From: bgahl@scuba.EBay.Sun.COM (Robert Gahl SunSoft DPT Software Engineer)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: Cycling Gives Me A Neck Ache -- Recommendations??
Date: 28 Aug 1992 16:27:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Federal, Milpitas, CA.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: scuba.eng.sun.com

In article <1992Aug28.005046.1257@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, harry@cv.hp.com (Harry Phinney) writes:
|> bgahl@scuba.EBay.Sun.COM (Robert Gahl SunSoft DPT Software Engineer) writes:
|> : 1) In the "recumbent" position, you are able to deliver more power to the
|> :    pedals (because of back support) than a "diamond-frame" rider does
|> :    sitting down. So, as long as the diamond-frame rider sits down, the
|> :    recumbent rider sits higher on the power curve (so to speak).
|> 
|> I appreciate the information in your posting, but I must object to this
|> one point.  It is only in the case of an extremely steep hill with too
|> large a gear that either rider will be limited by the maximum force they
|> can apply to the pedals.  In these conditions, I don't believe a
|> recumbent will do too well, as they seem to have trouble getting stuck
|> at "top" dead center on the pedal stroke.  For normal hill climbing, the
|> rider's power output is limited by their metabolic processes, and I have
|> seen no research indicating any physiological advantage for either the
|> recumbent or diamond-frame position.  In other words, I believe a rider
|> will produce approximately the same power at AT and VO2max on either
|> bike.

Well, I'll be the first to admit I'm paraphrasing (bad scientific proof),
but the info I'm drawing from is from some of the work on the Daedelus (sp?)
and such, where power output and such was measured to more of a degree
than I'll ever experience.

I may be misreading the text, but my reading of it says that the recumbent
position of the rider allowed him to provide more sustained power than
provided in the other position. But, I'm a Zoologist by schooling, not
a BioPhysicist, so the whole thing may be lost on me ;-) But, I understand
your point, and can't "medically/physically" debate it.

But, I did differentiate between a diamond-frame rider sitting and
standing. Once a diamond-frame rider stands, they get to use their
upper-body (if they know what they are doing) to add to the power of
their legs and gravity. At this point, all a recumbent-rider has is his
legs. Simply high-school algebra says A < A+B where B > 0.

I read that this "increase" in power is, in part, gained by having
something to "press against." I don't know if you remember the old
"Universal Gym" stuff, but I could lift a heck of a lot more weight
with moderate back support (the seat you could push against) than I
could without. I found it mildly interesting that on the Tour de France
this year, "upright" bicyclists were experimenting with seat-supports
which allowed them to "push" against it.

However, the "top-dead center" syndrome (something I have experienced)
is prevented on a diamond-frame, I suppose, by a simple weight shift
forward or backward. On the recumbent, I either slouch or straighten
up more. The ultimate solution for me was to use clipless pedals (SPDs)
combined with the above.

Both the good and bad of a recumbent is that your lower body is certainly
isolated from the top (which is why I ride it, thus alleviating my back
problems). From personal experience, I am faster on the flats and
down-hills (maybe from the additional 6# on the downhill) than I was on
my Univega to the tune of about 3 mph in the flats (which may be solely
attained by the more aerodynamic nature of the bike). On the uphills, I'm
slower, but only slightly. On the major uphills, I just spin in my granny
and make it to the top, but then, this is what I did on my Univega, too.

I guess what I'm trying to say by all of this is that (1) Yes, recumbents
aren't the greatest hill-climbers in the world, but in my personal
experience, they more than make up for the loss in downhill capability
and on the flats. I wouldn't dream of doing the Alps on one, though
(without a spider, at least), (2) the decision to buy a recumbent
over a more standard frame bike is one dictated by need. That is, if I
want to do road races, apart from the fact I've never seen one (yet) in
a USCF sanctioned event, you might be better off buying a diamond-frame.
But, like cars, many people buy more capability that they are capable of
using. That titanium seat-post cuts a few ounces off of your gross weight,
but at the bottom of a hill, I'll "relieve myself" if I need that kind
of weight loss (I weigh 195, so a 27# bike equates to 14% of my body
weight), and (3) I see recumbents "dismissed" out-of-hand because
"they are terrible on hills" which is only partly true, and only slightly
part of the entire story. If you are a "hammer-dawg" hill-climber, then
DON'T get a recumbent. If you are a recreational rider, like me, and you
stick primarily to pavement (or very well-kept dirt roads), then a
recumbent MIGHT be the answer. If you have back-problems, and can't
imagine life without riding a bike, the a recumbent is PROBABLY the
answer.

As an aside, my recumbent is a "commuter bike." It's rarity on the
road increases its visibility. Besides, some people think I'm handicapped,
so they give me a wider berth. For commuting in traffic, this was the
perfect bike for me, but not for everyone.
---
Bob Gahl KD6KMX Bicycle Mobile|ARPA/INTERNET: bgahl@scuba.Eng.Sun.COM
SunSoft DPT Software Engineer |UUCP:  ...[about anywhere]!sun!bgahl
"Howling at the moon until you've had your fill. All you lose is one
 arm and a hundred dollar bill. Coyote Love." -- Joe Walsh
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc