No "maybe" - it is definitely true and well documented - power output for a given oxygen uptake are not measurably different between upright and recumbent position.
Boats do not have to contend with hills so that comment is a red herring. Albeit you would get trounced in a debate or a real hillclimb with any experienced NoCom rider like this one:
Greenspeed has no doubt done the comparison:
Scroll down to the middle of the page for the Hill Climbing ability.
Recumbents were banned for a reason back in the 1930s - they were deemed to give the rider and unfair advantage:
For that reason they are not raced professionally but average Joe will be faster on a recumbent in all aspects than an upright. In my opinion the low seating position is not compatible with motor vehicles on shared roadways and there are others with the same view. Hence unless there is good cycle paths, separated from motor vehicles, uprights are the bike of choice. There are only a few locations in Australia with good infrastructure for cyclists. As that grows the number of recumbents is increasing. Trikes are particularly suited to older people with fragile bones that might suffer serious damage from a fall off an upright.
On 28/06/2015, at 12:28 PM, "taladorwood@yahoo.com.au [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:
That may be technically true for "aerobic efficiency" but an upright pedaler who utilizes his arms and torso is able to generate much more watts for an extended period of time compared to a recumbent pedaler who is only using his legs, generally 20 to 30% more. Recumbent bikes are a joke in hill climbing, on the other hand they are incredibly fast going down, but their average speed is always slower. It is a different story on the flats where drag dominates, there the recumbent has the decided edge.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Rick Willoughby <rickwill@bigpond.net.au>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a new topic | • | Messages in this topic (12) |
.