# Recumbent Vs Road bike comparison with metrics



## dodgy (24 Jun 2008)

Hi all,

Some of you will know that a while back I had a (very) brief flirtation with a rather nice Windcheetah Speedy. I only kept her for a couple of weeks before I decided it wasn't for me, but I'm still glad I tried it. I think of it as adding another paragraph to my cycling CV 

Anyway, at the time I was rather frustrated that there seemed to be almost no evidence to support which bike/trike was fastest over a given terrain or course. Yes there was lots of "oh you'll be faster on the downhills and slower on the uphills", but none of it was backed up with any evidence. So I had to more or less go into it blind.

I've got some data that I collected on the Speedy when riding a familiar local course and it shows that overall, the Speedy was slower *for me. *I'm reasonably confident that with a little more recumbent conditioning, I would have closed the gap slightly, but not enough to make the trike my regular mode of day cycling.

The course is rolling but not hilly, and I have data that shows given heart rate, elevation and speed of both bikes. The control road bike data was captured in February at a time when I consider my overall form would have been worse than the time I captured the Speedy data in May.

The graphs are fairly busy, but if anyone wants them I could host some images to backup what I'm saying here.

Please, *I am not inferring recumbents are inferior in any way whatsoever*, I am just trying to provide some material to help other people. It would be great if other riders could do similar comparisons on other courses to try and get an idea what is the optimum terrain for a recumbent trike.

Course details:

'Out and back' across Wirral to the Eureka Cyclist's Café.

Length: 24.9 miles
Accumulated ascent: 825 feet
Accumulated descent: 825 feet

*Windcheetah (unfaired):*

Average speed 14.6 mph
Average HR: 142 bpm
Time to complete distance - 1h 41m 53s

*Road Bike - Giant TCR2* ridden on the hoods - (I never use the drops)

Average speed 16.5 mph
Average HR: 146 bpm 
Time to complete distance - 1h 30m 45s

Both bikes had recommend PSI of 110 PSI in the tyres.

Perceived exertion was much greater on the Windcheetah, and to be honest, I was looking forward to getting home, but that's probably just me getting used to it!

I'll never know for sure if I could ever close the gap, but my gut feeling is no.

Anyone else got any other comparisons? I can post evidence for the forum statisticians if it helps 

Dave.


----------



## Fiona N (24 Jun 2008)

Your numbers are pretty similar to what mine were when I first got the Windcheetah - on a 40km course with lots of short (100 - 300m length) sharp hills, I originally took about 10 minutes longer than on my road bikes. But as you noticed, the heart rate was lower on the Windcheetah throughout and gave a lower exertion overall despite the slightly longer time.

By the time I'd toured to southern France over the Swiss and Ligurian Alps and put in a tour in America the same summer (total distance on the Windcheetah was close to 10000 miles by this time), I was doing the 40km circuit in 1 hour 8 mins, or about 15 minutes faster than I've ever previously managed on the road bike. The extra touring fitness meant that my average HR was only slightly higher despite huge improvement in time. When I swopped to the road bike, the extra fitness brought the time down to 1'16 but this was pretty stressful with my HR often close to max on the short hills at the end. 

What I took from this is that it needs a lot of effort to fully adjust to the Windcheetah (or any recumbent) but once you've got there you'll have lost some of the 'fitness' to road bikes unless you consciously train on both simulataneously.


----------



## Riding in Circles (24 Jun 2008)

It takes about six months to develop your muscle set to suit the recumbent so that needs to be taken into consideration.

I cannot really give a comparison as such because I find wedgies to uncomfortable to ride after riding a trike for years, but I am faster now that I was when I was at my fastest on a standard road bike on average. I have a customer who rides both, he started slower on the trike (Catrike 700), but now after two months he is fairly equal, he is actually faster than before on his road bike but the same average speed as on the trike.


----------



## dodgy (24 Jun 2008)

Fiona N said:


> What I took from this is that it needs a lot of effort to fully adjust to the Windcheetah (or any recumbent) but once you've got there you'll have lost some of the 'fitness' to road bikes unless you consciously train on both simulataneously.



Thanks Fiona, I think your final sentiment is spot on. I simply don't have the time to be optimised for 3 different styles of riding (I also ride offroad) so had to make a choice.

Great bits of kit though (the Speedy)!
Dave.


----------



## Arch (24 Jun 2008)

I have to say, since I don't race and have no interest in racing, I frankly couldn't care less which is faster! 

I do know that I'll descend a hill much faster on my trike than on my upright two wheelers, just because it's more stable and I have less fear! Of course I probably climb a little slower, but I reckon the screaming descents make up for that!

And at the end of a long day, I'd rather have taken a few minutes longer and not have a sore arse...


----------



## dodgy (24 Jun 2008)

Each to their own, I also found the sweaty back on the trike really uncomfortable for me, it was horrible sat in the cafe while my back was soaking wet  I reckon the trike would be comfortable on an all day ride from an aching muscle point though, but to be honest, I don't really get aching muscles on my road bike, even on the longest rides, perhaps I'll revisit the whole recumbent thing when I'm a bit older.

Dave.


----------



## Riding in Circles (24 Jun 2008)

dodgy said:


> Each to their own, I also found the sweaty back on the trike really uncomfortable for me, it was horrible sat in the cafe while my back was soaking wet
> 
> Dave.



I have a mesh seat so not a problem.


----------



## dodgy (24 Jun 2008)

Yep, I would have thought mesh is the way to go. As you know, it's a solid back on the Speedy, though I imagine someone could fabricate a meshed design for it?

Dave.


----------



## Arch (24 Jun 2008)

dodgy said:


> Each to their own, I also found the sweaty back on the trike really uncomfortable for me, it was horrible sat in the cafe while my back was soaking wet  I reckon the trike would be comfortable on an all day ride from an aching muscle point though, but to be honest, I don't really get aching muscles on my road bike, even on the longest rides, perhaps I'll revisit the whole recumbent thing when I'm a bit older.
> 
> Dave.



Ah of course, being a lady, I don't sweat, I glow...


----------



## byegad (24 Jun 2008)

Arch said:


> ....edit.....
> And at the end of a long day, I'd rather have taken a few minutes longer and not have a sore arse...



I'd just like to say this comment is the best aurgument EVER for recumbents and it's nice to have it put in such a ladylike way too!!


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jun 2008)

That's an amazingly small difference considering you hadn't acclimatized to the trike! I seem to remember it took me 2000km before I felt up to speed on my Hurricane. I believe recumbent trikes are slightly slower than recumbent two wheelers, all else being the same.


----------



## dodgy (24 Jun 2008)

I think almost 2mph is quite a difference, put it this way, if I was to do a hundred miles into Wales which I do fairly often, the Speedy would have added on at least one hour.
One thing I didn't point out is that the road bike stats above were taken in February, and I'm now doing that distance at more like 18mph average. But in the interest of fairness, I took the February stats because it was the exact same course and that is the last time I'd done it.

Who cares, I'm sure (positive in fact) that we're all happy with our bikes/trikes. I didn't want this to turn into an upright vs recumbent thread (which I've pointed out several times already), I really just wanted to provide some useful metrics for other would be riders. Ultimately, if speed is of no importance to you, which is obviously true for at least some of the readership here, then buy whatever is comfortable.
I value speed highly, but appreciate not everyone does. Now if there was a way of measuring comfort between the two, that would be another thing 

Dave.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Jun 2008)

Oh, I'm not pounding upright bikes, I like my uprights as much as the recumbent. I am a good 3-4mph faster on the Hurricane though, which is a very heavy bike since it's an old model. I'm sure the difference would be considerably more if I had a new superlight model, given that I live in Kent.


----------



## dodgy (24 Jun 2008)

Don't worry Mikey, I didn't interpret your post as pounding uprights 

Dave.


----------



## Arch (24 Jun 2008)

dodgy said:


> I value speed highly, but appreciate not everyone does. Now if there was a way of measuring comfort between the two, that would be another thing
> 
> Dave.



I'm sure if I was capable of any appreciable speed, I'd value it. But I'm most capable of pootling between cafes, so it doesn't mean so much!

(I should say, my trike gets very little use, because of storage issues. Most of the time I'm upright, and just as slow and pootley...)

The comfort thing is important though. After 68 miles on the trike a couple of weeks ago, (my longest ever, on any bike!), I was tired, and I had a touch of sunburn on my thighs, and a little twinge in one knee. I'm sure on my upright, I'd have had all those, a sore bottom, stiff shoulders and wrists and neck. It is hard to quantify of course, but you can't beat a recumbent in those terms I think...


----------



## Riding in Circles (24 Jun 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's an amazingly small difference considering you hadn't acclimatized to the trike! I seem to remember it took me 2000km before I felt up to speed on my Hurricane. I believe recumbent trikes are slightly slower than recumbent two wheelers, all else being the same.



We'll see about that! Next icy day we will have a race to decide this.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Jun 2008)

All else being the same, LOL!


----------



## andharwheel (25 Jun 2008)

My road bike is way faster than my Windcheetah and I have been riding them both for a long time. I regularly time trial and I would say that I am way faster on these courses than I would be on any of my recumbents. Had the oppurtunity to use both in these events. However if I had a carbon lowracer(with or without a tail box) then the story might be different.
Having said that with a bit of mileage/training you will be come a lot quicker on a bent than you when first start using it.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jun 2008)

A different perspective......

I bought an HRM to increase the effort in my cycle commute, and to lose weight. What amazed me was the diffrence in performance form the zones.

On a Brompton I reach 75 % at about 14 mph, and on the Catrike at about 22 mph whilst the Nomad is at about 15, and the Street Machine 18. The Airnimal is about the same as the Street Machine.

So faster - that is on spect, but the other is that at 15 mph on the Brompton I am using far more effort than on the Catrike at the same speed.


----------



## squeaker (26 Jun 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> On a Brompton I reach 75 % at about 14 mph, and on the Catrike at about 22 mph whilst the Nomad is at about 15, and the Street Machine 18. The Airnimal is about the same as the Street Machine.


Is that with the fairing on the Catrike? Interested in with / without comparison at same HR if you have it!


----------



## Fiona N (26 Jun 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> A different perspective......
> 
> I bought an HRM to increase the effort in my cycle commute, and to lose weight. What amazed me was the diffrence in performance form the zones.
> 
> ...



Is this taking into account your different HR max for the 'bents? 
Bent riding is closer to swimming (body supported by water so muscles supply movement rather than maintaining posture) than running (muscles must maintain posture as well as movement) and thus has a lower achievable HR max, thus target zones, than upright riding. Usually it's 10-15 bpm lower than your upright max, depending on how reclined and supported you are.
The numbers above for the Airnimal and Streetmachine suggest that you're relatively much more efficient on the Airnimal than the Streetmachine and it might be worth looking at why that is.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jun 2008)

squeaker said:


> Is that with the fairing on the Catrike? Interested in with / without comparison at same HR if you have it!



Never ridden it without!


----------



## Riding in Circles (27 Jun 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Never ridden it without!



Don't you find your feet are cooking in this weather?


----------



## NickM (2 Jul 2008)

It sounds as though we would need a HRM, a speedo, a comfort measuring doobrie _and a funometer _to compare upright and recumbent...

I'm glad you enjoyed your flirtation, Dodgy, and reckon you'll be back someday


----------



## dmb (4 Aug 2008)

The main problem with bents is that harldly anyone else rides them, when I used to ride mine I found that I was always on my own. So went back to DFs really to be more social. As for difference in average speed the high racer was on average faster,s lower on the hill but much faster down them hence not really compatible with club riding.

The trike is a far better tool for touring that a DF you can load it up and pootle away


----------



## Tim Bennet. (4 Aug 2008)

There's a good number of 'bents that do long events like the Paris-Brest-Paris, including fully enclosed ones that looked like Spitfires.

I was struck by how mixed all the finishing times where with results reflecting the riders physical prowess rather than any machine type. There was also no correlation between lack of physical problems and machine type. Lots of recumbent riders had numb bums and loads of shoulder and neck aches, as did lots of upright riders.

The secret to riding very long distances in comfort on either type seemed to be 'core condition'. The strength of one's back, abdomen and shoulders is often neglected by cyclists and anyone thinking that one type of machine will compensate for any short falls in this is likely to be disappointed, especially if they have ambitions to cycle a long way.


----------



## CopperBrompton (4 Aug 2008)

I did some data comparisons also, comparing a Bianchi Via Nerone 7 with a TRICE Q.

Over the same 20-mile loop:

Biachi:
Funometer peak 3.7 grins per hour, average 1.2 grins per hour

TRICE:
Funometer peak 9.2 grins per hour, average 4.7 grins per hour

Ben


----------



## Auntie Helen (28 Aug 2008)

*Recumbents & calories*

Hi all (I'm new).

Having read the above about comparisons with normal bikes, I'd be interested if anyone knows about the difference in calorie usage when cycling. I've got a Trice Q and I cycle for about an hour per day on it, usually averaging 14mph. I'm doing an online dieting program and that gives me best part of 1000 calories burned for this hour's riding. However my husband on a normal bike can't keep up with me - and he's much fitter generally. I'm assuming that my Trice takes less effort and so I'm concerned that I'm not really burning those 1000 calories (which I'm eating back over the day). Does anyone know if calorie burning is less with a recumbent trike?

For info, I've had the Trike 3 months and am definitely getting faster and more efficient in my cycling now that my muscles are adapting. And, despite having a mesh seat, I still get a sweaty back


----------



## dodgy (28 Aug 2008)

My guess is you're still probably near(ish) 1000 calories per hour, but you'd be going a lot slower on an upright on the same 1000 calories per hour.

If you're really interested in applying some science/structure to your traininer, it might be worth investing in a heart rate monitor?

Dave.


----------



## CopperBrompton (28 Aug 2008)

My very unscientific comparison of my speeds on TRICE and road bike says the reclined position is worth about 2mph, so maybe 20% less effort. I'd say if the standard calculator says you're burning 1000 calories an hour, it's more like 800.

Ben


----------



## Auntie Helen (28 Aug 2008)

This is very helpful, thanks. I was wondering if I was getting extra mph for my oomph - I think I will knock down the speed average by 2mph which reduces by about 200 cals for an hour (i.e. if I'm averaging 14, I'll say I'm averaging 12). Bang goes that extra mars bar!


----------



## dodgy (28 Aug 2008)

Why reduce the effort and speed? Keep at it!

Dave.


----------



## Auntie Helen (28 Aug 2008)

Don't want to reduce speed and effort (am really enjoying my cycling!) but as I am trying to lose weight I do want to make sure I'm not awarding myself more calories burned than has actually taken place as otherwise I'll never get rid of the flab!

When I said I would knock down the speed I meant when filling in information on the dieting website, not in what I actually do in the real world on my Trice!


----------



## LeeW (2 Sep 2008)

I recently did a 1 hour ride on a velodrome riding my fully faired fujin

Here are the comparisons between my recent ride and Boardman's hour

Bike: Fully faired fujin
Rider: Lee Wakefield
Distance in one hour: 35.1 miles
Track: Scunthorpe velodrome 485m tarmac

Bike: Upright track bicycle
Rider: Chris Boardman
Distance in one hour: 35.03 miles (UCI best human effort)
Track: Manchester velodrome 250m wood


----------



## Andy in Sig (3 Sep 2008)

That's an interesting comparison. To get the maximum use out of it I think you would have to compare your fitness stats with Boardman's. Given that he was mega hyper fit and you must be at least very fit indeed, it is the difference which will be most informative.


----------

