Best long travel uphill climber ?
Comments
-
styxd wrote: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 ******* useless at climbing.
in general they do have steepish seat angles, but it doesn't always work as well as people say, take the rocky mountain altitude for example, its a pretty average climber considering its steep angles all round, whereas something like the whyte 146, which has a pretty common 73 degree seat angle climbs and slack 66 degree head, climbs like a billy goat on crack... seat angles can be worked around with saddle position to some extent, as its all relative to the effective angle, shove your saddle forward and the effective seat angle steepens and push it back it becomes slacker, head angles are highlighted nowadays for the extra stability and added wheelbase, and the trend for slacker headangles has imo no obvious drawbacks, when all things, i.e. wide, low bars, short stems, are taken into account0 -
lawman wrote:styxd wrote: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 ******* useless at climbing.
in general they do have steepish seat angles, but it doesn't always work as well as people say, take the rocky mountain altitude for example, its a pretty average climber considering its steep angles all round, whereas something like the whyte 146, which has a pretty common 73 degree seat angle climbs and slack 66 degree head, climbs like a billy goat on crack... seat angles can be worked around with saddle position to some extent, as its all relative to the effective angle, shove your saddle forward and the effective seat angle steepens and push it back it becomes slacker, head angles are highlighted nowadays for the extra stability and added wheelbase, and the trend for slacker headangles has imo no obvious drawbacks, when all things, i.e. wide, low bars, short stems, are taken into account
To be honest it what works for you....I have ridden some race HT's and didn't like them due to their tighter angles and more sit up and beg attitude which gave me issues that the front end became light....the Tomac with it's slack (ish) angles which give a longer wheelbase for me is more comfortable on the climbs...
Anyway any bike should climb if you get you cadence right.0 -
Be interested to see how my Tomac goes compared with HT once I've finally built the damm thing, but none of the lads I ride with have any difficulty except perhaps some of the bouncier ones on the lengthy fireroad slogs, but I think I'm more than prepared to put up with that for the sake of not being bounced around all the time by my rather stiff and steep HT.0
-
clamps81 wrote:Be interested to see how my Tomac goes compared with HT once I've finally built the damm thing, but none of the lads I ride with have any difficulty except perhaps some of the bouncier ones on the lengthy fireroad slogs, but I think I'm more than prepared to put up with that for the sake of not being bounced around all the time by my rather stiff and steep HT.
What you have bought a Tomac frame ? which one ?? I am so happy as there may be two of us on BR now !!0 -
I was eyeing it up for ages along with a Titus FTM and actually saw your build thread. Then, just before I went away I saw the price drop on CRC to £500 so I've now got a medium Snyper 140 and a set of rockshox revs in the house. Groupset on it's way, but not going to have money for the wheels etc 'till Jan. Was so pleased when it turned up though, it's an absolutely lovely bike in the flesh.0
-
clamps81 wrote:I was eyeing it up for ages along with a Titus FTM and actually saw your build thread. Then, just before I went away I saw the price drop on CRC to £500 so I've now got a medium Snyper 140 and a set of rockshox revs in the house. Groupset on it's way, but not going to have money for the wheels etc 'till Jan. Was so pleased when it turned up though, it's an absolutely lovely bike in the flesh.
I have a brother !!!
Yep they are stunning bikes and at £500 notes what a fecking bargain...can't wait to see the picks and am sure you will absolutley love it !0 -
Pudseyp wrote:clamps81 wrote:I was eyeing it up for ages along with a Titus FTM and actually saw your build thread. Then, just before I went away I saw the price drop on CRC to £500 so I've now got a medium Snyper 140 and a set of rockshox revs in the house. Groupset on it's way, but not going to have money for the wheels etc 'till Jan. Was so pleased when it turned up though, it's an absolutely lovely bike in the flesh.
I have a brother !!!
Yep they are stunning bikes and at £500 notes what a fecking bargain...can't wait to see the picks and am sure you will absolutley love it !
£500 :shock:
I should have bought one!0 -
+1The Northern Monkey wrote:I think that M'ing TFU is more important than any of the above...0 -
My 160mm Remedy climbs better than my old 100mm Cube AMS.
The remedy is heavier, bouncier and much more DH oriented yet somehow its better on the climbs too..I wuv my wemedy
0 -
True, though given that most mid travel 'trail' bikes climb pretty well from the start and the fact that ability to climb well definitely isn't top of my list of qualities to have on a bike, I'd say geometry bears some relevance to the topic!MountainMonster wrote:ilovedirt wrote:
In terms of climbing, yes. However as an overall picture, I think geometry is more important than anything else.lawman wrote:imo, bike weight and efficient suspension is more important than travel or geometry
And since were talking soleley about climbing, I think your statement is irrelevant.
0 -
and the trend for slacker headangles has imo no obvious drawbacks
I definitely disagree with this! It is true to say that MTBing has evolved quite a lot over the years and we are riding faster and steeper stuff. Some people are prefering the more stable set ups, especially novices (and those who down very quickly). However there are still a lot of people who like a steeper angled front end as they handle better for them in the tight and twisty stuff. I find overly slack front ends feel vague and wash out more easily, is a disconcerting feeling. I prefer bars about 640mm. There is definitely being a ressurgence of classicly angled bikes ie 71/73 degrees (or thereabouts) such as the Giant Anthem, and people still love bikes like Rockhoppers and Zaskars.
When bikes were first 'supension corrected' all the manufacturers did was steepen the head angle to combat the longer fork. Unfortunately they did not address bottom bracket height adjustment nor seat angles. While you can adjust the saddle to alter the effective seat angle, you alter the reach too.0 -
The slacker the better for me! Anything steeper than 68deg just feels too unstable IMO.0
-
supersonic wrote:and the trend for slacker headangles has imo no obvious drawbacks
I definitely disagree with this! It is true to say that MTBing has evolved quite a lot over the years and we are riding faster and steeper stuff. Some people are prefering the more stable set ups, especially novices (and those who down very quickly). However there are still a lot of people who like a steeper angled front end as they handle better for them in the tight and twisty stuff. I find overly slack front ends feel vague and wash out more easily, is a disconcerting feeling. I prefer bars about 640mm. There is definitely being a ressurgence of classicly angled bikes ie 71/73 degrees (or thereabouts) such as the Giant Anthem, and people still love bikes like Rockhoppers and Zaskars.
When bikes were first 'supension corrected' all the manufacturers did was steepen the head angle to combat the longer fork. Unfortunately they did not address bottom bracket height adjustment nor seat angles. While you can adjust the saddle to alter the effective seat angle, you alter the reach too.
ilovedirt sums my point up perfectly, if you did a poll of riders, on what geomoetry they prefer, i imagine alot would agree, it would be interesting to see what people actually thought, a poll would be most interesting !!0 -
What people prefer is one thing, but no drawbacks?0
-
supersonic wrote:What people prefer is one thing, but no drawbacks?
none that i can see from my point of view, i find my mojo HD to be no slower handling wise than my steeper maxlight, like ive said before, a bikes weight and effiecieny makes more difference imo, certainly at the higher end of the spcetrum i guess is what im trying to say, a heavy, slack, in-efficient bike is gonna climb alot worse than a light, efficient, but still slack bike... but imo atleast i think geometry can be worked around by the rider and his postion on the bike, lots of points that probably sound like a right mess, but to me it makes sense 0 -
What about the Mega by Nukeproof0
-
what about the Scott Genius LT?ride your bike like a kid whilst you still can
Transition Blindside = http://www.flickr.com/photos/traceychalk/5335403095/0 -
turner 5 spot of my friends climbs great, and my sultan.... ufffff0
-
I enjoy struggling the fr bike uphill for a few months as when you get back on the xc bike you absolutely fly uphill!0
-
njee20 wrote: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!
This is the one! Njee we agree holy shaz!
THey all climb well, i climb a fine on my 160 Mondraker DuneR adn i run 2.5" Dh tyres up front and 2.35 on the rear and have no issue, with the event of pro pedal you can really active rear suspension and flick a level and have a stable pedal platform its fantastic, the question comes to balancing your items to what suits you! i tend towards the weightier as it inspires confidence when cruising down, but i do have pay a penalty when going for this.
It's all about finding your personal balance with this0 -
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
Just to follow up on Sonics point with the steep XC point to your post from the opposite side.
I can't stand the light weight 150mm or so bikes, far to flexy for the amount of punishment they invite, with flexy 32mm forks trying to hold 150 mm travel they just don't work for me at all, and there far far from the holy grail as can be. I'd much rather a steep XC bike at that weight least its what it is meant to be.0 -
For 160mm travel I find my Lapierre Spicy climbs very well, especially if the trail is a bit rough and technical. I think it's a great all-round bike on the trails, climbing is good and decending is amazing.Many happy trails!0
-
Thewaylander 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
Just to follow up on Sonics point with the steep XC point to your post from the opposite side.
I can't stand the light weight 150mm or so bikes, far to flexy for the amount of punishment they invite, with flexy 32mm forks trying to hold 150 mm travel they just don't work for me at all, and there far far from the holy grail as can be. I'd much rather a steep XC bike at that weight least its what it is meant to be.
again, each to their own
like i say for me, relatively fit, decently skilled, lightweight rider, i find the lighter weight more manageable for mmost riding, sure on pure DH terrain, it might be found abit wanting, but thats half the fun of it, as for the 32 vs 35/36mm forks, i feel my wheels flex far far before the forks, and as the HD is one of the stiffest, if not the stiffest 140mm bike out there, i'd say that for me they cope just fine, but i see your point, i mean the 29" fox 34 would be perfect for some many people if it came in a 26" varient, i for one would probably like to have a go on such a fork, the BOS deville fits the bill to some extent, but is only available in limited travel options, and is quite heavy compared to a 32 float... swings and roundabouts and all that jazz
the most enjoyable bikes ive ever had the pleasure of riding, in FS terms at least, were the ibis mojo and mojo HD140, whyte 146, cove hustler and the sunn kern, all with 32mm forks, and weighing between 25-28lbs, where as the only 160mm bike ive ever enjoyed was a spicy 916, the rest, intense tracer, marin attack trail, alpine 160's etc, felt like too much, but like i say thats just my experiences 0 -
Exactly fella its a point of veiw,
I'm leightwieght averagly skilled rider(i weigh 10stone 4pounds last check at 6"1'tall) and prefer a heavier bike to descend better as any bike i've ridden below 30 pounds in weight flexes. only reason i piped up was you said its the holy grail and for most riders i know it certainly isn't.0 -
I've recently gone from a 120mm camber to a 150 canyon nerve. Same head angle. No difference in the climbing!0
-
Thewaylander wrote:Exactly fella its a point of veiw,
I'm leightwieght averagly skilled rider(i weigh 10stone 4pounds last check at 6"1'tall) and prefer a heavier bike to descend better as any bike i've ridden below 30 pounds in weight flexes. only reason i piped up was you said its the holy grail and for most riders i know it certainly isn't.
shite in that case youre even lighter than me!!!
aye, for me, it is the holy grail, light, fair amount of travel and stiff enough to ride hard, but every one is different, and one mans holy grail is anothers nightmare 0 -
lawman wrote:Thewaylander wrote:Exactly fella its a point of veiw,
I'm leightwieght averagly skilled rider(i weigh 10stone 4pounds last check at 6"1'tall) and prefer a heavier bike to descend better as any bike i've ridden below 30 pounds in weight flexes. only reason i piped up was you said its the holy grail and for most riders i know it certainly isn't.
shite in that case youre even lighter than me!!!
aye, for me, it is the holy grail, light, fair amount of travel and stiff enough to ride hard, but every one is different, and one mans holy grail is anothers nightmare
That's what she said.0 -
OMG waylander, you are a rake! How do you stand up in the wind?Thewaylander wrote:Exactly fella its a point of veiw,
I'm leightwieght averagly skilled rider(i weigh 10stone 4pounds last check at 6"1'tall) and prefer a heavier bike to descend better as any bike i've ridden below 30 pounds in weight flexes. only reason i piped up was you said its the holy grail and for most riders i know it certainly isn't. Many happy trails!0 -
Black wrote:What about the Mega by Nukeproof
Apparently it climbs pretty well. So ways a friend of mine anyway (and he normally rides an Ibis Mojo SL) - he borrowed one from a mate the other day. Reckoned it wasn't wandering all over the place as he expected it to.0 -
supersonic wrote:However there are still a lot of people who like a steeper angled front end as they handle better for them in the tight and twisty stuff. I find overly slack front ends feel vague and wash out more easily, is a disconcerting feeling.
+10
