Shorter stays = wheelie-tastic!

Too long = Wheelspin-tastic!

But look at hill-climb motorcycles……

🙂

years ago I had a GF Montare with ludicrously short chainstays, and it was a brilliant climber, really felt the rear traction and bite. I reckon that statement is bollox. (non-expert opinion of a marine biologist warning!).

Kev

and great for popping wheelies too. Depends on the climb, riding style etc. Normal climbs short stays, silly steep climbs slightly longer will probly be better I reckon.

Years ago, bikes had shorter top tubes, longer stems, and people climbed standing up with bar ends to keep their weight in the right place and the front end (Of their shorter wheelbase bikes) down.

These days we have suspension, and we sit and grind our way to the top, using gears waaaaaay lower then we used to have to keep moving.

Therefore silly short chainstays are no longer required. We’ve found the happy middle ground. 🙂

Do we? some may do others don’t, i have been using the same gear range for over a decade and climbing the same basic way with or without suspension, whatever gets the bike to the top of the hill quickly. if it means in saddle or out do what needs to be done.

Any excuse for not bothering to get fitter.

In general yes.

I started with a 28/28 bottom gear in 1990. Now I have a lower ratio in my middle ring than that! (32/34)

Even on a HT, it’s easier now to climb sitting and spinning than standing and honking. On my 456 I only stand up on climbs to give my bum a rest and to stretch my legs, 95% of the time. On my 1993 Kona SS, I have to stand up more, because I don’t have low gears to use.

Yes, you’re correct in what you say, but in general terms riding styles and bikes have changed. I can climb stuff sitting down on a FS bike that I wouldn’t have even looked at 20 years ago! They just grind and grip their way to the top! 🙂

EDIT

As an example, I can recall bikes being sold with short chainstay length as a feature! (Alpinestars!) You rarely see it mentioned now. When was the last time someone on STW asked for a bike with short stays? They don’t, not that I can ever recall in my years on here, anyway.
They ask for a specific TT length or head angle, for instance

or ride SS and dont give a XXXX 😉

When the back starts slipping move your body weight backwards <<<<

obviously, there’s a compromise.

personally, most of the difficult climbs near me are difficult because i either fall off the back of the bike*, or i can’t keep control of the front wheel.

when it comes to climbing, i’d happily trade a little grip for a bit more weight over the front wheel.

a steep seat tube angle is a different way to achieve the same thing.

my 2006 enduro was a nightmare (short chainstays, slack seat-tube-angle), my blue pig is brilliant (average chainstays, steep seat-tube-angle).

I think its partly related to height

If you read Brants justification of the 456 having longer seat stays he mentions it.

Basically tall people end up sitting closer to the rear wheel than shorter people. This is only slightly offset by the longer top tube This means the taller folk, like me are often fighting to keep the front wheel down, even sat on the nore of the saddle. Longer seat stays help with this (as will saddle further forward)

This is one reason that my Fs will climb much steeper stuff than my old hard tail. Its a fuel ex. The FSR I demoed was a disaster. Putting the seat up sticks your ass over the rear wheel, even more wheelie tastic than my old hard tail.

The first Mountain bike I road was 28×28 bottom gear (26 inch gear)

The first MTB I owned was 28×30 bottom gear (24.3 inch)

I now have 22×34 on mt FS (17 inch)

Thats quite a big change!

so as you cant have more than 100% on the rear wheel changing the geometry cannot give you more than 100% but it may give you a different level of control over the bike when climbing near the limit,

but i would rather have a bike that i can lift the front when needed and is good on single track( opens a whole new can of worms)

and what pressure ?