases just from being laid back.  Dave McCraw ( http://mccraw.co.uk/raptomid-power-comparison/ ) measured DF and bent speeds at several power inputs and found that - on the flat - he used 250W on his DF to go the same speed as his bent using only 150W.  That's the benefit of better aerodynamics for you, but you won't get that kind of benefit if you only cruise along at 15km/h averages.

Kim mentioned the ratio of 1000m climb per 100km.  I chatted to an experienced German darksider, Reiner, on LEL, and he too proposed that ratio of "hillyness" as the point of equality between a DF and a bent.  If it's less hilly than that, for a typical rider, the bent will be a bit faster over the distance.  More hilly, and the climbs take their toll, so the DF dominates.   I would say that ratio is spot on, in my experience. 

LEL was a tad under that ratio (12000m for 1400km) and I'm sure I was faster than I would have been on my DF.  However, more importantly, I made it to the finish on my bent whereas I think contact point and back/neck issues would have sidelined me way before then on my DF.  It's all about the bike you can ride.....!

I'd say, don't expect magic performance benefits just from going to the darkside.  You will also need to accept a "running-in" period where your legs adapt to the different demands on their muscle groups, and this can add new pains in different places for a while until you have adapted. 

What you should expect, however, is a ride which hurts the body less over long distances and which is quite simply a different riding experience.  I agree with others about the better comfort, but - for me - the greatest pleasure over a DF is the vastly improved view while riding.  No more staring at the tarmac beyond your front wheel; even when pushing hard you can appreciate the scenery around you.  After nearly 3 years of bent riding I still often find myself spontaneously shouting to the heavens "THIS IS SO F***ING GOOOOOOOD!".  I got a great buzz from riding my DF bike, but I never shouted out like that!

If you're still tempted, take the wise advice and try out several models.  As others have noted, all bents are not the same!  The higher performers are generally harder to handle for beginners, and the easier to ride bikes are often not as fast.  In general, easy = lower bottom bracket and more upright seat, while faster = the opposite.  You might be best to buy a cheap second hand "easy" bent to get familiar with the experience, and then trade it in for a racier model when you fell ready.

Nothing ventured.....!

[PloddinPedro]

Thanks for that Mr Fitz. All good points and duly noted.

[windmiller]

You sit in a recumbent rather than on. The experience is totally different to riding an upright bicycle.
Superior riding skills are required especially while riding in the city, hill starts, junctions, positional awareness etc.
You can ride further and faster on a recumbent because you are less fatigued. It's also safer because you are lower to the ground and it's very unlikely you will  be sent flying over the bars. Other traffic notices you more so gives you a much wider berth while passing.

[Wobbly John]

If you are trying recumbents out, remember, what is comfortable for a short ride will not neccessarily be comfortable for a longer one - a bit like a DF.

I thought one of the recumbents I built was fine, but when I rode it for more than an hour, I got a bruised vertibra. 

A dealer like Dtek will probably let you have a bike for an extended test if you seem committed to buying.

[Tigerrr]

The view - you can study what the red kites are doing.  And look at the horizon without lifting your head.  Lovely.

[Kim]

The view - you can study what the red kites are doing.  And look at the horizon without lifting your head.  Lovely.

And ride into the pylons on the Humber Bridge while admiring how tall they are (DAHIKT).

[clarion]

How do you know this?

[recumbentim]

  SPEED- 20 years ago I tried a road bike and the bent was faster . Now I wont consider an upright with my 55mph decents and my 22mph commutes , both only one off records mind you .
  AUDAX- done this for a while but only a lot for 6 yrs . Started audax because of the recumbent and could not do one without it.
  COMFORT- This is the key for me to ENJOYMENT that you and the others have touched on Pedro . It may be a short run or the 4th day of a 1200k or the 8th day of a tour but if you get a bent that fits you will be more comfortable. You may not be faster overall but its about enjoyment remember!

[tom_e]

I've done a bit over 200 on both upright and bent.  I'd say it's a pretty similar activity myself, it's not really about the bike. 

As to whether you can gain enough of a performance advantage to make a difference on longer rides, I'd say fairly certainly yes if you are happy to do long flat rides and buy a performance bike as already said.  If you enjoy a bit more scenery then perhaps less so and at some point on that uphill scale you will probably lose ground, depending on your bike and you.  Think of the rides you have enjoyed most or would like to do, what are they like?

Comfort wise, I've never been uncomfortable on an upright to be honest, but the bent is nicer.  Like comparing a wooden dining chair with a sofa.  I'd get on and use either without complaining, but there's no real comparison.

If you're enjoying the ride but not the time limits then consider alternatives - perm without validating or just other long rides and forget the clock?  No point killing yourself for 15kph if you might enjoy it a little slower.  There are a fair number of riders about who are very capable on a long ride, but not necessarily fast.

And / or go look into that whole training and weight thing.

[tom_e]

But the deficiencies of the engine are such that I still need more speed! Actually, if I analyse it thoroughly, I could probably get away with more comfort. More comfort would mean less dropping off in speed over the longer distances, which is where I'm deficient. Even after having optimised my position, I still suffer from damage to hands and to a degree, perineum.

My logic is that if I could get onto a recumbent without adding too much weight to the bike c.f. my DF upright, the added comfort on backside and hands would tip the whole comparison in favour of the 'bent sufficient to gain enough speed/time to sleep decently on longer Audaxes.

I'm not convinced, unfortunately - I think the dropping in speed is general knackeredness, and occurs across other long distance sports without needing pain or discomfort from an upright bike.  On the other hand you might find if you are comfy and nothing hurts then you can continue easier without needing more sleep?

[Nethypete]

For what it's worth - I switched to a recumbent in March for comfort reasons and no other. Did a lot a research and, because no one bike does it all, I purchased a compromise for touring and Audax, a Bacchetta Giro 26.

It took 15 mins to learn to ride badly and 1,000 mls before I stopped thinking about riding and worrying on hills and at starts. At times I had to believe that this was the right move.

Now done four 200's and a 300 plus 1100km tour in France towing a heavy trailer. Comfort is fantastic but what's surprising is that my speed on longer rides has improved. I was never a fast climber so the difference isn't huge but it's too simplistic to say recumbents are slower uphill....for example with a good run in you can carry a huge amount of speed uphill but from standstill it can be quite different. I live in the Cairngorms so there are one or two hills around. I did massively lower the front chain rings to 48,36,26 to give me and my knees a chance.

I think that the improved speed on long runs is partly due to the aerodynamics, meaning you use less power, and the comfort - the combination makes for a more consistent average. No two long rides are the same but to knock 3.5 hours off a 300 really surprised me.

Everything people say about being noticed is true and I'm 'cool' for the first time ever with my daughters friends...it won't last.

Things I hate - no-where to carry a map that you can read and it is lethal anywhere near ice...but at nearly 6,000km I'm a convert.

[Kim]

Things I hate - no-where to carry a map that you can read and it is lethal anywhere near ice...but at nearly 6,000km I'm a convert.

Agreed about the map thing.  Riding a USS 'bent has made me rely on the Garmin far more than I would otherwise.  Which is fine if you trust your GPS.

As for ice, while a bruised hip and elbow is probably preferable to a broken collar bone, this is one of those problems for which n+1 is the solution.  Three wheels may be slower and more annoying to store/transport, you're not going to fall off a recumbent trike (unless you *really* try).

[Quint]

Barbara did one and a half barrel rolls once, there again it was on a Catrike (one of the ones proven to have c**p steering, mind so did the replacement from the factory), the dent in her head was quite impressive as was the Campagnolo chainset imprint on her inner calf. Humpty tum 

[Kim]

Yes, and I'm sure someone will be along with that photo from the North Birmingham forum ride shortly...   

[Quint]

Ah   

[Quint]

'bents that are any good are rediculously expensive.

                     No, they are not, you can buy cheap(er) than a D-tek special (ICE) but then if you do problems can occur.
                     I remember saying to Kevin (oh such a long time ago) when Barbara went for a foreign make, he replied "when you need help/spares/etc I or ICE are a phone call/e-mail away and one of us will be able to help, buy a foreign machine this well may not be the case, it wasn't.
                     Sadly he was proved right all to quickly and who did I run to for advice (foreign - not bought from him) yup The Oracle came through.
                     Price. My first trike was second hand, an ICE Q-NT, upon re sale five years later with a several thousand on the clock I got £100 less than I paid for it, old saying "Quality will out"

[Kim]

Price. My first trike was second hand, an ICE Q-NT, upon re sale five years later with a several thousand on the clock I got £100 less than I paid for it, old saying "Quality will out"

I think it's more the case that any decent recumbent will hold its second hand value reasonably well.  Which isn't to say that they aren't eye-wateringly expensive when new, but a lot of that is because there isn't a lot of money to be made in churning out recumbent-shaped objects, so they tend to the higher spec end of things component-wise anyway.

Of course the trick is finding the second hand deals, and knowing what you want.  That tends to mean getting lucky with the forums, hanging around with dirty darksiders, or dealing with D-Tek.

[revrob]

Well I have just crossed!!! - ICE QNT fron 2007

A bit strange for a vicar - crossing to the dark side - but Mrs. Revrob sanctioned the purchase (somewhat relunctantly!)


I've done 65 miles in total so far - and am getting used to winching my way up certain hills here in NW Wales!

It is very different - I can look at the landscape around in from a moving deckchair, and with the excellent view of my chainset, I can trim my front mech to wherever I want it!!

I'm hoping to do some audaxing on it eventually.

I'd been hankering for a while, and this one sold on ebay, but then reappeared on Gumtree the following day. There was a genuine explanation, and I was quick enough off the blocks.

Do it - you won't regret it, especially when you come to a long descent, especially one with corners - Oh boy!!!

[EdinburghFixed]

With regards to climbing / long distance work, I think there's a key point to bear in mind which hasn't been prominent in the topic so far.

Talking independently of time, the energy cost of climbing on a recumbent which is a few kilos heavier than an upright bike is not that much. Say it increases your kerb weight by ~5%, each 100kcal hill will cost you 105kcal to climb once you've gone laid back.

On the other hand, your ability to generate those ~100kcal in a given time will be significantly compromised, even after extensive training.

I cracked out a Strava segment of almost eight minutes at 379W recently (upright). I'd be pleased to hold 250W on the recumbent for the same period. Maybe if I trained I could lift that somewhat, but it's not too significant since the amount of time I can ride at 379W is so limited anyway. So, you can't keep up with riders putting out higher power figures, but that doesn't mean that you're "spending" the same power for less value. You're just going less fast for less effort. (Energy effort being quite different from the pain you may perceive trying to put out those limited watts!)

On the other hand, all round the course I am gaining a significant (50-100W) advantage when unconstrained by gradient. You're on the road for at least 50 hours when riding PBP so this racks up to be an eye-popping advantage calorie-wise.

The lower power requirement means less fatigue, less need to force-feed yourself crap, it's better for your knees, etc. etc.

You've obviously avoided the fatal trap of thinking that the bike is responsible for the performance you see in others. However that doesn't mean the advantages to you as an individual won't be very significant.

[EdinburghFixed]

Regarding specific models and pitfalls: I strongly recommend that you avoid anything with more than two wheels and anything with suspension.

You want to avoid a rack, instead using a Radical seat-back bag (or possibly side-panniers if these are needed to avoid the back wheel, i.e. a lowracer).

There are lovely models available which break these rules but they definitely require an investment from the rider in exchange. I've done 600km on three different bents and 300km on four and I'd say there is a stand-out winner, the exact model (High Baron) not being as important as the characteristics of rigidity, laid-backness, and "no extras". The lack of suspension is not a big deal for me when the whole experience of audax has so many other discomforts - I'd just use a wider tyre, say 28mm. If you consider that you'd happily have your arse hammered by an unsuspended saddle, spreading that over your whole back already makes it not much of a deal, comfort-wise.

With the benefit of hard miles to teach the lesson, I now feel that a large front wheel is a worthwhile advantage over the lowracer style, despite the downsides of a higher bike. However this is not a primary concern IMO, compared to getting a bike you're happy riding.

Haven't even touched on the absolute joy of interacting with traffic from a recumbent. For me, having no worries about being hit by drivers is the ultimate reason I keep coming back to laid-back. There's just nothing like it.

[Kim]

On the other hand, your ability to generate those ~100kcal in a given time will be significantly compromised, even after extensive training.

I cracked out a Strava segment of almost eight minutes at 379W recently (upright). I'd be pleased to hold 250W on the recumbent for the same period. Maybe if I trained I could lift that somewhat, but it's not too significant since the amount of time I can ride at 379W is so limited anyway. So, you can't keep up with riders putting out higher power figures, but that doesn't mean that you're "spending" the same power for less value. You're just going less fast for less effort. (Energy effort being quite different from the pain you may perceive trying to put out those limited watts!)

Is there an official explanation for why that's the case?

Anecdotally I don't find a recumbent makes me significantly slower at climbing for a given all-up weight (indeed, the difficulty of hill starts tends to stop me chickening out as easily, leading to better average speeds), but I'm probably somewhat better trained for the recumbent position and tend to avoid riding flat-out for the benefit of my asthma.  It seems to be regarded as an inherent physiological effect, but I've not come across a convincing argument as to why.  Intuitively, you'd think a laid-back position would improve breathing and circulation.

[Kim]

Haven't even touched on the absolute joy of interacting with traffic from a recumbent. For me, having no worries about being hit by drivers is the ultimate reason I keep coming back to laid-back. There's just nothing like it.

I'll second that.  It's not so much that I feel safer on a recumbent (unless it's icy, in which case the trike wins - no question).  Indeed, many people might assert the exact opposite.  It's the way that every time I get back on an upright bike I have to re-adjust to the feeling that I'm invisible and that some of the drivers are trying to kill me.  And that's before you think about what happens if you fall off.

[Quint]

Yes I feel bloody vulnerable on an upwrong

[EdinburghFixed]

On the other hand, your ability to generate those ~100kcal in a given time will be significantly compromised, even after extensive training.

I cracked out a Strava segment of almost eight minutes at 379W recently (upright). I'd be pleased to hold 250W on the recumbent for the same period. Maybe if I trained I could lift that somewhat, but it's not too significant since the amount of time I can ride at 379W is so limited anyway. So, you can't keep up with riders putting out higher power figures, but that doesn't mean that you're "spending" the same power for less value. You're just going less fast for less effort. (Energy effort being quite different from the pain you may perceive trying to put out those limited watts!)

Is there an official explanation for why that's the case?

Anecdotally I don't find a recumbent makes me significantly slower at climbing for a given all-up weight (indeed, the difficulty of hill starts tends to stop me chickening out as easily, leading to better average speeds), but I'm probably somewhat better trained for the recumbent position and tend to avoid riding flat-out for the benefit of my asthma.  It seems to be regarded as an inherent physiological effect, but I've not come across a convincing argument as to why.  Intuitively, you'd think a laid-back position would improve breathing and circulation.

Personally I think it's some combination of recruiting fewer muscles and/or the position causing those muscles which are used to be compromised somehow (lots of possibilities - we didn't evolve to do cardio on our backs).

There are other things that might make you slower such as the weight of the bike and/or flex or drivetrain efficiency but I don't think they can account for the differences observed.

For instance I can see a very significant difference in sustained HR across the two platforms (off the top of my head, 10bpm more on an upright than a recumbent, and 10bpm running that I can't get on an upright - something along those lines). This is when I'm going for a short (20-30 minute) all-out effort.