[Closed] Is there too much focus on going down hill in bike design/reviews?

Want a bike that climbs well? Get one.
Prefer going downhill? Get a bike suited to it.

Easy.
🙂

Interesting point, i suppose alot of people see going down as the fun bit so more emphasis put on this.

FWIW i would get a new rear tyre as my Prophet climbs very well

Most people are more interested in going downhill that's why. I quite enjoy clearing a techy climb but nowhere near as much as I do ragging it down hills.

By the way my Pitch is pretty good on techy climbs, seems to have great rear wheel traction (though maybe that's cos of my 16st bulk sat on it).

Just my point that all bikes are pretty good at going downhill but not all are good at going up. I have never felt myself held back by the bike when going down. Going up you notice straight away as you come to a grinding halt.

I also agree it seems the cost of the compromise.

The low front end and sharp geometry that makes a better climbing bike makes downhill harder work.

I often wouldn't mind a better bike for climbing to keep up with some fast mates, but then I wouldn't enjoy the downhills as much.

I think a travel adjustable fork is about as good as you can get to have the choice of a lower front end when you want.

By the way my Pitch is pretty good on techy climbs

Don't you find the ground clearance a bit limiting?

Just my point that all bikes are pretty good at going downhill

I don't know about that. I've ridden quite a lot of bikes that were not in the same league as my Pitch at going downhill. You could still get down most of the same stuff though I spose, just much slower and it was much less fun.

The Prophet does not have an adjustable fork so that makes it a bit harder. Downhill there is not much in it for the fun factor when descending with my Patriot, PA or Prophet except a bit of comfort and some extra error margin with the FS bikes.

I think you've answered your own question: It's skill, fitness and traction that make a bike go uphill; most (I know, not all) the traction comes from that rear tyre, and the rest comes from the rider. Designing bikes that give riders ease and comfort when using gravity as their main motor is much more profitable than telling your customers to do more execise and work harder at the non-fun bits.

That said, I wouldn't want to muscle a long travel freeride or DH machine uphill... I'd still go with the hardtail for pretty much everything.

It's possible because much of the focus these days is on riding at trail centres, both at home and abroad. That means that climbs are often either via uplift or not that technical, with the aim just being to get you to the top of the fun descents.

I find the climbing a lot harder than technical descents, plus I rarely ride at trail centres, so how well they go uphill is important with the bikes I use.

I find I have to sit right back to get traction on the prophet but this means that the space you have got to move about to push yourselves up rocks/ over roots is more limited. As I said above that explosive power you need sometimes gets sucked up by the suspension.

Just my point that all bikes are pretty good at going downhill but not all are good at going up.

Have you ever ridden a lightweight (like sub 22lb) XC race bike, with 80mm or less travel forks, skinny tyres, piddly brakes, flat narrow bars and a zero rise stem down a hill? I'd suggest you'd retract this statment!

Agreed that most "trail bikes" these days are designed more with a view to enjoying the downhills, but then most riders endure the ups to get to the downs. I'll always rather suffer slightly on a climb, in order to enjoy the downs more. That said, a grippy rear tyre can make the world of difference and turn a previous poor climber into an accomplished one!

The weak link in going uphill is me, not the bike.

surprised you don't find the prophet a good climber. i'd look at tyre and tyre pressure.

I've thought about this before.

I love going downhill and am OK at it but I am a poor climber. At my size - 6ft 6, 17 stone I'm never going to be a whippet. I have 2 bikes, one has 5.75" travel, the other 6".

I wonder if a hardtail would suit me better. I don't think it will slow me down much on the descents but it should help on the climbs

I suppose the example would be the beast in the Peaks or Cut gate. Not really that hard to get down without any dabs and razing it as fast as you can but cycling up, in my dreams, though I think I have made it up from the Langsett end with a few dabs.

A shorter travel bike would probably help a lot rockitman... No matter what the marketeers say, a 6" bike just doesn't climb as well as a good 4" one unless you lock it out and even then you're carrying the extra bulk unnecessarily.

Compared to my hardtail, my Remedy is an absloutely awesome climber.
It has so much more traction that it means I run out of energy way before it runs out of traction.
I keep trying steeper and steeper climbs just to see what it can do!

This whole 'buy one bike for climbing, another that's good at descending'....WTF how do these people get from A-B?

I think reviewers probably do put too much emphasis on descending... but that's entirely subjective. Lots of the recent (last 2-3 years) crop of AM / Trail bikes have been marketed by bike companies and written up by reviewers as all day suitable - verging on mis-selling if you ask me.

My HT is a bitch on any downhills with drops and jumps - rewarding when you get it right. 21" frame with a long top tube and circa 90mm forks. Climbs well though :D, and nothing compares to the laser guided feel through swoopy flowy sections of singletrack. Feels more like slalom skiing working from edge to edge

Which is the best bike for technical climbing as well?

http://www.james-walters.net/cleland/cleland_history.html

...but you gotta build one, you can't buy one. Here's a recent example based around a Giant NRS frame, side-by-side with an original:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

'razzing' it down the beast is never easy! I've only ever done it at any real speed once (as in fast enough to be picking lines based on jumping the bigest rocks rather than rolling it and avoiding the bigest holes). After the first right hand corner its easy enough but that first straight had me shi**** myself and theres no-way I'd have the balls to comit to a fast line on that first corner.

*speechless* @ NRS abomination

^^
Now there's a bike that fell out of the ugly tree, bit every branch on the way down and then ended up being beaten soundly by the ugly chavs at the bottom of the tree.

The example of being able to ride down something but not up is totally flawed! You can ride down stairs on a road bike, but you can't ride (I don't count hopping as riding) up them on anything.

PP was pretty well spot on with his first comment! Most trail bikes, like their riders are designed to 'survive' the climbs and enjoy the descents. Try an XC race bike if you want to go up hills fast. Epic, Top Fuel, Anthem etc, they'll make most trail bikes seem rather sluggish.

+1 @wwaswas
There's a reason nobody rides these...

There's a reason nobody rides these...

People do ride them though, and there are a lot of arguments in favour of them over the much more race-oriented 'modern' mountain bike.

Ugly? Form follows function my friend.

An XC race bike would be rubbish on the stuff I am talking about as they are just too twitchy to be able to control easily on loads of rocks and roots.

I've got an NRS and for riding anything remotely steep getting your weight as far forward as possible is the key. You then just moderate your effort to match the traction available.

That bike with 3ft of steerer tube is forcing the riders weight right back over the rear wheel which might help traction on a road ride where everything's got to be doable in a car but for anything 'off road' steep you'd just end up doing a wheely.

DoctorRad - What are they like to ride then?

Make up your mind then!

If I'm going to ride up a technical climb I'll take my XC race bike, and accept it won't go down as well.

XC racers seem to do OK, perhaps we should re-define it as the perfect climbing bike for IT consultants and accountants...

njee20 - I see your point but I was thinking more about where you put the emphasis. There are some things you'll never be able to ride up but most of the stuff I ride is rideable. I just wonder if I would be better equipped with something that had more of an emphasis on climbing.

Would I enjoy my riding more if I took a bit of the pain out the climbing?

Would I still be able to fly down the roman road jumping off rocks and passing a good number of those riders who've just passed me on the climb up?

Would I be able to ride up things I currently can't or would I still have to give up cos I can't breath?

Or would I just be better going running every night for a couple of months and dropping a stone or 2?

Both my MTB’s have a downhill bias, shorter stem, wider more upright bar position, both are HT’s also and both will climb better than I’m capable of…

Maybe the trouble is the rider, fitness is just one aspect, but don’t assume that just because your plodding up a hill you don’t need to think, pick a line and shift your weight about, it takes as much concentration to clean a tricky climb properly as it does to ride Rooty DH singletrack, perhaps more…

If your tyres slip on wet roots, it’s your fault, not the bikes. You should have spotted them and either picked the correct line or shifted your weight to compensate, plus if your not finding the DH sections very challenging, do you need 6” of bounce weighing you down for the climbs?

Buy a cheap HT for winter and learn some basic trail craft…

A professional XC rider may be able to hop skip and jump over every root and rock and Steve Peat my be able to win a World Cup with 160mm rotors but thats not the point or maybe it is. Either we don't need these skill compensator's or we do cause we are crap. What is this thing about IT managers and accounts??

I find there's a difference between "technical" climbs and just steep climbs. My hardtail is a rocket up hills, but there comes a point where the technicalities mean my 6" full susser is better. Not only does it have better traction but I can "steam-roller" up rocky sections that I would have difficulty on otherwise (I'm no Martyn Ashton!). Also it is easier to stay sat down on my full susser and winch my way up. The annoyance is that the full susser is way more fun at the trail centres...except on the dull fireroad climbs where I dream about being on my hardtail.

Which is why you want a light XC bouncy bike...

Agree that hardtails are generally crap at technical climbing.

GEDA I don't really understand what you want? There is always a compromise - I bet a prophet climbs just fine tbh. If you don't and it bothers you then get something that climbs better, but accept that it might not be as good downhill.

Which is why you want a light XC bouncy bike...

...and so the quest for "one-bike-for-all" fails 😆

@GEDA - my first "Cleland" is still being built up. This from a correspondent who's been riding them for years:

"The ethos of the Cleland is that of a competition trials mototbike, where getting off and walking is not allowed. It is in fact a trials motorbike minus the engine.

When climbing you lean forwards, just like a mountain bike, but your elboes bend further until your chest almost touches the handlebars. The Cleland NRS has a stem that can rotate 90 degrees, forwards and down, for long climbs and headwinds. It is when climbing out of the saddle that the Cleland is totally different. You stand upright and lean towards the hill to balance the weight between the wheels. (The torque reaction trying to lift the rear wheel is much easier to control on a cleland). The Clelands are good climbers, but out of the saddle, the NRS version is exceptional and can climb 44%+ incline (rises 44mm for every 100mm traveled). I'am still trying to work out why this is.

All the Clelands main features are designed to keep it going no matter what.

* High bottom bracket (so the peddals don't hit the ground)
* Short chainstays to keep the rider's weight over the rear wheel
* 650B or 700C wheel size (for maximum grip/minimum rolling resitance)
* Short distance from handlebars to saddle (this is more to do with comfort and keeping your body weight off the arms)
* Massive mud clearance (so it won't clog)
* Stayless mudguards and mudflaps (To keep rider and bike clean above the knee, and front whhel mud off the drive chain. Also so they won't clog and to stop twigs from snagging)

other important features are:

*low tyre pressures for (for maximum grip/minimum rolling resitance & comfort)
*Sprung saddle (for comfort though suspension does a better job).
*High handlebars to keep your weight rearward, off your arms and allow for swift adjustments of body mass.
*A light and controllable front end that can easilly be lifted out of wheeltraps, over logs etc, and doesn't dig into mud or sand.
*reliable, progressive, and mudproof brakes.
*drive train protection from mud comming off the rear wheel.

The Cleland NRS has some new features that are being evaluated, like the Shimano Inter8 hub gears that can be changed between any ratio instantly, even when climbing a steep hill.

The Cleland bicycle more 'alternative' than its tradditional looks would suggest.

You can see the steering geometry details on the 'Highpath' drawing."

[img] [/img]

and can climb 44%+ incline

now that I would love to see

Yep a 3-4" air sprung bouncer is the "Third Way" and probably the best option if you want an easier life, most bouncers will offer better traction, like I said though, most things are climb-able whatever you ride if you can read the trail ahead…

Seems to me like your want the moon on a stick though, a 6" super light bike that propels itself up the hills and flatters your talent quotient on the descent…

What do you actually need?

A motorbike?

That's more like it - numbers 🙂

So what's the steepest incline you can get up on a MTB?

Incidently, as long as your sensible with your airtime, I'd put money on a giant anthem (or similar) being the fastest bike arroud any trail center.

Dirt (IIRC) did a timed run of one of the Afan decents (the wall?), the bike was a SC nomad with pikes wound down to 100mm. I'm going to stick my neck out and say thats only because they didnt want to admit to riding a propeer 100mm travel steep angled bike (although they'r now having a love in with 100-130mm bikes by the looks of it)!

Again, from my correspondent:

"The 44% incline (measured with spirit level whilst holding the bike on the ridden slope) was using an EggRing/Shimano Inter8 drive chain. The steepest part 20 meter section the slope was was ridden with pedal power alone and with no run up. With this bike, when attempting to ride what appear to be impossibly steep slopes I am often surprised to I arrive safely at the top.

I also have an unaltered Giant NRS Carbon, that I use as a bench mark, despite its lower weight it cannot climb this hill."

Having used EggRings myself, I can say they make a major contribution to climbing ability, particularly technical climbing:

http://www.highpath.co.uk/cycles/ovals01.html

They are NOT the same as Biopace, but are similar to Q-Rings.

This is the set-up my correspondent uses on one of his bikes:

[img] [/img]

I agree with the original title. There does seem to be a big bias towards going downhill on current hardtails. The angles seem to be heavily biased towards fitting 130-160mm forks when the riding that most people are doing is not really in the same ballpark.

To give an example, there are LOTS of people on this forum with various On Ones, Cotic Souls, Pipedream Sirius etc. Nice frames which accept a 100-120mm fork with no troubles and cope with all manner of abuse on anything we can find in this country for general xc riding. The beast is easily achivable on any such bike.

But that market is not very fashionable these days. Forks are not getting shorter and we need the frames to match up. Along come things like the Blue Pig, 456, BFE etc etc. These frames are quite often just beefed up versions of existing angles so not even anything new. I dare say they make the downs more enjoyable, but does it make it a more complete bike?

The thing that makes me wonder about this even more is the fact that i noticed when the big take up of BFE's happened (Everyone was posting them up), a few months later i noticed a big surge in people selling them because they were struggling to make the most of the heavier, more dh inspried kit.

That's certainly oval...

Those appear to be Specialized Strong Arm cranks. Old school. Crap then, crap now.

Those rings look nuts too, far more 'exaggerated' than Rotor rings. You can keep them.

I'd definitely agree that a 'race' bike like an Anthem etc will be the quickest round most trail centres.

i blame the mags.

a good mate had his bike built up like a tank because that's what he saw in the mags all the time. he bought into this full face, freeride, google wearing, padded up style of riding.

he's now looking to get a Pike and sell his Lyrik (previously had 180mm double crown thing) because it's less weight and should mean he can ride up hill.

I'd definitely agree that a 'race' bike like an Anthem etc will be the quickest round most trail centres.

I reckon so too, but would it be the most fun? Depends what you are into I suppose. But given that descents are generally over fairly quickly, the thing that is going to make the most different to your time is performance on the climbs/flats.

Hmmm, yes I must admit I'd choose a slightly longer travel bike and go a bit slower on the climbs, but be able to make a few more mistakes on the way down!

[i]njee20 - Member
Hmmm, yes I must admit I'd choose a slightly longer travel bike and go a bit slower on the climbs, but be able to make a few more mistakes on the way down!
[/i]

Surely that goes against the racer ethos Nick?

Me i just want a bike that i enjoy riding up and down. My riding tends to involve just as much up as it does down. It also seems to involve some pushing and carrying. All things taken into account my hardtail with 115mm does the job. I would like to complement it with a 4" Lightish full susser when funds dictate

Well I think a bike has to be enjoyable to pedal since you'll spend 75% of your ride pedalling. If you're powerful then a big bike is OK to pedal and throw about. For me, I reckon more than 30lb is too annoying to pedal.

@njee20 - Fair enough, each to their own.

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=512590#512590

They're not Specialized Strong Arm cranks, they're Thorn Vision:

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=9950&src=froogle

I'd definitely agree that a 'race' bike like an Anthem etc will be the quickest round most trail centres.

Probably true, but I'm yet to go to a trail centre that has very much 'technical', either up or down.

I reckon the fact that more people are taking their bikes abroad has an impact on where the market is going. I think that most trail centres do not need a long travel burly bike - any serious technicalities are over pretty quick. My experience of riding in Spain and the Alps is that the bouncier the bike the better, particularly if I get a lift back up again!

That said if I had to have the "one bike" it would be a full susser under 30lbs and certainly less than 6" travel...

...or maybe a road bike

About the cleland ideas - think "landrover" not " lancia stratos" Its about riding asnwhere and getting to places rather than how fast you can go.

If I'm going to ride up a technical climb I'll take my XC race bike, and accept it won't go down as well.

Any modern enduro/xxxxxc/gnar rad dude riding/am jey core/ and so and so bike with 130/140 front and rear travel will be as good going up as it will be going down.
A HT is probably nowhere as good as a FS to go up, but pleny of people seems to think that getting battered is "faster".

Surely that goes against the racer ethos Nick?

Not too sure about your logic Juan, going up you're fighting gravity, so a lighter bike does it better, going down you're assisted by it, so a heavier bike does it better. Couldn't really be more opposite!

At the end of the day it's horses for courses, there's nothing out there that does it all perfectly. I only have one MTB, and it's a 21lb FS XC race bike. If I didn't race I'd have a longer travel bike, most likely still built very light, maybe a Mojo SL or sommat. I doubt it'd climb as well as the Epic (in that it would be slower), but it would probably be a bit more 'fun'.

Edit: as an aside:

[img] http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=29504&g2_serialNumber=4 [/img]

Looks like Thorn may have used the same factory as Specialized did 10 years ago!

Not too sure about your logic Juan

That Cleland stuff is fascinating. 🙂

Very true, and why a FS will beat a HT on very technical climbs.
A 85kg rider with a 12kg bike is only 3% lighter than the same guy with a 15kg bike. Traction makes much more difference.

I agree that weight is not the sole/most important component, but it's a vast sweeping generalisation to say that a bike which does one will do t'other.

An 8" travel DH bike will have better traction than basically anything else out there and the back wheel's not gonna leave the ground, but it's not gonna climb well!

Edit: FS will beat HT because the HT will lose traction more easily, as you've just said, that's more important.

reckon so too, but would it be the most fun? Depends what you are into I suppose. But given that descents are generally over fairly quickly, the thing that is going to make the most different to your time is performance on the climbs/flats.

I recon the anthem would make up a lot of time on the downhills too! It might just be me but does anyone else feel that 'trail' bikes have got a whole lot duller over the years?

It struk me the other day that I would ride my cannondale f500 (24lb, 80mm travel, v-brakes, skiny tires) very quickly because it made you pointing the bike in one direction and lettign rip, accelerating on the smoother sections before letting it do it's thing over the bumpy bits (with very little controll!). In the same way I'd ride a DH bike, although obviously that would be able to cope with rougher ground, have more controll, and corner better. Most middling bikes in comparison just feel sluggish and don't inspire me to go quick?

Well njee define "beat a ht uphill"?
Is it faster? Will having to put foot down with a HT and still be faster than a FS with no foot down count as "beating"?

I ride a 15 and something kg RM switch. Old school free ride bike, build and design to be ridden down at high speed (open angles, very high bb) and I still manage to get it to the top of some very technical climbs much better than on my HT.

I think most test are DH orientated because non of the bike I mention above are now bad at going uphill.

@njee20 - Fair point about the cranks... I already knew that though 😉

Obviously, a Cleland is the antithesis of an XC race machine. As TJ says, more like a Land Rover or even a tractor. I have pretty much zero interest in racing - just don't see the point - but the Cleland design piqued my interest for Big Country Rides.

I'm not sure what you're getting at Juan, I agree with you (and have done throughout) that FS is better for a technical climb than a hardtail.

I don't get some of the replys on this thread. I said that I do not feel going down hill the bike holds you back much any more. It is the rider and I will be first to admit that I am not going to be trying any 5 meter gap jumps soon. I was just suprised how much more difficult getting up my favourite tricky bits on the trails are. Nothing to do with trail centers as I live in Sweden and they don't really exist. The only one which I have been to which were hard to climb was the bit before the black on Kielder (I blame being knackered), not been to that many though.

I also think there are different kinds of climb too technical ones and just long grinds. It is the technical ones which I mean and I find them easier to climb with a slacker angled bike. (I have a partiot and Prince Albert)

It just got my thinking that all reviews are about how hard you can ride a bike down hill when maybe bikes are good enough at this already. But there was such a difference between the PA and the Prophet going up technical bits that I thought it would be a good thing for people to think about.

But then again it is a bit like full sus. it is usefull for maybe 5% of the distance covered but those bits are the most fun.

My Giant Reign (6" front and rear) was the best climbing bike I've ever owned thanks to the Maestro suspension design and big fat tyres. And never held me back on the descents.

I reckon it's mostly rider ability that determines success, uphill and downhill. Good fitness, technical ability, fast thinking, bike handling, all of those will contribute more than the bike will. (that weird Cleland aside). Having said that, there's surprisingly little I can't climb on my Chameleon, that I could do on any FS I had.

my trance does pretty well at both.

uturn revelations on it

100mm fork for climbing like a goat
130mm fork for descending like a riding god.

i dont use anything else in between at all, so i would rather it was a 2 step setup (or like zocchi ETA), with only the two options, and a flick of a valve switch to change it.

still, the only thing holding it back in either direction is me being fat, slow and a talentless pussy.

not too much focus IMO, there are loads of lightweight FS and HT race bikes out there - loads at cycle show - but I don't read magazines that review them or read those reviews when I see them.

bigger bikes with more travel might have better traction but keeping weight over front/front down and getting it up and over stuff seems to be an issue and a couple of extra pounds on the bike and especially wheels and tyres makes a difference. two thirds of the way up the weight difference between a 25lb and 32 lb bike gets a bit larger!

my new slack hardtail doesn't climb too well - but its probably me having to learn new technique

surprised on prophet though as would have thought with right distance between bars and saddle, lower bars/slightly longer stem it should climb really well - mags and buying attitudes do influence OE kit though so "the trend" you mention might influence set up more than design.

I thought a damp wet Kirroughtree had a few testing climb sections.

jaun,
nick is agreeing that a full sis climbs better than a ht (as you said). But that a lighter full sus, will climb better than a heavy one.

which would also be true, all things being equal, a bike 22lb full sus, will climb better than a 32lb full sus.

as for bike being biased, it does tend to be that way, as most folk prefer descending to climbing. though a prohet should manage such climbs fine, so (As stated) check your rear tyre.

though i disagree that a lightweight race bike descends badly. on trail centres i'd say the're a load quicker. and in general descdend well.
comes down to rider skill, i've gone a damn sight quicker down various technical tracks on my 21/22lb ht/fs than folk on much bigger bikes.

In a purely technical sense, my 37lb 6" travel Turner RFX is a much better climber than my 24lb Soda - supertacky tyres each end, well tuned shocks, and a U-turn fork wound right down, it'll crawl up anything I've got the desire, skill and leg strength to attempt (I have ridden UP all of the Beast on it, but never all in one go, sadly).

Bring speed into the equation, and it would be a lot faster to stick the Soda on my shoulder and run up, but to me that's missing the point (that's a pretty mean climber too in all honesty - certainly less physically draining)

It all depends what you mean by "good at climbing".

The funny thing is my PA has a 50 mm stem on it. This was a bit strange to start with but now on the climbs it is so much easier to be climbing up a steep bit, then when you come to a load of rocks or wet roots, and get the front up. It just feels more planted and stable then the Prophet. I will swap the tyres and stem around from the PA and see what difference that makes. I think the 50mm stem will be too short though as I nearly bang my knees on the Prophet.

Thank you Oli, I glad I'm making sense 🙂

Jon, to me 'good at climbing' is the fastest and cleanest. I suspect a 22lb FS bike would clean the climbs you do on your Turner, but do it faster, that's better IMO.

oh,
and dunno about that 44% climb, doesn't seem too daft.
i've been up 37 on a road bike, and as (if not steeper) on a mountain bike.

GEDA do you just ride more dynamically on PA hardtail. My Alpine HT is a bit too cramped for me on climbs with a short stem (first few rides could change gears with knees). My 4in FS bike climbed better before I put 50mm stem on it but I'm happier going down and jumping now. Does Prophet need a bit more cockpit space to move weight around and keep traction?

To many obstacles in the climbs, that's the problem. All climbs should be like a warming velvet travelator, no tight corners or hinky steps...