Road bike vs. recumbent comparison

[DavidCH]

Lately my V has just been in the garage. The DF I've been riding oddly enough feels faster up the hills but looking at Strava, I'm no where near the times of the Vendetta. The only benefit for riding a DF seems to be burning the calories but you can do that with a V by just not eating the carbs. Still I've enjoyed it. The DF home brew is quite competitive to the rest of them and super light. I'm still a bit surprised as I thought my hill times would be better. The only time I get caught on the V is up hills. Perhaps it's because the muscle set for the DF needs to get stronger.

 

[Osiris]

Lately my V has just been in the garage. The DF I've been riding oddly enough feels faster up the hills but looking at Strava, I'm no where near the times of the Vendetta. The only benefit for riding a DF seems to be burning the calories but you can do that with a V by just not eating the carbs. Still I've enjoyed it. The DF home brew is quite competitive to the rest of them and super light. I'm still a bit surprised as I thought my hill times would be better. The only time I get caught on the V is up hills. Perhaps it's because the muscle set for the DF needs to get stronger.

My DF weighs about 10 lbs less than my V20. The difference is most noticeable when I try to accelerate rapidly, particularly from a full stop. On hills, however, I have yet to see its lighter weight resulting in a noticeable increase in speed or reduction in pedaling effort. My admiration for DF riders whose Strava times are close to mine has greatly increased, though. I had forgotten just how hard it is to go very fast on a DF.

 

[jond]

An FTP of 280-290 for someone of your weight would make you a pretty strong rider in these parts. My current FTP is somewhere in the low 280's, but the more I learn about FTP, the less importance I place on it. I've raced against riders with FTP's well above mine, but I routinely beat them in sprints because my peak power output is considerably higher than theirs. In a longer race where endurance becomes a big factor, they would of course win every time.



That's a very unusual. It certainly does not mirror my experience, or anyone else's that I've heard from. The reports I've read from others is that a greater angle of recline always results in a drop in power. You do regain some of it after your body adjusts to the new position, but I've never gotten back all of it. The trick is to stay in that zone where the power you've lost is more than compensated for by the improved aerodynamics. My peak wattage when I was riding only road bikes four years ago was right around 1300 watts. When I first started riding a recumbent, the most I could manage even on a trainer, was about 700 watts. That number has gradually increased over the years, but it's still nowhere near what I could manage on my road bike four years ago.



It's a big increase to be sure, but not out of line with my past experience. When I was lifting weights back in my 20's, I was able to triple my strength over a two year period, but then quit doing it for many years and lost all the strength I'd gained. When I resumed weight training, I assumed that it would take me just as long to regain the strength I once had as it took to build that strength originally, but in fact it required only a fraction of the time. I don't quite understand the science behind it, but it seems that once the body has attained a certain level of performance, it take much less time to re-acquire it.



I've read two scientific papers which proved it using various test subjects on a machine that made possible radical changes in hip angle. The question is not whether it happens, but why it happens. Many riders like me have been using power meters on all our bikes for years, and there is absolutely no doubt that, in a reclined position, we're not able to produce the same amount of power. Not even after years of riding bents exclusively. Larry Oslund has done numerous power tests on bents with varying seat angles, and it didn't surprise me in the least to see that his results also show big power losses as the angle of recline increases.

Osiris what I seem to think you are talking is the pointy end neuro muscular sprinting . Maximum power. I’m an endurance guy due to a knee issue I won’t test the envelope.

Even so bridging efforts at vo 2 max are the same. I can achieve 500 watt sprint efforts on either platform.

Perhaps geometry is key. My boom is horizontal and bars are below shoulders.

Are you lifting your backside off the vendetta seat. Perhaps you need to bring boom in a cm or so.

 

[Osiris]

Osiris what I seem to think you are talking is the pointy end neuro muscular sprinting . Maximum power. I’m an endurance guy due to a knee issue I won’t test the envelope.

Even so bridging efforts at vo 2 max are the same. I can achieve 500 watt sprint efforts on either platform.

Average power delivery over longer periods is a very different thing. I notice the difference most at peak power levels, but as power output drops, there's less and less difference between my road bike and recumbents.

Perhaps geometry is key. My boom is horizontal and bars are below shoulders.

Mine too. I purchased a size Large boom from another forum member, and that has made a big difference in aerodynamic efficiency. Power output seemed largely unaffected, though. Larry suggested that a lower BB was better for climbing, but my tests don't bear that out.

Are you lifting your backside off the vendetta seat. Perhaps you need to bring boom in a cm or so.

I have tried that technique. It seems to work well in longer sprints (1 mile +), but it's not ideal for maximum power delivery over shorter distances.

 

[jond]

Average power delivery over longer periods is a very different thing. I notice the difference most at peak power levels, but as power output drops, there's less and less difference between my road bike and recumbents.



Mine too. I purchased a size Large boom from another forum member, and that has made a big difference in aerodynamic efficiency. Power output seemed largely unaffected, though. Larry suggested that a lower BB was better for climbing, but my tests don't bear that out.



I have tried that technique. It seems to work well in longer sprints (1 mile +), but it's not ideal for maximum power delivery over shorter distances.

So your 20 minute power is the same it’s just sprinting. Hmm

I would have thought by swinging that boom and laying into it pressing neck that your sprint wattages would be within 10%. What wattage are we talking 1000 v 800 ?

That much power will require a harness lol.

Low speed stability is more to the fore as a negative with horizontal boom.

Recently my entire boom had crept forward a cm. The repositioning of the boom was pretty much a revelation in terms of low speed stability and I’ve got 30 k on platform.

So perhaps an adjustment may yield something for and I encourage all to check regularly their adjustments. My issue resulted from a dry quick release adding to the burden of the pivot clamp.

 

[RojoRacing]

On the subject of effort and HR comparison between DF and Bent to which I see zero difference in my numbers I must also add temperature and time of day have grossly underestimated effects on HR. I've changed up my schedule for work and I'm riding strait out of bed at 5am these last two weeks. It's not cold out here in the morning, in fact it is still like 70-75 degs at 5am but I've been observing some HR value even more odd then normal. My HR actual vs perceived is about 25bmp off so it's like my cardio is still sleeping while I'm riding. A normal threshold effort of 170bpm is only netting me 145bpm then I have to dial it back so much sooner then normal. I'm holding 200 watts at like 120bpm which is pretty damn low for me because it would normally be at least 145. Even weirder is the day before on the weekend I'll start a ride at 7:30am and be holding 170 all day long and maxing out at over 180 so go figure. Just keep in mind how you HR can change day to day.

 

[RojoRacing]

So your 20 minute power is the same it’s just sprinting. Hmm

I would have thought by swinging that boom and laying into it pressing neck that your sprint wattages would be within 10%. What wattage are we talking 1000 v 800 ?

That much power will require a harness lol.

Low speed stability is more to the fore as a negative with horizontal boom.

Recently my entire boom had crept forward a cm. The repositioning of the boom was pretty much a revelation in terms of low speed stability and I’ve got 30 k on platform.

So perhaps an adjustment may yield something for and I encourage all to check regularly their adjustments. My issue resulted from a dry quick release adding to the burden of the pivot clamp.

My sprint numbers both on zwift and outdoors are within 100 watts in the 1200 watt range. At that power the V20 gets a little sketchy to control side to side but on the DF bike I'm equally out of control vertically in the fashion of I can't keep my front wheel on the ground. I don't sprint more then a few times a year so I have crap form. It's nice sprint in zwift on the trainer because I can wrench on the bars all i want without fear of whipping myself off the road.

 

[bladderhead]

I don't sprint more then a few times a year so I have crap form

I am in exactly the same situation.

 

[Osiris]

So your 20 minute power is the same it’s just sprinting. Hmm

I really can't say, because it's been years since I did an FTP test on a road bike. Back then my FTP was around 210 watts, but my max power was just shy of 1300 watts. Today my FTP on a recumbent is in the low 280's, but I've never seen a max power reading higher than 1150 watts, and that one may have been a fluke. I'm certain, based on my performance on familiar Strava segments that my FTP on a diamond frame today would be higher than 210W, but I don't know by how much. All I can say is that 230-240 watts doesn't take much effort to maintain these days. My best average numbers were on the CA2, which had the most upright seat of all my bents. I could squeeze out about 30 watts more for long periods on the CA2 than on my M5, although because of it's superior aerodynamics, my "cruising speed" and top speed on the M5 was still higher. The V20 seems to fall somewhere between the two.

I would have thought by swinging that boom and laying into it pressing neck that your sprint wattages would be within 10%. What wattage are we talking 1000 v 800 ?

Depends on how long the sprint is. I usually test myself on a relatively short but steep hill. Recently I've been able to maintain in excess of 1000 watts all the way to the top on my DF, but on the V20 it's somewhere in the 800's. It's a tribute to the V20's aerodynamics that despite the 200 watt deficit, I still crest the hill at a much faster speed than I do on my DF. There's a longer segment where I do a similar comparison, but due to its length, I can't just go flat out. Typically I'll aim to keep it above 400 watts on the V20. When I first tried it on the DF, I thought I was putting out something in that range, but when I looked at my readings, it showed me doing more than 500 watts at the same perceived effort. What's disheartening is that despite the big power difference, the atrocious aerodynamics of the DF always results in much slower speeds.

Recently my entire boom had crept forward a cm. The repositioning of the boom was pretty much a revelation in terms of low speed stability and I’ve got 30 k on platform.

So perhaps an adjustment may yield something for and I encourage all to check regularly their adjustments. My issue resulted from a dry quick release adding to the burden of the pivot clamp.

Boom slippage was a serious problem on my M5, so I've gotten into the habit of marking the boom with a piece of tape. That way the slightest bit of slippage will be instantly noticeable. Fortunately there has been none on the V20.

 

[ed72]

So it's been over a month now since I resumed riding a road bike (occasionally) after riding recumbents exclusively for four years. This weekend's performance on the road bike leaves no doubt that I'm making amazing progress in regaining the strength I had four years ago. The amount of peak power I can generate on my road bike now exceeds the maximum I can produce on a recumbent by at least 200 watts, and I can sustain high power outputs for quite a bit longer than I was able to just a few weeks ago. Ultimately the battle is still going to be won or lost by aerodynamics, though. And because drag increases according to the square of your velocity, the stronger you are as a rider, the more you'll be able to exploit the aero advantage of a fast recumbent like the V20.

Yesterday I rode with a woman who regularly participates in tri-athlons. She rides a Bacchetta CA2, and is by all accounts a very fast rider. Her CA2 is not as aerodynamic as my V20, as I've proved countless times when coasting down hills with her. Yesterday was a complete reversal of that, as I repeatedly watched her CA2 coast right past me on my road bike, even on relatively mild slopes at relatively modest speeds. I can see now why none of the local cycling groups want recumbents on their group rides. There's nothing more depressing than watching someone do no work at all and just coast past you when you're having to pedal just to keep up with them. It's as if they're cheating somehow.

A 120 pounder vs a 200 pounder on my M5 down a 7% grade is about 10 mph difference, just due to the weight.

You probably just proved that she weighs less than you do.

If interested in measuring aerodynamics outside of a wind tunnel, the Chung protocol works very well.

 

[ed72]

WRT to divergent fitness signatures or different power profiles from a DF to bent, there are so many divergent claims that it is hard to know what to accept. Power meters vary tremendously (calibration and accuracy)

I know my complete fitness signature from 1 second to many hours on both a DF and Bent using the same Powertap hub and I have almost 9,000 miles on a bent with power over the past year and maybe 40,000 miles with power on an upright.

The trick to me is to optimize performance on either platform despite constraints. If my hypothetical training partner is me on an upright, my partner has no chance holding my wheel on the flats or on modest rolling terrain when on the bent and vica versa on certain hills simply due to better W/Kg on the upright. We just would not ride with each other well because the performance characteristics are so different and in my case, the power output on the DF is higher across the board but especially power in the 5 second to 5 minute range. I am jealous of those who own the same power levels on a bent as on an upright, but it is decidedly not so for me. In certain terrain, I would always be faster on the bent whereas the same could be said on certain terrain on the upright.

 

[Osiris]

A 120 pounder vs a 200 pounder on my M5 down a 7% grade is about 10 mph difference, just due to the weight.

You probably just proved that she weighs less than you do.

The test segment has an average slope of only -1%. Until recently I rode a CA2 just like hers, and we would typically coast down to the bottom of the hill at the same speed. But on the M5, and to a lesser extent the V20, I always pull ahead of her CA2.

 

[Osiris]

WRT to divergent fitness signatures or different power profiles from a DF to bent, there are so many divergent claims that it is hard to know what to accept. Power meters vary tremendously (calibration and accuracy)

That's why in my tests, I use exactly the same Garmin Vector 3 power meter on all my bents and the DF. Same clothing and helmet as well.

 

[jond]

I am in exactly the same situation.

Yes me too why rush when you’re going so fast anyway no one can catch you lol.

 

[Osiris]

Well, the last two weeks results suggests that my power gains on the road bike have finally plateaud, or close to it. My max power numbers are still well South of where they were four years ago, but at the same time it appears that my mid-range power has improved dramatically since then. On hill climbs where I could maintain roughly 600 watts back in 2014, I can now keep it above 700 watts. Even after 30+ miles, when I was feeling pretty tired after numerous sprints, I was still able to run one of my favorite segments at 24-25 mph, which I'm absolutely certain I couldn't have managed four years ago. There is only one explanation that can account for this, and it's that the past four years of riding recumbents exclusively has really improved my general conditioning. While I still can't hit the really big numbers I was seeing four years ago, I can now maintain speeds that would have been out of the question back then. The mystery is why riding recumbents has improved my performance on a road bike, but riding a road bike has done nothing to improve my performance on recumbents. Very strange...

 

[Balor]

There is an explanation: riding a bent nessesitates a change in pedalling style because using DF-like "push-push" style that has maximum mechanicai effissiency is much less so on a bent. It can be due to "tissue hysteresis" which is my favorite hypothesis, because I'm hit by it particularly hard
That pedalling style trains a much "rounder pedal stroke" not unlike trainig on a fixed gear track bike.
Once you are back on DF, you can use older style pedallig with great efficiency again, but with ability to supplement it with your "newly developed" roundr stroke.

 

[Don1]

just something different.... i have found the garmin is way louder on recumbent. i can easily hear how badly i did in a live strava segment now......

 

[Osiris]

There is an explanation: riding a bent nessesitates a change in pedalling style because using DF-like "push-push" style that has maximum mechanicai effissiency is much less so on a bent. It can be due to "tissue hysteresis" which is my favorite hypothesis, because I'm hit by it particularly hard
That pedalling style trains a much "rounder pedal stroke" not unlike trainig on a fixed gear track bike.
Once you are back on DF, you can use older style pedallig with great efficiency again, but with ability to supplement it with your "newly developed" roundr stroke.

I've paid careful attention to how I pedal on each type of vehicle to see if that might explain it, but I honestly don't feel any difference. I don't "push" more on a road bike than I do on a recumbent. In both cases, I try to even out the power stroke by applying the power as evenly as possible throughout the pedaling cycle.

There are two easily observable differences between riding my road bike and riding my recumbents. The first is that my legs on the road bike are traveling in an essentially vertical direction when pedaling, and in an essentially horizontal direction when pedaling a recumbent. The other difference is the angle between the femur and chest. On my recumbent, that angle is roughly 90 degrees at the top of the pedal stroke, while on the road bike with my hands in the drops (lowest position on the handlebars) that angle is 53 degrees. I don't see what difference it makes whether your legs are moving horizontally or vertically when pedaling as it relates to power production, but a difference in hip angle of 37 degrees is very significant. It's significant because it causes the loads borne by each muscle group to be very different when pedaling a bicycle versus a recumbent. The smaller hip angle of 53 degrees on a road bike will place much greater emphasis on the glutes and hamstrings, while the 90 degree hip angle on a recumbent will place much more emphasis on the quadriceps. It comes as no surprise then, that when I do a hard sprint on my recumbent, my quadriceps feel totally exhausted at the end, whereas on my road bike, it's the glutes and hamstrings that feel exhausted.

The simple conclusion to be deduced from this is that I'm able to produce so much more power on a road bike because my glutes and hamstrings are able to generate more force than my quadriceps. But tests at the gym show that this simply isn't the case. On a leg press with an adjustable seat, I can lift far more weight with a 90 degree hip angle than with a 53 degree hip angle. The reason for that, as most people already know, is that the straighter your legs are, the better your leverage, and the better your leverage, the greater the amount of weight you can lift as a result; it's basic mechanics. So the mystery has only deepened: while I can produce more power on each pedal stroke with a 90 degree hip angle than I can with a 53 degree hip angle, the power I can produce on a bicycle is nevertheless significantly greater -- just the opposite of what I would have expected.

 

[ed72]

I've paid careful attention to how I pedal on each type of vehicle to see if that might explain it, but I honestly don't feel any difference. I don't "push" more on a road bike than I do on a recumbent. In both cases, I try to even out the power stroke by applying the power as evenly as possible throughout the pedaling cycle.

There are two easily observable differences between riding my road bike and riding my recumbents. The first is that my legs on the road bike are traveling in an essentially vertical direction when pedaling, and in an essentially horizontal direction when pedaling a recumbent. The other difference is the angle between the femur and chest. On my recumbent, that angle is roughly 90 degrees at the top of the pedal stroke, while on the road bike with my hands in the drops (lowest position on the handlebars) that angle is 53 degrees. I don't see what difference it makes whether your legs are moving horizontally or vertically when pedaling as it relates to power production, but a difference in hip angle of 37 degrees is very significant. It's significant because it causes the loads borne by each muscle group to be very different when pedaling a bicycle versus a recumbent. The smaller hip angle of 53 degrees on a road bike will place much greater emphasis on the glutes and hamstrings, while the 90 degree hip angle on a recumbent will place much more emphasis on the quadriceps. It comes as no surprise then, that when I do a hard sprint on my recumbent, my quadriceps feel totally exhausted at the end, whereas on my road bike, it's the glutes and hamstrings that feel exhausted.

The simple conclusion to be deduced from this is that I'm able to produce so much more power on a road bike because my glutes and hamstrings are able to generate more force than my quadriceps. But tests at the gym show that this simply isn't the case. On a leg press with an adjustable seat, I can lift far more weight with a 90 degree hip angle than with a 53 degree hip angle. The reason for that, as most people already know, is that the straighter your legs are, the better your leverage, and the better your leverage, the greater the amount of weight you can lift as a result; it's basic mechanics. So the mystery has only deepened: while I can produce more power on each pedal stroke with a 90 degree hip angle than I can with a 53 degree hip angle, the power I can produce on a bicycle is nevertheless significantly greater -- just the opposite of what I would have expected.

Read what Balor wrote. Maybe replace the hypothetical lard with a huge inefficient shock absorber that sucks up power from each pedal stroke.

Another difference between an upright and a recumbent is the orientation of the lungs and the initial effect on the V/Q ratio when one takes up the recumbent position. In short, the legs are getting less oxygen, which also explains the often heard.....my HR is lower on a bent.

 

[Gary123]

Maybe you should test an upright at the 90 degree angle like a comfort bike and compare that to the 90 degree recumbent. I seem to make more power on an upright the lower my torso is while also giving more aero benefit. Maybe that's why the pros don't ride comfort bikes. We know why they don't ride bents.