All About the New Zwift Recumbent Trike

A recent Zwift update added the Zwift Recumbent Trike to everyone’s garage:

Here’s how it’s described in the Drop Shop:

“Engineered from real-world data and validated by World Ultra Cycling Association (WUCA), this recumbent trike combines low-drag efficiency with exceptional stability. Its aerodynamic position lets you hold speed with less effort, offering a fast, controlled ride from a whole new perspective.”

See our master list of all frames in Zwift >

It’s rated 4 stars for aero and 1 star for weight, like Zwift’s other recumbent (the Handcycle). But how does it actually perform? Since Zwift’s 4-star system isn’t the most granular of performance measurements, we ran the Recumbent Trike through our precise tests to measure performance at nerd-level detail. Let’s dive in!

Note: test results below are from a 75kg, 183cm rider holding 300W steady on the un-upgraded version of the Trike, unless otherwise noted.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

The Recumbent Trike is slower than the Handcycle in our flat tests, losing approximately 37 seconds to it over an hour of riding.

To compare the Recumbent Trike to in-game bicycles, we have to decide what bike setup we’re comparing, since the Recumbent uses just one set of wheels. If you pick a typical racing setup like the Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL8 with DT Swiss 65 wheels, we can see that the Recumbent Trike loses around 12 seconds in an hour of riding.

Climb Performance

The Recumbent Trike is lighter than the Handcycle, and beats it handily in our climb tests, gaining around 65 seconds across an hour of riding.

While the Recumbent sort of held its own vs standard bikes in our flat tests, that is definitely not the case on climbs. Compared to that same Tarmac SL8 + DT Swiss 65 setup we referenced above, the Recumbent loses a lot of time, in the neighborhood of 410 seconds in an hour!

Upgrading Your Zwift Recumbent Trike

Like all frames in Zwift, the Recumbent Trike can be upgraded in five stages. It uses the Distance, Mid-Range upgrading scheme, giving it the following characteristics:

Performance At Each Upgrade Stage

This chart shows how many seconds this frame will save across 1 hour of riding compared to our stage 0 baseline frames (Zwift Carbon or TT). This is based on a 75kg rider, 183cm tall, at 300 watts, riding on tarmac.

Upgrade Stages (Distance, Mid-Range)

1. 160km: Aero Upgrade for 50k Drops
2. 200km: Weight Upgrade for 100k Drops
3. 240km: Drivetrain Upgrade for 150k Drops
4. 280km: Aero Upgrade for 200k Drops
5. 320km: 5% Drops Earning Upgrade for 250k Drops

Drafting Details

The Recumbent, like the Handcycle, differs from other Zwift bikes in how it drafts and gives a draft to others. Specifically:

• An upright bike cannot draft a recumbent
• A recumbent can draft another recumbent
• A recumbent will get half the drafting effect when drafting an upright bike

Additionally, Zwift calculates rider CdA on the Recumbent Trike just like they calculate it for the Handcycle, which is the same way they calculate it for a standard bike. So your rider CdA is based on your height and weight, and doesn’t change based on the bike you’re on or the position of your avatar.

You can read more (and see our Handcycle test results) here, and I’ll use the rest of this paragraph to lodge a formal plea for Zwift to begin calculating “real-time rider CdA” based on the actual avatar positions we see on screen. Imagine if rider height mattered less when in the more flat-backed TT position, compared to the upright “in the draft” road bike position? More realism and dynamic performance? Yes please!

Conclusions

The Zwift Recumbent Trike is lighter than the Handcycle, but also less aero. If you want to climb in a virtually recumbent position, this is the frame for you. But when it comes to race performance, you’ll want to ride a standard road frame due to the way recumbents interact with the draft in Zwift.

Questions or comments?

What do you think of Zwift’s Recumbent Trike? Share below…