Recumbent bikes aren’t good for mountain riding? Hold my beer...

[Damien]

It's time to bust the myth that recumbent bikes aren't good for mountain riding and confront the opinion that the Cruzbike S40 is suitable for this purpose. The beautiful weather on the first of November provided the last chance before the first snowfalls in the Tatra Mountains—the highest mountain range in the Carpathians between Poland and Slovakia. As part of the test, I completed a full loop around this relatively short mountain range: 134 miles (215 km) with 7,350 feet (2,240 meters) of elevation gain. The route is very scenic, especially in autumn. Unfortunately, during holidays, there is heavy traffic in many places due to tourism. I extended the route a bit at the start by 6 miles (10 km) to ride on a new bike path connecting the Polish town of Nowy Targ with the Slovakia town of Trstená. It was worth it. The fall temperatures were cold—when I started, it was around 34°F (1°C). I have to admit I was a bit worried about riding this route on the Cruzbike—I wasn't sure if, after a 1.5-month adaptation period, I was ready for longer mountain rides. But my concerns were unnecessary. I have done this route a total of four times: twice in a cycling race, once on my own but in the reverse direction. Strava shows I got some PRs in several spots! The views were stunning.

route: Route

 

[chicorider]

Nice video. These bikes climb great, the V20/V20c included.

 

[Damien]

I can only talk about the S40. Long climbs on it took ... a long time. A road bike is significantly faster. But that’s nothing new—everyone knows that. Still, climbing on a recumbent bike is much more enjoyable—you really appreciate the comfortable position and the chance to take in the mountain views.

 

[trplay]

Hmm! Have we already forgotten Jason Perez won the California Triple Crown two years in a row on a Vendetta? How about when Barbara Bouttoa killed the Appalachian men's field on her way to a no-contest RAAM win? One interview was most notable when they asked her how she was killing the men on the climbs when she was at such a disadvantage with her Performer recumbent. She was confused because to her the question had no merit. My biggest disappointment is we let Jason get away before he entered The great Hoo-Doo 500.

 

[vosadrian]

I personally ride a V20 (around 14kg) and a high quality light weight road bike (around 7kg). I am much quicker on the V20 for flats and down hills and moderate up hill (up to 2-3%).... but for a climb I am much quicker on the road bike. By climb, I mean something >3% for more than a couple of minutes. For most courses I am quicker overall on the V20, but on a course that is constant climbs, I am quicker on the road bike. On a 10 minute climb I can be up to 2 minutes quicker on the road bike, and it is difficult to make that back up on the down hills and flat roads between. My road bike is about 7kg lighter than my V20, but I think the real difference is the ability to change my riding position (stand up, sit down, moving around on the saddle) which moves muscle fatigue around to different muscle groups.

Because of the ability to move around more on the road bike, I find climbing more managable... even at high exertion levels, so I generally choose the road bike for climbs and the V20 I seek out flatter courses.... but I live in a hilly area, so my flatter course is what most people would call hilly.

 

[mHeatley]

I personally ride a V20 (around 14kg) and a high quality light weight road bike (around 7kg). I am much quicker on the V20 for flats and down hills and moderate up hill (up to 2-3%).... but for a climb I am much quicker on the road bike. By climb, I mean something >3% for more than a couple of minutes. For most courses I am quicker overall on the V20, but on a course that is constant climbs, I am quicker on the road bike. On a 10 minute climb I can be up to 2 minutes quicker on the road bike, and it is difficult to make that back up on the down hills and flat roads between. My road bike is about 7kg lighter than my V20, but I think the real difference is the ability to change my riding position (stand up, sit down, moving around on the saddle) which moves muscle fatigue around to different muscle groups.

Because of the ability to move around more on the road bike, I find climbing more managable... even at high exertion levels, so I generally choose the road bike for climbs and the V20 I seek out flatter courses.... but I live in a hilly area, so my flatter course is what most people would call hilly.

I have a Trek duo sport 3 with which I’m pretty good on steep hills. Climbing modest hills on my Q45 is really tough, I’ve had to walk up many hills over > 3%. My Cruzbike is great on flats and rail trails. I have climbed the GAP trail between Cumberland Md. and the Eastern Continental Divide, albeit in low gear. I’m told its not more than 1.75% over 20 miles.

 

[Boreen bimbler]

I think it depends on what type of rider/climber you are. I'm quite light and would happily climb for long stretches out of the saddle (like a crap Contador). I think if your a more powerful seated climber a cruzbike will make less difference when climbing. Obviously this is only a theory because I'm not a strong seated climber but it makes sense in my head.

 

[Margo]

Long climbs on it took ... a long time. A road bike is significantly faster.

Has anyone figured out why road bikes are more efficient when climbing?
It is my impression that it is more than just the larger weight of the bike.

 

[Bo6]

I have a Trek duo sport 3 with which I’m pretty good on steep hills. Climbing modest hills on my Q45 is really tough, I’ve had to walk up many hills over > 3%. My Cruzbike is great on flats and rail trails. I have climbed the GAP trail between Cumberland Md. and the Eastern Continental Divide, albeit in low gear. I’m told its not more than 1.75% over 20 miles.

No question that a DF is a better climber. I ride a Q45 with a 10-50 cassette and a 44 tooth chain ring and it took 1000-2000 km to get used to climbing. Can't keep up with my friends on climbs over~ 4-5% but can climb up to traction limit ~15%. Using the extra power available by pulling the bars while peddling helps get some extra power but take a lot of extra effort and I can't do it for too long. Also takes a bit to get used to spinning smoothly and balancing at slow speeds to get up hills, a bit of practice and you'll get there.

 

[IyhelM]

Has anyone figured out why road bikes are more efficient when climbing?
It is my impression that it is more than just the larger weight of the bike.

Biomechanics. Being bent forward with your torso forming a closer angle with your legs helps produce more power, roughly 15-20% based on what feedback is available. It is true as well on the flat but vastly compensated by the better aerodynamics.

 

[Frito Bandito]

A while back I asked on BROL about the difference in climbing on my TT bike at 260 watts FTP and my V20 at 250 watts FTP and being about 5kg heavier, with my weight and best CdA on both bikes. One of the smart guys on their plugged in my numbers and without getting into too much detail it came out to the following...


At my FTP on both bikes, climbing is even at 3%. Anything above 3% and my TT bike starts to pull away.
At about 75% of my FTP, climbing is even at 2.5%.
At about 50% of my FTP, climbing is even at 2%.

I always thought it was about even up to 5% or so, but I had nothing to support that belief. Mainly, I heard someone say it was 8%, but since he was trying to sell me something I cut the % about in half. In all honesty though, I am not smart enough to know how accurate those numbers are, but I do think he was pretty close.

 

[Margo]

Biomechanics. Being bent forward with your torso forming a closer angle with your legs helps produce more power, roughly 15-20% based on what feedback is available. It is true as well on the flat but vastly compensated by the better aerodynamics.

Do you understand why a closer angle should allow for more power? Power is mostly limited by the oxigen uptake, which should be better in a recumbant position as the lung is freer to breathe.

 

[Margo]

... the difference in climbing on my TT bike at 260 watts FTP and my V20 at 250 watts FTP ...

How is this power measured? With pedals or from climbing speeds? What could be the reason that FTP is larger on TT bike?
Did you ever, by chance, compare FTP on an erg?

 

[IyhelM]

Do you understand why a closer angle should allow for more power? Power is mostly limited by the oxigen uptake, which should be better in a recumbant position as the lung is freer to breathe.

No idea, I thought the same as you but empirical testing clearly points to the contrary. And it’s not a matter of different muscles being involved, Marco had been riding recumbents for years when he did these tests.

 

[Frito Bandito]

How is this power measured? With pedals or from climbing speeds? What could be the reason that FTP is larger on TT bike?
Did you ever, by chance, compare FTP on an erg?

Margo, I am not sure what an "erg" is.

I have a PM on my V20, and was going off Strava's "guestimated" power based on my speed and time, which, if slightly exaggerated like many believe, is something to consider that would slightly affect the results but probably not enough to change the results by a full %.
Other than the weight differences between the bikes, I gave both bikes the beans going up Doshi road, which was part of the recent Olympic route here in Tokyo, and getting some Strava PRs on my V20 shows it isn't a slug going uphill. There are some PRs on very steep sections in the V20s effort that beat all my previous rides on 2 different bikes.

 

[chicorider]

I think it depends on what type of rider/climber you are. I'm quite light and would happily climb for long stretches out of the saddle (like a crap Contador). I think if your a more powerful seated climber a cruzbike will make less difference when climbing. Obviously this is only a theory because I'm not a strong seated climber but it makes sense in my head.

This point caught my attention, and I agree with it. At 5'3" and 130lbs. (about 160cm and 60kg), climbing has always been my strength. On a DF bike, I tend to climb seated, saving standing for short punches. On grades below about 13%, I can climb for long stretches on both my DF bike and my V20c, though I feel less fatigued on the V and can climb on it for longer distances. I don't use a power meter, pay no attention to numbers, and couldn't even begin to explain body mechanics. I ride by feel. But when I look at my climbing segments after my rides, I notice that my DF and V20 times are pretty close, with the DF bike maybe slightly ahead, but ever only by seconds. Plenty of my climbing PRs are on the V. We have a local annual uphill time trial of about 12 miles, which I last did on my V. They let us off in one minute increments. I reeled in nine DF riders, and none passed me. That is not to brag. Some years before that, I did it on my DF bike, reeled in nine riders, and was passed by none. I was merely consistent.

My point, which echoes @Boreen bimbler is that some of this--maybe a lot of this--comes down to what kind of climber you are, regardless of the bike, and even the numbers. My small stature that helps me to climb becomes a liability when riding the flats on my DF bike. Those big guys, with their diesel engine legs--the same guys I pass on the climbs--can bury me pretty easily on the flats. Sometimes it's all I can do to hang onto their slipstream, lungs heaving, tongue dragging, while they just churn away at the front, mile after mile.

I like that the V doesn't hamper the kind of riding I've always done best, while giving me a boost everywhere else. On the flats, on my V, I can hang with those big diesels, off to the side, in my own paceline of one.

 

[vosadrian]

Last year I was riding about equally my V20 and my DF (Specialized Venge with 50mm carbon wheels at around 7kg). I find with equal training on both I was generally about 10% less power on the V20 compared to the DF for the same perceived effort (meaning giving it all I had on either). Of course, most of the time the V20 is much faster even with less power.

I did an informal time trial with some mates that was 4 laps of a 3.5k course that was rolling hills. I did it twice with about a 2 week gap in similar form. On the V20 I went about 2 minutes quicker with 20W less average power. I gave it my best to equal the power of the DF but could not. Possibly some of that was the descents are quicker on the V20, so harder to keep the power on.

I also live in a valley with steep hills to get out. Typically most rides have a 100m of elevation in the first 1.5km to get out of the valley. Even when I give it my all on the V20, I am 30-60s slower than I can do on the DF riding about 80%. My PR is over a minute slower (7 min) on the V20 than on the DF (6 min).

I am a punchy rider. I am about 70kg/174cm. I club raced for some time and most of my race wins were in a sprint... but I can climb well enough to make it into the top 10% of Strava leaderboards on the popular climbs near me that are highly competitive (tens of thousands of riders with the top places taken by international Pros). When I climb with good climbers I turn myself inside out just to hold wheels and almost fall off my bike from the effort when we crest the summit but those guys seem like they could keep going indefinately. Those guys seem in there element, but my element is the sprint to the speed sign on the way back. My point being.... I am more of the powerful type of rider and not as lean as some. But in my case I still climb much better on the DF.

I often do rides on my DF that have several "gorges" climbs (typical 200m elevation over about 3-4km). On these rides we can do 1500-2000m elevation in a 100km ride (with rolling hills between and 5 gorges). The idea of doing that on the V20 scares me! Perhaps I am just a rider type that does not work as well for climbing on the V20 as others may.