Vendetta is a climbing machine

[Eric Winn]

This blew me away. I rode my little short 13 mile loop around Kent Lake that includes about a mile of hill climbing with some stretches purportedly in excess of an 8% grade.

A big chunk of this ride is along park MUPs so I decided to try and ride slow and concentrate on slow speed handling and to be a nicer neighbor to the other MUP users. Fortunately it was kind of cool out so I didn't have to dodge too many people...

I hit the hill section and just wanted to hold a steady pace which I tried to do. I was NOT trying to go fast.

I never felt the need to switch out of my big front ring (53x39 double) although I was weaving a little so I was prepared to do so but I just never got to the point where I wanted or needed to downshift the front ring. I was mostly in my 36T rear cog but at times popped back to my 32T or 28T.

Anyway, it felt like I was smoother but I was expecting a little better result than my 2 or 3 times doing this on the Quest but still not better than my best DF time.

Well I was shocked to see I knocked 38 seconds off my best ever time which had been on my DF after riding almost daily for most of last summer.

This was my 8th ride on my new Vendetta, bringing me to 58.54 miles on it so far.

Take a look. I didn't have my HR monitor back in Aug of last year but on the two or three runs of this route on the Quest I was generally more than 10 beats higher than today's top run figures. My fastest Quest time was 5:14 or 1 minute and 14 seconds slower than the Vendetta.

Vendetta more speed, less effort - ooohrah!

Complete RWGPS ride data.



-Eric

 

[Charles.Plager]

Hi,
For a climbing machine,

Hi,

For a climbing machine, you need something that isn't too heavy, let's you produce lots of power, and is stiff efficient drive train so that the power i transmitted to the wheels. The Vendetta is probably more aerodynamic which won't help much on the hills, but will help on flats and going down.

You said you have the Quest seat at the about the same angle as the Vendetta, so I'm guessing your power output is about the same. The Vendetta is lighter, but given that it's total rider + bike weight, I don't think that's the difference.

That pretty much leaves drive train stiffness and efficiency. I'm assuming the quest down' have that much drag in its drivetrain, but the components on the Vendetta should have less. I'm guessing that it is the drivetrain of the Vendetta is stiffer than that of the Quest. I'd be curious to know how much is losses due to the front shock on the Quest and how much is because of frame flex.

Maybe we should get a car to follow you up the hills on both the Quest and the Vendetta when you're zooming and take videos so we can compare.

Cheers,
Charles

 

[MrSteve]

The Aerodynamic Advantage

-of the V. over it's stablemates is unquestioned (by me).
Here is why:

Sitting in my 33-degree seat, I need to pedal now and then to keep my Sofrider rolling down an imperceptably sloped road that I'm intimately familiar with.

Sitting in my 18-degree seat, I need to apply the brakes intermittently, to keep my Sofrider rolling down the same stretch of road at the same speed.

The only difference is the seat recline and the speed I'm talking about is in the three to six mile-per hour range.

What promped me to try going slow?!
-Going slow would never occur to me, normally.-
I rode with a Bacchetta Aero rider on that same road, who demonstrated for me how much he likes to roll down that stretch of road, slooowly.
He could do it easily: I could not.
His seat was radically reclined compared to mine.

Aerodynamics rules.
Even at low speeds;
even up hills.

Steve

 

[John Tolhurst]

The principal reason bents

The principal reason bents are slower up hills is the rider loses the aero advantage. Riders compare their uphill performance against riders that travel horizontally at comparable speeds, and those DF road bike riders correctly say 'bents can't climb'. But if we rode with riders who were of the same hill climbing ability, we would correctly be saying 'road bikes can't speed'.

You do need a bike like Vendetta that transfers power without loss, if you are going to be serious about hill climbing. Weight is important of course, but a few percents loss of power will impede your progress more than a kg or two of extra weight.

The power demands of pushing through air increase as a cube of speed, so climbing at 1/3 your cruising speed leaves 26/27ths of your power available for climbing and 1/27 for pushing against air. 1/27 is about 3%. So even at slow climbing speeds of say 7 mph, a better aero shape can give you a percent or two more available power for a hill.

What does a one percent difference in power getting to the ground look like on a climb? It looks like a 1% difference in progress made up the hill. Climb for 10 minutes, 600 seconds and you are 6 seconds ahead. If you have 5% more power down and 1% aero saving, you are 36 seconds ahead on that 10 minute climb.

 

[JustTooBig]

I'm glad you had good results

I'm glad you had good results and were pleased with the climbing performance of the V 2.0.

Of course, you know that staying in the big chainring while climbing in your biggest cog causes quite a bit of extra stress and wear on your drivetrain. Cross-chaining is a good way to reduce the lifespan of chains and cogs.

And a general climbing question....... good climbing performance on moderate grades of <10% is encouraging. But what can I expect on steep stuff? In my neck of the woods, long climbs are nearly non-existent, but short, punchy climbs on grades over 20% abound. My concern is being able to maintain good traction on steep grades -- am I worried about nothing?

 

[John Tolhurst]

I think the VEndetta is even

I think the VEndetta is even better on short punchy grades, because you can ramp up the output as high as you like for short bursts without any frame flex robbing that effort. Wheelspin happens are slow speeds, I don't know how long exactly are those really steep parts.

 

[Charles.Plager]

But what can I expect on

But what can I expect on steep stuff? In my neck of the woods, long climbs are nearly non-existent, but short, punchy climbs on grades over 20% abound. My concern is being able to maintain good traction on steep grades -- am I worried about nothing?

What I find on my Cruzbikes is that for the really steep stuff, I pull myself up by the handlebars so that my CoM is moved forward. I can't start on hills that steep, but I can make it up short hills that my GPS tells me are 20%. On the very steep stuff, you will find that you may have some wheel spin. I haven't had it bad enough to stop a climb.

 

[psychling]

Compared to what?

Among the many factors to climbing is the power to weight ratio. A 175 lb rider on a 28 lb bike will do better on a 21 lb bike.

Recumbent cyclists typically don't climb as well as DF riders (on short climbs) NOT because they lose the aero advantage (we appear to disagree, John). Recumbent cyclists can't get out of the saddle and `fall on' the pedals like DF cyclists.

A strong recumbent cyclist climbs better on short hills w/ 8% or less grade than a modestly less strong DF cyclist of the same body and bike weight.

A strong recumbent cyclist with experienced hill climbing and an increased endurance capacity (more watts for more minutes/hours) will climb long ascents better than a DF cyclist because he (in this case) paces himself slower, lasts longer and passes the DF cyclist rabbit. I have done this hundreds and hundreds of times. The DF rabbit passes me and I lose sight of him for 2 - 3 miles. By mile 3 - 4 the DF rider is back in the saddle grinding his way. I pass the DF cyclist by mile 4 (and purposely close my mouth and breathe through my nose so the DF rider is shamed that it appears I'm not even breathing hard. Of course, I risk asphyxiation for this ego folly.) I'll give the DF rider a 50 lb weight advantage (i.e., he can weigh 50 lbs less than me).

A very skilled DF cyclist can descend as well as a skilled recumbent cyclist (Virenque).

NO skilled DF cyclist can match a skilled recumbent cyclist on the flats, esp into a headwind. Aero.

There is no better climbing recumbent than the Vendetta.

When the weight comes off the Silvio (if it weighed less) I'll say the same about the Silvio. Even with the weight penalty of the Silvio it is very competitive.

 

[John Tolhurst]

share the hills, or the flats

Recumbent cyclists typically don't climb as well as DF riders (on short climbs) NOT because they lose the aero advantage (we appear to disagree, John). Recumbent cyclists can't get out of the saddle and `fall on' the pedals like DF cyclists.

Well, my context is riders who cruise the flat together split on the hills, DFs first, bents last. If that isn't your opening condition, then your conclusion will change of course. Alternatively, if you are creaming them on the flats, you may well be equal on the hills. But that's not the norm. The norm is ride the flats together, and split on the hills, and this norm generates the very real conclusion that bents don't climb - in those situations, that conclusion is sound.

I never saw a rider who 'fell' on the pedal that didn't first lift himself up against gravity! PE=mgh

 

[Plazebo]

Opposing Force Loss

Interesting read psychling. I can appreciate DF bike has the 'fall on' advantage.

I've not ridden a recumbent but I think DF also has an advantage when the rider is in the saddle. In particular, a recumbent rider needs to expend more energy gripping and pulling on the handlebars.

Right now I'm trying to figure out if I would enjoy owning a Cruzbike in my moderately hilly area and I'm feeling more optimistic after your post.

Pete

 

[Plazebo]

Or Not

Hmm... now that I think about it I guess the seat gives the rider something to push against.

I really wish they sold recumbents where I live.

Pete

 

[Charles.Plager]

Dan wrote:
Recumbent cyclists

Dan wrote:
Recumbent cyclists typically don't climb as well as DF riders (on short climbs) NOT because they lose the aero advantage (we appear to disagree, John). Recumbent cyclists can't get out of the saddle and `fall on' the pedals like DF cyclists.

John Wrote:
Well, my context is riders who cruise the flat together split on the hills, DFs first, bents last. If that isn't your opening condition, then your conclusion will change of course. Alternatively, if you are creaming them on the flats, you may well be equal on the hills. But that's not the norm. The norm is ride the flats together, and split on the hills, and this norm generates the very real conclusion that bents don't climb - in those situations, that conclusion is sound.

I agree with John here: The standard occurance is a DF rider and a recumbent rider riding together on a level surface. Given the aerodynamic advantage of the 'bent, this suggests that the 'bent is using less power for going the same speed. If both riders are riding all out, this means the 'bent rider is a weaker rider. Once you hit the hill, less power means less speed as the aerodynamic advantage disappears. As John pointed out, if you are riding with the same power output as the DF rider, you'll be even on the hills and kicking his @$$ on the flats.

(And, I do agree with you Dan that skilled DF riders can get into some pretty impressive tucks for zooming down the sides of mountains.)

Standing doesn't really help DFs use more power. It allows them to get away with a higher gear and use different muscles (On a Cruzbike, you can get some of this by pulling yourself up to an upright position, but it isn't nearly as effective as standing is for resting different muscles).

On a Cruzbike (like standing on a DF), you can use your arms to produce more power for a short term burst. This helps for small hills, but in my case, I can't do this for very long at all.

Finally, weight matters pretty much exactly as you, Dan, says it does. A 175 lb rider on a 28 lb bike has a 3.5% weight disadvantage compared to the same rider on a 21 lb bike. This corresponds to (at most) a 3.5% time/speed advantage. (I say at most because there are still aerodynamic losses when climbing and the heavier bike/rider combination move more slowly and have less of these losses - this is not a big effect on most big hills).

The biggest thing I think the Vendetta has going for it is that its drivetrain is very stiff (and, because of the short chain, no power robbing idlers). Being light doesn't hurt (although for someone of my weight, the 10 lbs difference is less than a 5% effect). I do believe one can use the MBB format to produce more power over a short period of time, but am undecided as to whether or not this can happen over long rides (for an example of how it is feasible, think about cross country skiing where using the arms and legs produces more power than just the legs over very long distances).

Cheers,
Charles

 

[ak-tux]

John, in my opinion, yes the

John, in my opinion, yes the total power output used to move an equal size of mass up the hill is the same for both a recumbent and an upright. However, on the downward pedal stroke of an upright, the force applied on the pedal is a sum of the weight applied by the rider and that of the leg stretching. Offcourse the rider then consumes some power to lift himself for the next downstroke.

There is something about the upright that makes it easier to start from standstill for the same gear inches compared to a recumbent.

 

[Charles.Plager]

Ak-Tux wrote:
John, in my

Ak-Tux wrote:

John, in my opinion, yes the total power output used to move an equal size of mass up the hill is the same for both a recumbent and an upright. However, on the downward pedal stroke of an upright, the force applied on the pedal is a sum of the weight applied by the rider and that of the leg stretching. Offcourse the rider then consumes some power to lift himself for the next downstroke.

There is something about the upright that makes it easier to start from standstill for the same gear inches compared to a recumbent.

Yes, it's easier to start on an upright on a hill. You can basically put yourself in not too low a gear and step on the pedal and that gets you moving enough to start. Starting a MBB bike on a steep hill is a p@|n in the @$$.

And, yes, you can use gravity to help you go when you stand up. But then you've got to fight against gravity to get your mass up. So there's no free lunch. For DF riders, the effectiveness of standing is negatively correlated with weight. That is, light guys get more benefit out of standing than heavy guys. I still maintain the biggest benefit to standing is (1) changing muscles and (2) being able to use a higher gear.

 

[Eric Winn]

You sir, are fast on that thing

OK, I gotta share this. I did a 22 mile ride this morning and then again for 23 miles this evening. I was trying to heed Carl's advice about cross chaining so I was practicing with my SRAM DoubleTaps (brifters) which are new to me. I used some once before last September when I test rode a v1 Silvio.

Anyway, I was also trying to push it some to get ready for N24HC in mid-June but I have been slacking a bit and concentrating a bit more on work lately so I stopped for a breather at the far end of my route and one of several DFs I literally flew past rode slowly by and said, and these are his exact words, "You sir, are fast on that thing."

So cool.

I'm getting better. My last three rides over 20 miles I averaged 17.5+ mph

I'm pretty sure I can get up the hills even faster using good shifting technique but I'm still getting used to the DoubleTaps and missing shifts as well as needing that inline adjuster for the RD as I mentioned in my build thread and my walk around video.

Part of my missed shifts are learning how to use the controls, the other part is due to gear skips and the like from not having the indexing quite dialed in.

Here is tonight's ride via either Cyclemeter or Ride With GPS.

http://cyclemeter.com/a410b492c9780ff7/Cycle-20130508-1904?r=e

http://ridewithgps.com/trips/1304049

This is such a cool bike.

-Eric

 

[psychling]

"?I never saw a rider who

"?I never saw a rider who 'fell' on the pedal that didn't first lift himself up against gravity! [Wink] PE=mgh"

Observation. DF riders standing on the pedal.

After the first downstroke the DF cyclist leans on the handlebars and lets the other pedal meet the other leg. From that point on the DF cyclist isn't lifting himself up against gravity. Assume 1000 pedals. One leg lift. The rest balancing the lean forward and rocking of the bike.

DF cyclist is expending less muscle power on climbs than the recumbent. DF cyclist is using dead weight (ballast) wherein the recumbent cyclist doesn't move unless he is applying power.

A `one-fer,' John.

I haven't got a clue what PE=mgh means. If I did it would probably inhibit recognition of my observation.

Think of all the other observations just waiting for me to make unrestricted by foreknowledge that they aren't possible. [wink and a nod, buddy].

"The norm is ride the flats together, and split on the hills, and this norm generates the very real conclusion that bents don't climb - in those situations, that conclusion is sound."

I don't know what your norm is. My norm is to cream them on the flats. Especially on the Vendetta.

Narrative: http://psychling1.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-first-brevet.html

 

[John Tolhurst]

quote Ak-Tux: "There is

quote Ak-Tux: "There is something about the upright that makes it easier to start from standstill for the same gear inches compared to a recumbent."

Oh, that's easy. We jump into the air to store some PE potential energy and land on the pedal to transmit that without any further effort, so we split up the activity into jump, then take off. where on a bent, you can't store up energy before starting off. It would be nice to.

 

[ak-tux]

Dan (aka psychling),
 ....

Dan (aka psychling),

.... After the first downstroke the DF cyclist leans on the handlebars and lets the other pedal meet the other leg.

I agree with you here.

..... From that point on the DF cyclist isn't lifting himself up against gravity. ...

I disagree with you here. Let me explain why:

I commute on my road bike DF nearly every day (and I ride my recumbent in the evenings and some weekends) and I can say that when I'am off the saddle on my DF and climbing my body goes into a rythm or a dance if you will.

This "dance" is in two parts:
1. The downstroke which is a combination of gravity and pulling on the bars as I push and extend my leg downwards.

2. Simultaneously on the upstrok, the other leg is positioning itself for the next down stroke as I pull it up on my clipless pedals. Using a different muscle group and my grip on the handlebars, I lean the bike towards the second leg and shift my weight over it. I believe this is where the lifting against gravity is happening, albeit not very obviously. It creates a rocking motion of the bike.

It is a very complex combination of muscle groups into a wonderful rythm.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GQz_u0Vc8Os

On my recumbent, the closest I can come to this phynomenal, is when I "bridge". Using this technique my legs, hands and the top of the seat (just below my shoulders) are the only contacts I have with the bike. Some weight shifts to my legs and I can geneerate alot of power but I cannot sustain for a period similar to that of my DF. Time and practice will tell.

 

[John Tolhurst]

Agree, and a nice

Agree, and a nice demonstration in that video of the alternate mode. We can't get that liberated on the cruzbike, but we can get a long long way closer to it that a regular bent. We can do a lot of it.

He is using maximum bike-english, to make the point about why to use a kinetic trainer. Youi can enjoy those benefits with the exagerated motion. For example, I used to do big body english, then someone pointed out to me that he knew when I was pulling the trigger. So I reduce the body english down to very little - but I still pull that trigger .. oh yeah!

 

[psychling]

"2. Simultaneously on the

"2. Simultaneously on the upstrok, the other leg is positioning itself for the next down stroke as I pull it up on my clipless pedals. Using a different muscle group and my grip on the handlebars, I lean the bike towards the second leg and shift my weight over it. I believe this is where the lifting against gravity is happening, albeit not very obviously. It creates a rocking motion of the bike."

Question. What if the other leg wasn't `positioning itself for the next stroke as I pull it up on my clipless pedals'? Would the other pedal arm still wind up being at the top of the downstroke? I'm assuming `yes.'

If the other pedal arm is at the top of the downstroke where would your leg be? It would be on the top of the pedal arm because you're clipped in. You don't have a choice. If, as you say, you "pull it up on my clipless pedals" is that actually lifting the leg? Or is it merely "positioning it" ?

Leaning the bike towards the second leg and shifting your weight over it isn't "pulling" or "lifting" . And whatever you're doing with that leg it does not constitute expenditure of any more effort / power than what you do on the recumbent with that leg.

And here is the point: however the other leg is `cocked' and ready to `drop' on the DF or `push' on the recumbent ... the DF is dumping his body weight on the pedal. Whereas the recumbent is exclusively powering the next pedal stroke.

Even if the DF rider `contributes' to the `drop' he is assisted at least 80-90% by the `dead drop' of his body weight on that pedal. If the recumbent rider exerted only the same amount of power that the DF rider is `contributing' he would come to a rapid rolling stop.