It's Not the Bike, or maybe it is...

One of the things that continues to baffle me is just how much difference the bike makes in getting up a hill. Stories and comparisons abound, but it's hard to really nail anything down.

I'd thought for some time that my Easy Racers EZ-1 (not the Sun-made bike) climbs a little better than my Burley Canto, but I'm just not so sure of that anymore, at least as regards really steep hills.

I've been playing around on this short, but quite steep, Wabash Street over the past week, riding it a couple different days on each of the two bikes. The first day I was out on the Canto. I was a little surprised to make it up and thought that it will be a piece of cake on the EZ-1. Actually it feels about the same on both. I'm down to walking speed on either and can turn the pedals over okay, but don't have much left over.

Here are the few things I am pretty sure of:

The seat back makes a heck of a difference. My EZ-1 has the original, very rigid-backed Cobra style seat. It is a really solid support when you are down to mashing the pedals instead of spinning. The first ride I took on my Burley, I could hardly get up steep hills at all, the seat back was so flexy. The speed struts really helped, and it also makes a big difference keeping the seat back mesh tightened up. You'd have to have a pretty whippy bike for the frame to flex as much as some recumbent seat backs do (the frame on my old Infinity probably did flex that much). And I don't think as much of this seat flex gets returned to the pedals as it does with frame flex. The comfortable seat back materials in particular seem to just soak up power without giving it back.

Handling makes a big difference too when the going gets slow. The EZ-1 is hard to beat at that point. It's hard to imagine an easier to handle bike on a really steep pitch, plus it sure is nice to have your feet close to the ground. The Burley converts from LWB to SWB and handles fine both ways. I actually prefer the long wheelbase for really steep climbs since there is no chance of your feet hitting the tire. In the LWB mode the bottom bracket it also just a touch lower and the seat just a bit less reclined. Not a big difference, but I slightly prefer that too on steep hills. On the very steepest grades that I encounter, neither bike suits me perfectly. The front wheel gets light on the EZ-1 (I have the seat pretty far back), and the handling and higher bottom bracket start to be a handful on the Burley.

Both frames seem plenty stiff and I just don't see how I could be losing much energy there.

Obviously, really low gears can be great. The Rans V-Rex I rode for while had a 3 speed rear hub, plus the 21 speed derailleur gears. You could really pedal up anything that you could keep the bike upright on with that setup. Both of my current bikes could stand a touch lower gearing.

Many people spend a fortune to shave a few ounces off their bikes, but it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me-at least not a few pounds difference. Neither of my bikes is light. My EZ-1 is a lot lighter than the Sun made EZ-1 SC (a bit lighter even than their aluminum version). The Burley probably weighs quite a bit more, but I don't really know. A light bike has a great responsive feel when climbing, but you are still carrying the whole load up the hill.

There are online calculators that will show you how much time you gain or lose with weight, and it isn't all that much for small changes. Bike weight doesn't even come into the calculation, just total weight. The lighter you are the more difference a couple pounds will make to the GVW (gross vehicular weight--very gross in the case of some of us).

Lots of other things probably do matter, like body angle to the pedals, but I really haven't got a grasp on them yet. I'm always anxious to hear from people who have explored this sort of thing. I'm still ready, even anxious, to believe in some bike magic for hill climbing; I just haven't found it yet.