I think it's interesting that the online recumbent community as I've encountered it is in general agreement that most styles of recumbent climb worse than a dia

I think it's interesting that the online recumbent community as I've encountered it is in general agreement that most styles of recumbent climb worse than a diamond frame. I say most styles because recumbent bicycle design covers a much wider range of options than upright bicycles. The consensus is that a good climbing recumbent loses 5-10% power on the climbs but is generally faster over a course due to aerodynamic advantage (lower frontal area, better CdA due to the body not being shaped like a parachute). You can, of course, have a recumbent that doesn't climb well. I have one (my casual recumbent) where my hip angle is really bad at producing power for some reason so I get like 2/3 the climbing speed at full perceived power but my other (my fast recumbent) doesn't have an issue. I like recumbents in general from a tech perspective because there's no obvious correct way to design them. The most efficient chain line for a rear wheel drive bike runs through the rider's body for lowracer through highracer designs which usually means idlers. Long wheelbase (LWB) design moves the cranks down to below the rider's seat which works for some people and not for others. Driving the front wheel works but creates traction problems going uphill and requires deciding whether the bottom bracket moves as part of the steering (Moving Bottom Bracket, MBB) or the chain twists (not consistently named, I've seen 3-4 designs). There's also weird designs like the python where the pivot is in the frame itself below the rider. It's a fun thing to explore and think about.