Lets say that your goal was to ride up mountains. The bigger, steeper and rougher the better. I know this is a stretch for some of you, but bear with me. What would the ideal bike look like?
We'll take light and stiff as a given. But what about suspension? Adds weight, but improves traction.
Wheelsize? Bigger is heavier, but is that offset by the fact they can roll over stuff more easily?
What about angles? Steeper to aid with line changes at low speed, right?
Chainstays? Longer helps to keep the front wheel on the ground, but too long and you can't lift the wheel over obstacles. So, how long is ideal?
29" wheel at rear. 20" or smaller front. Short fork. Short top tube.
Iv gone from a 26inch wheel cannondale flash hardtail with 100mm lefty which came in at25lbs , to a whyteT130 s which is close to 34lbs and it outclimbs the flash hands down..???
I'd say either an FF29 or an Orange Five. Oh wait...
you dont need to out run the lion, just be faster than the slowest mate
I'd say you don't need to be faster than anyone. Just have fun. You are WAY over thinking it. If you get a slacker bike you'll ride it then decide a steeper one is for you etc etc...Every bike is a compromise in some way. Just find a bike(s) you like (and it sounds like you have) and ride.
The easier it gets technically and in terms of steepness and grip the more road bike like it would become.
As it got steeper and looser I'd begin to want more traction and the back end would become fatter.
Maybe a fat bike at the back (29er+) and a normal 29er at the front. Rigid and short as possible at the front. Plenty of low gears to aid spinning and traction.
I'd say either an FF29 or an Orange Five. Oh wait...
You may laugh, but the FF29 was by far the best climbing bike I've ever ridden. Which is why the frame is still in the shed, even though I much prefer the Solaris everywhere else.
I sold my FF29 for the same reason. Too steep and too harsh. I also bought me a solaris and the difference was night and day. I sold my full sus too and now just ride the solaris.
Something similar to a 20" trials bike would be a good weapon for such a challenge.
WGAF as you'll be carrying it up most "proper" mountains.
What bike to ride down mountains is the more pertinent question surely?
You are WAY over thinking it
Looks to me like the OP is just thinking about it, not overthinking it. It's good to think about how a bike works.
100-120mm 29er FS linkage driven SP or fancy schmancy VPP/DW link with progressive rate 120-140 fork wound down for climbs menaing -1-2 degrees to sharpen handling (not that it would make any difference in my case) Jens Voigts legs and lungs with Akriggs bike handling skills. Jobs a good un
Generally for me, the bike ISN'T the limiting factor, it's my legs, so i'm going to suggest this:
[img] 
[/img]
😉
My Horsethief is ridiculously grippy up hills, no noticeable bob whilst seated either. Shame my legs and lungs aren't as good really.
Road bike and go up the road
That's what I use/set up my bikes for.
I got my Big Nine last year and changed the forks to standard 26" rigid and then a -17 130mm stem, both of which kept the front down which was really needed for that bike.
The only thing with this set up, after going up really steep hills, you need to come back down and it can be really iffy as sometimes I am dangerously close to going over the bars!
It looks weird, but does the job I ask of it. Could do with being a bit lighter though.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Assuming the intention is to come down the other side, why on earth would you want a hard tail? Lightmans bike looks borderline dangerous for anything other than a fireroad descent*
*not actually true, but I wouldn't fancy taking it down a mountain.
you dont need to out run the lion, just be faster than the slowest mate
Quote of the week! Don't mind if I use that one do you? 😉
I'd say either an FF29 or an Orange Five. Oh wait...
Damn, beaten to it!
You are WAY over thinking it.
Like a moth to a flame, here we are posting on another over thought roverpig thread!
Chainstays? Longer helps to keep the front wheel on the ground, but too long and you can't lift the wheel over obstacles. So, how long is ideal?
Ok serious answer now... Look at modern XC race bikes. The chainstays are as short as is physically possible (given that they're almost all 29ers) for a reason. It's the same as on a road race bike. Longer stays mean more flex and weaker power transfer. Front wheel lift (or absence of it) should be dealt with by a low front end, longer front centre, a relatively steep seat angle, but above all that, good technique!
If climbing a hill as fast as physically possible is what's important right now, I'd look at bikes like the Whyte 29C, Scott Scale 29er, KTM Myroon or Aera, or any other Carbon 29er HT that weighs naff all, is very stiff, has short stays and a low front end.
But as an infamous Texan once said... It's not about the bike!
Nice one lightman. That's the sort of commitment to riding up a mountain I was hoping to see. Not sure I'd have the nerve to ride it back down, but chapeau sir.
My friend Mikel asked just that question and ended up starting his own frame building company to answer it. I've never met anyone like him for climbing up mountains, lots of people won't ride with him because of his taste for crazy mountain climbs. This is what he uses: [url= http://www.pyrencycles.com/ziva---ciclomontantildeismo.html ]Pyren Cycles[/url]
29"x3" tires, 67.5 head angle, custom designed integrated uppy downy seat post, steel hardtail. What's not to love?
I've never tried one but I've watched him climb what I would have said was impossible on one.
[img] 
[/img]
Surely if its for going up proper mountains you will need to carry at some point, so that rules out the majority of FS bikes.
If climbing a hill as fast as physically possible is what's important right now, I'd look at bikes like the Whyte 29C, Scott Scale 29er, KTM Myroon or Aera, or any other Carbon 29er HT that weighs naff all, is very stiff, has short stays and a low front end.
I'd want a FS bike for better traction, something with short travel like a Cannondale Scalpel or similar.
I'd still stick by my comment that your Solaris pretty much ticks the boxes already but I get that sometimes it's about getting a new bike (although I'd keep a ht). If so, then try a Camber or Camber Evo.
If my recent experiences are anything to go by then a fat bike will climb *anything* as long as you've got the legs to power it.
I've always stuck to a 6"ish bike for mountains, as you will always have to get back down them. The majority of British mountains (alpine mountains I'd probably just say a short travel FS) are hike a bike anyway for the most part.
I started out on an Ellsworth Moment which was good, but I really wanted a Five so got one. These were between 30 and 32lbs with very big chunky tyres and wheels and 203/180mm rotors. Which wasn't nice to go up with.
My latest bike for big mountains is a Stumpjumper Evo FSR in carbon flavour. It's about 26lbs, so much lighter which does mean you can ride more. Full suspension is a bit of a must for me on the ups as the traction on this sort of climb is crucial. It has travel adjust forks so I can lower the front for the steep bits and I use the Reverb to drop the saddle an inch for the most technical bits of the climb. The bars are too wide (785mm) for most climbs, 760mm at most would suit me better.
I only run 1x10 with a 32 chain ring and if I thought there was more chance of riding the ups on most mountains then I'd probably get a wider range cassette but as it is the idea of riding up a lot of them is a bit of a waste of time unless you fancy hopping like Chris Akrigg all the way up.
29" wheel at rear. 20" or smaller front
Then just swap them round when coming down.
wwaswas - MemberIf my recent experiences are anything to go by then a fat bike will climb *anything* as long as you've got the legs to power it.
I agree, a fatbike for unrivalled traction on the climbs.
If not then a SC Tallboy climbs like a mountain goat, and I suspect other short travel FS 29ers are good if techy and rough climbs are your focus.
There was a good thread on retrobike about this here, but be warned it does get a bit beardy-weirdy. in a good way though, makes a change from subjective opinions being spouted as truth.
[url] http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=279231 [/url]
[img] http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=248073 [/img]
[img] http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=248079 [/img]
Thanks folks; fascinating stuff and three very different solutions to the same problem, which kind of backs up Normal Man's argument that my Solaris would be as good as anything for now. Actually I still have an FF29 frame and I know that climbs better than the Solaris. There is just that small problem of getting back down again 🙂
At the moment this is just a thought experiment. Yes, I do like to think and I realise that this is as unfashionable as riding up a hill, but nobody is forced to join in with my navel gazing.
I'm still intrigued by the chainstay issue. Yes you can do a bit with front centres etc, but once the projection of the CoG falls behind the rear contact patch the front will lift. Technique can keep it down, but probably wont be as efficient, so longer chainstays would seem to make sense. This seems to be borne out by looking at XC race bikes, which seem to have longer stays than their trail bike cousins.
