Is it more difficult to climb hills on a recumbent bike than a conventional bike?

I am not a physicist but there must be some scientific explanation about the hill climbing characteristics of a recumbent bike vs. a conventional bike. From my belief about leverage, a conventional bike would be much superior to a recumbent.

I suspect much of it has to do with the riders. I've never seen anyone on a 'bent climb very well, but most of the riders seem to be overweight casual cyclists. Many of them go with recumbents because of physical problems that make conventional bikes uncomfortable.

Another factor, 'bents aren't allowed in competition, so most of the truly fit riders stick with conventional geometry.

'bents are also the province of the mechanically inventive odd duck. More interested in the mechanical workings than in speed or riding. Witness the Human Powered Vehicle Association, and the fact that most 'bent riders sport odd facial hair.

Obviously the recumbent has a significant aerodynamic advantage, and is far faster on the straight and level, but gives up a little in weight. The $64 question is if there is enough leverage advantage to make up for the weight difference when climbing.
-------
Edit: I should note that I occasionally use exercise bikes at the YMCA. They have some upright AND recumbents from the same manufacturer. While I haven't rigorously tested and documented, I can say that I haven't noticed any significant power output difference between the two at the same heartrate.
-------
Edit2: Lets not confuse torque and power. If you're operating at a point where leverage is an issue, you're in the wrong gear....... or in your lowest gear on a really steep climb and thus geared incorrectly for the ride.

Totally agree with silverbullet.

On a cumbent it's not only harder to climb, it's also difficult to descend; in countries like Norway it would be a fast ticket to the hell.

It's the length of the wheel base.

Most bents have a much longer wheel base than traditional double diamonds.

New trike designs have shorter wheel bases and climb better than their super long parent generation.

I am probably in a good position to answer this because I ride both a standard upright bike and a recumbent trike. It did take some time to develop the muscles used by the recumbent (the recumb-butt), but I am now a much stronger climber on the trike.

The difference appears to be in the mechanics involved. The maximum force that can be applied to the peddles on the upright is my body weight. There is just no way to push down more than I weigh. But on the trike the maximum force that can be applied to the peddles is a function of my leg strength because I am pressing against the seat.

In the gym I can leg press much more than my body weight. So for me, the decreased air drag is probably offset by the increased weight of the trike, but when I am climbing the leg strength makes it easier on the recumbent. And it is definitely more fun.


Rollin' in the mountains.