Best long travel uphill climber ?

twedspeed

Theres something so reasuring about 140-150 mm travel bikes when blasting downhill , But its a b*gger getting them up there in the first pkace - I know its a weight / geometry thing - But what "in your opinion " is a decent climbing 140/150 bike - All the major brands webpages reccon "THEIR" bikes blast uphills as easy as the downs but are there any true legendary uphill sussers ??.

delcol

i would say most will climb well these days...

my heckler (16omm) climbed fine.. as does my butcher(160mm) so does my stylus(160 hardtail)

ok it might be a slog up the hill compaired to a lighter more xc style bike,, but it's i much more fun on the downs..

hell i would even say my demo 7 climbs,, ok it is a real slog on this bike (due to the gearing) but it climbs ok..
not as good as my other bikes...

i guess most modern day 140-160 bikes will...

Mojo_666

Santa Cruz Heckler, Cube AMS, Lapierre Zesty, Canyon Nerve AM

I ride with people who fly up hills on those.

Pudseyp

Its all about how effecient the suspension on the bike is...I had a 120mm travel Mount Vision and my new Tomac is 140mm but personally I find the Tomac easier on the climbs...I think if they nail the suspension and geometry so you get minimal pedal bob and chain growth through you stroke then there isnt any reason why a 150mm bike won't pedal as well as a 120mm travel bike.

MountainMonster

If you are having trouble climbing, train harder. I had a nearly 17kg BMC Supertrail with 160mm front and rear, and 2.4 tires, and even that would climb if you put the effort in.

benpinnick

I can say without a shadow of a doubt the Yeti SB-66 is the greatest climbing bike I have ever ridden (including hardtails), by a long margin. It really does pedal like a hardtail, but absorbs the bumps to keep the wheels planted.

ESHER SHORE

most modern bikes in the 150mm-160mm range will climb well, as long as you can set up your bike with adequate saddle extension and have a good level of fitness: if you have a Fox RP2/23 shock the Pro-Pedal "on" switch can definitely help with climbing duties.

modern geometry tends to include slack HA and steep SA, its really the steeper SA that helps by putting you over the crankset rather than sitting behind it (as on most FR and DH bikes)

something I found on my 150mm bike (Devinci Dixon) is that running my handlebar nice and low (20mm rise Renthal with 0 rise Easton Haven stem, integrated tapered headtube/headset and no stem spacers) helps on the steep climbs as you just sit a little forward on the saddle and it climbs no problem

Anonymous

Got a Nomad, 170 DH Lyrik forks, no lock out. No problems climbing.

Basically no different to my old GT which was much steeper head angle, 130 forks and also no lock out.

Both have pro pedal but made little difference as both bikes have suspension systems with an axle path that limits bob.

Did try a Zesty and found that climbed well, but I guess that's not a long travel bike these days. Didn't like it on the downs though.

But anyway, crank up the seat, shift forwards, and just try to get a few big climbs in each week and then the bike doesn't really matter. If you're a racing whippet then maybe it does but should be looking at carbon XC bikes then, and lycra

njee20

I'd say that overall build will make a big difference too. There was an 18lb Mojo SL floating around on MTBR (I think it was), that'll climb far better than a 30lb build on the same frame! It was ridiculous.

IMO the (understandable) tendency towards big grippy tyres and tough wheels will be the biggest hinderance to uphill prowess!

ricardo_smooth

isn't uphill where you get chance to take your bike for a walk??????

The Northern Monkey

ricardo_smooth wrote:

isn't uphill where you get chance to take your bike for a walk??????

haha! + potato

Thing is, if you have a long travel bike that climbs well, there will be another bike that descents better.. and vice versa.

You need to get out and see what works for you by trying a few!

calvjones

This is the point where I say www.bionicon.com

Addresses the geometry issue with properly adjustable front-rear suspension wizardry. I have the golden willow which is quite XC oriented, 28lb in my build.

ddraver

I was on hols with a good climber that swore his ibis Mojo climbed like his HT, Trek Remedys tend to be reviewed well in this regard too....

no idea personally though as I still rock a hardball....

ilovedirt

140-150mm isn't long travel, and any modern 140/150mm trail bike should climb well, particularly one with an air shock with propedal etc. I can climb fine on my slayer (150mm out back, 180mm totems up front). It's a case of manning up and deciding whether you want a bike that climbs well or descends well. It's about the geo more than anything else though. 66 deg head angle, yes please

milko9000

My SB-66 climbs well enough that I sold the hardtail immediately. Like Ben says, really. I'm still trying to get it exactly how I want it on the downhill stuff mind you, but I'm optimistic.

supersonic

GT Force.

The Northern Monkey

supersonic wrote:

GT Force.

Doesn't descend well according to reviews!

delcol

any modern 140/150mm trail bike should climb well, particularly one with an air shock with propedal etc

why only with an air shock, my heckler climbed no differently with it's fox dhx 4.0 (coil) shock than it did with the rp23 shock.
my butcher climbs no differnt with the elka stage 5 coil shock than it did with it's rp23... they just descend better especially on very rough ground..

ilovedirt

delcol wrote:

any modern 140/150mm trail bike should climb well, particularly one with an air shock with propedal etc

why only with an air shock, my heckler climbed no differently with it's fox dhx 4.0 (coil) shock than it did with the rp23 shock.
my butcher climbs no differnt with the elka stage 5 coil shock than it did with it's rp23... they just descend better especially on very rough ground..

I said particularly with an air shock, not only one with an air shock. A bike with a coil shock can climb well, if the suspension design is good. My point is, air shocks are lighter and tend to be more pedal-efficient, especially when they have propedal.
Coil shocks do have better small bump sensitivity though. I'm probably going to get one for my slayer for the alps/uplift days, my RP3 doesn't quite seem to cut it.

Northwind

Climbing comes in different flavours too... Like, if I stick my Hemlock into the granny ring there's a lot of pedal feedback, which means lots of grip on techy climbs- put the power down and the wheel is pushed into the ground. It'll get me up difficult climbs that I can't get up on my hardtail. The sensitivity of the coil shock adds to that since the wheel tracks so well. It's not putting quite as much power on the ground since some of it is being used for other stuff, but the power it has keeps turning the wheel long after the 456 would be spinning its rear wheel.

But, on nontechnical sloggy climbs that just ends up being 2 different ways to lose power in bob and squat. So it ends up relying on propedal to restrain the suspension (or shifting into the middle), at which point it climbs much like any other propedal'd bike.

fungus_the_muffin_man

My Kona Cadabra is a great climber IMO, but the best climber I have tried was the Bionicon Edison when I test rode one. One click of the button weight over the bars and the geometry is dialled in perfectly.

ilovedirt

Northwind wrote:

Climbing comes in different flavours too... Like, if I stick my Hemlock into the granny ring there's a lot of pedal feedback, which means lots of grip on techy climbs- put the power down and the wheel is pushed into the ground. It'll get me up difficult climbs that I can't get up on my hardtail. The sensitivity of the coil shock adds to that since the wheel tracks so well. It's not putting quite as much power on the ground since some of it is being used for other stuff, but the power it has keeps turning the wheel long after the 456 would be spinning its rear wheel.

But, on nontechnical sloggy climbs that just ends up being 2 different ways to lose power in bob and squat. So it ends up relying on propedal to restrain the suspension (or shifting into the middle), at which point it climbs much like any other propedal'd bike.

Exactly. I only have the one bike now, but I'll stick the propedal and floodgate on for a long fire road slog, but for techy climbs, I find it helps to have a bouncy rear end at least, because as you say, it helps keep the rear wheel stuck to the ground and keep traction.

diddyfunk

I have a Specialized Stumpjumper Expert Evo (150mm front and 145mm rear) and was realy worried about the climbing capability.

After doing a 1200m climb Chiltern route a couple of weeks ago I am gobsmacked at how well it climbs.

All about the Evo!

lawman

imo, bike weight and efficient suspension is more important than travel or geometry, geometry can be worked around with good technique, so a slack, but light, efficient suspensioned 140mm bike will climb far better than say a heavier, less efficient 100mm bike, no matter what the geometry is. good example being my Mojo HD, it climbs far easier than most of my friends xc bikes, despite being slacker and having an extra 50mm travel, purely down to its weight and design... imo atleast, light, say 25lb 140/150mm slack angled trail bikes are the holy grail nowadays, yes it would a bloody expensive bike, but it would be perfect for pretty much everywhere, not as fast as a DH or XC bike on whatever each was designed for, but it wouldnt be far behind either in a back to back test with the same rider on board. while some may argue that point, i'll tell you from experience its true, im limted by bravery and fitness, not the bike

ilovedirt

lawman wrote:

imo, bike weight and efficient suspension is more important than travel or geometry

In terms of climbing, yes. However as an overall picture, I think geometry is more important than anything else.

The Northern Monkey

I think that M'ing TFU is more important than any of the above...

MountainMonster

ilovedirt wrote:

lawman wrote:

imo, bike weight and efficient suspension is more important than travel or geometry

In terms of climbing, yes. However as an overall picture, I think geometry is more important than anything else.

And since were talking soleley about climbing, I think your statement is irrelevant.

supersonic

lawman wrote:

imo, bike weight and efficient suspension is more important than travel or geometry, geometry can be worked around with good technique, so a slack, but light, efficient suspensioned 140mm bike will climb far better than say a heavier, less efficient 100mm bike, no matter what the geometry is. good example being my Mojo HD, it climbs far easier than most of my friends xc bikes, despite being slacker and having an extra 50mm travel, purely down to its weight and design... imo atleast, light, say 25lb 140/150mm slack angled trail bikes are the holy grail nowadays, yes it would a bloody expensive bike, but it would be perfect for pretty much everywhere, not as fast as a DH or XC bike on whatever each was designed for, but it wouldnt be far behind either in a back to back test with the same rider on board. while some may argue that point, i'll tell you from experience its true, im limted by bravery and fitness, not the bike

True for you, but maybe not others... That's not arguing the point, just the way it is. I hate climbing on slack angled bikes, especially sitting and spinning. Combined with wide bars and less weight on the front wheel, they can be all over the place, to me at least, a steep angled XC hardtail rules the roost.

lawman

supersonic wrote:

lawman wrote:

imo, bike weight and efficient suspension is more important than travel or geometry, geometry can be worked around with good technique, so a slack, but light, efficient suspensioned 140mm bike will climb far better than say a heavier, less efficient 100mm bike, no matter what the geometry is. good example being my Mojo HD, it climbs far easier than most of my friends xc bikes, despite being slacker and having an extra 50mm travel, purely down to its weight and design... imo atleast, light, say 25lb 140/150mm slack angled trail bikes are the holy grail nowadays, yes it would a bloody expensive bike, but it would be perfect for pretty much everywhere, not as fast as a DH or XC bike on whatever each was designed for, but it wouldnt be far behind either in a back to back test with the same rider on board. while some may argue that point, i'll tell you from experience its true, im limted by bravery and fitness, not the bike

True for you, but maybe not others... That's not arguing the point, just the way it is. I hate climbing on slack angled bikes, especially sitting and spinning. Combined with wide bars and less weight on the front wheel, they can be all over the place, to me at least, a steep angled XC hardtail rules the roost.

i guess everyone has their preferences, but like i say for me at least, i dont find it an issue, if anything, i find the fact i have to perhaps attack a climb abit more than i would on a xc hardtail, i find it more fun and rewarding, getting to the top of steep technical climb on a long travel fs bike when people on superlight xc race bikes can't is damn rewarding if you ask me but i see it from your point of view, every one has a style that suits them more than others, but i think given the bikes people tend to ride these days, taking in most popular catagory, trail bikes with 120-150mm travel, it matters less about geometry when climbing, and that slacker angles for downhill stability should take first priority for designers, the likes of whyte, santa cruz and yeti have hit the nail on the head in my opinion, with light, slack bikes that work pretty much everywhere

styxd

You're not really making much sense lawman. Theres more to bike geometry than slack head angles. I imagine all these long travel trail bikes have pretty steep seat angles (something that doesnt matter when you're stood up going downhill) which makes them climb ok. If they had slack seat angles then they'd be fucking useless at climbing.

Northwind

Aye, bikes are the sum of their parts... I think the best climbing hardtail I've had was my Mmmbop, which was pretty dang slack, but was built around that slackness. Soul had more XC angles but didn't have quite such a planted nose on steep stuff.