The new Turner DW 5 Spot is supposed to be a good climber and descender, not tryed it myself but feedback on MTBR seems very favourable
i've been up 37 on a road bike, and as (if not steeper) on a mountain bike.
In Dunedin, New Zealand (supposedly actually 35% but still jolly steep), or the one in Pittsburgh (actually measured at 37%)?
It is a pity there aren't any roads over 34% in the UK, the really steep streets seem like a fun challenge.
Joe
joe, hardknott pass in the lakes is an average 33%, but theres a part (a zig zag) where it gets that bit steeper for a few metres...
The steering on the prophet is just a lot faster/twitchy than the bikes I have been riding lately. Not as much control as the Patriot or the PA.
hardknott pass in the lakes is an average 33%,
It's maximum 33% on the hairpins. Average is about 15% - 20% depending on where you count as the start. If it was really 37%, it'd be a)the worlds steepest road, or a close contender, and b)steeper than the UK's steepest road (in Wales, 34% gradient at the steepest point).
Joe
Surely the last thing you want when grinding up a 93% climb on a 52lb bike with 14" travel is really slow steering though!? Surely that's when the really nimble steering of an XC bike is best? I've never found mine too twitchy when climbing certainly!
As ever it's a compromise - what's good for going up hill is not so good for coming down it, that's why I think that a good all round bike will have variable geometry and travel.
We (my mates and i) were talking about this a couple of winters ago when one lad bought a new bike - CUBE FS jobbie.
We were discussing fashions within the mtb world and how my Mount Vision was now seen as having short travel at 4". We wondered when the wheel would turn and riders (or editors) decide that 6"+ travel bikes were just too much for most UK riding, and would the fashion switch to shorter travel machines again?
From what some have said on here i can see the return of 'short-travel' FS bikes becoming fashionable again as the mag editors rave about the 'new' and 'rad' concept of actually climbing on a bike..
Maybe your climbs are steep and flat. Mine are kind of steep with two meters of roots, rock steps and the like so slow is good. I can climb pretty well on my patriot though.
@muddydwarf - Oooooh, do you mean my JMC '95 FSR with 'long' travel kit and early Z1s might become fashionable again? 😉
Going downhill really fast is good fun, but the amount of technology you have to drag uphill to go downhill spoils it for me. Using lifts is for fat boys 🙂
I did a few tests on this. I rode balls out downhill with front suspension, and then did the same carefully without. Naturally I was faster with suspension, but the actual time difference was not that great. I now ride a rigid front end because it more than makes up the difference on the climbs.
As someone who's riding off road is about distance and who enjoys climbing, I'm kind of disappointed with the way the market has gone.
Its not about amount of travel or even weight but I find its the really slack frame geometry of everything out there thats difficult to live with.
Maybe its because I spend more time on the roadbike, but getting on to any MTB of the last five years and the amount of heavy steering flop from the laidback headangles is really overwhelming.
I cant even say that it even improves my( admittedly poor )descending skills.
IMO wider bars and shorter stem better for steering control and quick corrections (but shorter stems not so good for keeping front down)- would wider bars alone help slow it down if bars already a bit close?
Its not about amount of travel or even weight but I find its the really slack frame geometry of everything out there
Surely there are loads of bikes for every preference out there?
Even at the racier end, Grumm, there's not much. I have thought about getting something built to take longer forks, and shoving a short 80mm fork on, and just putting up with a lower BB.
a bit of riding up on heavy bikes is good for training but uplifts and chairlifts and pushing up in places to ride multiple descents is pretty darn good. lifes too short to earn all your descents by riding up! and for riding light flexy 6ins bikes urghhh!
Its not about amount of travel or even weight but I find its the really slack frame geometry of everything out there
I've thought about this as well, but obviously I can't climb for toffee regardless 😉
Why don't other fork makers do something along the lines of mazocchi's ETA? I know maz still do it, but they haven't ever been the XC'ers fork of choice. So take something like a Sid or Reba, then add a ETA type packdown feature which would steepen the head & seat angles by a few degrees & lock out the fork, couple it with a decent remote like the pushlock, & hey presto?
There are bikes out there which are marketed on climbing prowess. The Rocky Mountain Altitude seems to excel at climbing but be a pretty average descender (according to reviews) and the best climber I've ridden was my Slayer SXC despite being a heavy 160mm bike.
Riding a borrowed singlespeed Scandal with rigid forks recently, I've been surprised how good it is up hill and I'd have thought I was quicker on it than a suspended bike.
I do think it's a bit of a shame there aren't more good technical climbs at trail centres, rather than fire roads.
edit:: I agree on ETA, by far the best climbing system I've used, leaving 30mm of travel to taker the sting out of climbs. Shame everything else about the forks was terrible.
There was not much wrong with the Marathon SL, apart from the weight 😉
Not much point in arguing over a few % of steepness but right on the inside of the hairpins on hardknott it certainly seems to be steeper than 35% for a m or two - I doubt the angle of the road is measured right on the inside of the corner.climbing hairpins on the tandem we have been at ridiculous angle for a m or two - rear wheel right on the inside and front a m up the bank on the outside.
+1 for ETA being brilliant. I only had it on an MX Pro, but it's by far the most useful lockout/travel adjust I've come across.
4" full sus here; climbs as well as the HT i was on before as not much weight difference, I can go over stuff rather than weave around it and I lose less energy as the sus works rather (albeit for a little loss of power on occassions as the sus absorbs it) than my body taking all the jarring and jolting on.
Easilyy enough for downhill on all but the biggest and roughest trails, but then even with more travel I'd be loathe to attempt to ride down those same trails, unless i get better technically first; but once I do that will I still need that much travel?
Overall, it's about balancing what you want and what you need. I could've gone 5-5.5" travel, but decided 4" was enough for me.
Anyway, to answer the posed question; probably a little, there certainly could be more mention of how it goes on the up.
The thread has morphed into a discussion about bike fashions. There is a bias on down(hill) in mags. I'm fed up of reading about "Doddy's Intense Socom and Rick's Iron Horse Sunday". This is not the kind of riding or bikes I'm interested in.
Thankfully, ST seems less afflicted in that the office chaps seem as happy to ride HT and race bikes and eschew anything that looks like it wont ride uphill. Long may it last.
I think the trend is towards big suspension whether we like it or not. Just listen to the average new rider in a bike shop - they come in with all their internet knowledge and want 4-6" full suspension for riding forest trails.
It is really separating into 2 classes of bikes - fun bikes and cross country bikes.
One of the reasons i bought my (04 version) Mount Vision was because of a review in WhatMTB that said it was a great all-day bike with a slight bias towards climbing'.
Seeing as i spend far more time hauling myself uphill that caught my interest!
i like to ride up for the view at the top and sometimes stop halfway if there is a particularly nice vista in a gap between the trees.
going downhill can be scarey though (thank goodness for 200mm 4-pot disk brakes!) so sometimes walk down instead, the ride takes a bit longer but is no less enjoyable for it.
lifes too short to earn all your descents by riding up!
Yeah, and my days are too short to spend 2 hours pushing up for 5 mins riding!
I really like going downhill as fast as possible and although I am no Steve peat I am quick enough. My point is though that it is quite easy to go downhill quickly. All reviews seems to say that the next bike is even better at going downhill than the last. Well I don't really care anymore as I don't feel any limits going downhill any more, just not got enough balls for big air or high speed!
An XC bike also does not have the correct setup for what I am talking about, technical trails and climbs. You do not see many trials riders on a XC bike. Although I am not doing trials it is a bit similar in that you have to hop up rocks and roots. It would be interesting to see if the Cleland bike made getting up say Jacobs ladder easier.
Martin Brookes rode up Jacob's Ladder in an MBR article on a Felt hardtail.
I still maintain that technical climbs are easiest on an XC bike, I've never felt the need for lockouts/ETA/travel adjusters or whatever, because the front end's at the right height anyway! Surely if longer travel bikes were better for climbing there would be more XC racers on longer travel bikes?
[i]You do not see many trials riders on a XC bike.[/i]
Stretching the point a bit there! Trials is a completely separate discipline (although the skills needed to do it cross over well to mountain biking).
My Meta 6 is a great ascender (punchy tech singletrack) and an amazing descender. As a 'mountain' bike it does everything.
My legs, heart, lungs and motivation are the only limiters.
I think I have come to this way of thinking as where I live in Sweden it is fairly flat but the trails are pretty technical compared to the Peaks where I used to live. Loads of roots. Short steep climbs and rocky chutes and thin Northshore type bridges (1 foot) for crossing the bogs. To get the most out of the trails I have the mentality of got to do it all.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img]src=" [/img]
And a film which actually is not of the technical as they are too slow and do not look that impressive when filmed.
[url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkTrGxV6W8A&feature=email ]Romeleåsen[/url]
I would ride that on my Epic, and I don't think a longer travel bike would be any easier. How do you need [b]any [/b]travel to ride a wooden bridge!?
Perhaps a longer travel bike can continue to plod over bigger rocks/roots etc, whilst a lighter more nimble XC bike is going quicker and just rolls over stuff. That doesn't look particularly difficult though.
Yes you may think it looks easy but I would buy you an expensive Swedish beer if you could get up there. Maybe even two!
What tyres do you have on your Prophet and PA GEDA?
Are you climbing steeper than this?
[img] 
[/img]
Oooops just seen your pictures 🙂
What is the main problem - are you running out of traction?
Your trails sound like my favourite type of climbing!
Traction is the main thing. Unless you sit on the seat it spins out. You don't want to know what the tyre is as I already know thats part of the problem. I am going to swap the one that is on the PA and see what difference it makes. But I was not getting the feeling of the back wheel digging in that I get on the Patriot. (And yes the tails are as steep or steeper than that with slightly less grip)
i like climbing more than descending sometimes, esp. if it's a little technical.
everyone can ride down most stuff. more of a skill to ride up ohne dabs.
Well yes it sounds like you should experiment with the tyres first 😉
Other than that perhaps you could try adjusting the shock pressures/rebound. I don't know what difference you could make but it may be possible to affect the level of traction.
I have a friend with a Prophet and he can get up any technical climb that I can on my Remedy. But he also managed to tear the BB out of the shell! (that's another story...)
I think it’s a debate that cuts both ways, mountain biking in general (across all disciplines) can only really grow if there are people taking it up as a leisure activity, selling bikes for leisure use means slacker more DH orientated angles and steering setups playing the numbers game with suspension, quantity as opposed to quality, and playing to the marketing and magazine hype, the products better suited for privateer racers and serious non competitive riders will always exist but differentiating them from kit aimed at the more leisure/fair weather mountain biker is getting trickier…
Personally I think everyone is best out starting out on a 3-4” forked HT with a 71deg+ H/A, medium rise (1”), 620-660mm wide bars and a 70mm stem, pretty neutral all round trail geometry basically, with plenty of gears and decent brakes..
If you are going to get on with MTBs of any sort then you will enjoy riding such a bike for a good long while before you truly find it’s and your limits, it will make you a better rider both up and down as you have to pick your lines and learn how to use gears and brakes properly…
Yep I’ll agree HT’s lack the ultimate traction of a good XC bouncer but the lack of “talent compensation” does actually force you to become a better rider for climbs it means you actually learn what to do when traction becomes marginal (which will enevitably happen whatever you ride), when and how to attack or change line, for descents you learn when and where to brake how to carry speed and pump and how to bend your knees, sounds like basic skills but it’s stunning how few people e seem to actually posses them…
It amuses me that whilst bemoaning the “Doddy-isation” (agreed he is a toss bag with undue influence) of modern MTBs into stupid travel comedy machines for plebs, you all seem to see HT’s as somehow having become un-ridable for any serious up or downhill use, dare I say technology has made a fair few people lazy?
15 years ago a 4” travel suspension bike was a DH bike and any “serious” MTB rider wouldn’t entertain such an inefficient sponge soaking up all their energy on the climbs, people dreamt of owning Salsa, Dave Yates and Bontrager steel HT’s, how times change…
I've never had a stem shorter than 100mm on an MTB, never really felt the need.
If I'm ever in Sweden I'll look you up GEDA, happily give that a punt. As I said previously I think the difference with an XC bike is that you can put in a really hard couple of pedal strokes and the bike will leap forward, which is often enough to get you over some tough obstacles. A longer travel bike will just bog down when you do that, so you end up with tonnes of traction, but sod all momentum!
Not wanting to wave willies (we've done so well to avoid it!), but I can only think of one climb I've not cleaned which I have seen cleaned by anyone else, and it isn't technical, just very steep, and I'm happy to admit that the person who did clean it is a far better rider than me.
It amuses me that whilst bemoaning the “Doddy-isation” (agreed he is a toss bag with undue influence) of modern MTBs into stupid travel comedy machines for plebs
Why is he a 'toss bag'? You sound like a bit of a snob tbh
you all seem to see HT’s as somehow having become un-ridable for any serious up or downhill use, dare I say technology has made a fair few people lazy?
Er... have you seen the number of hardtails on here? Cotic, On-one etc etc etc
15 years ago a 4” travel suspension bike was a DH bike and any “serious” MTB rider wouldn’t entertain such an inefficient sponge soaking up all their energy on the climbs,
15 years ago a 4" travel suspension bike probably rode like a dog uphill - now you can get 6" bikes that aren't too heavy that you can pedal around just fine.
I do agree that it seems now lots of people think they need a £2000 'all-mountain' full suspension bike as their first mtb, but that doesn't make them shit.
cookeaa.... agree with you completely.
grumm.... re. your second point. i think he means that in the mags they write you need 'X' travel for each given riding style. not here on stw.
The point of riding is to go downhill. Even my race bike I chose because it'd be quicker downhill and in technical sections because that's my strengths and I can still drag myself up hills fine. My big hardtail is just fine at serious downhill, thanks.
Downhills=fun climbs= the challenge to get tehre, but not the main point of the ride.
100mm stem on my race bike, 50mm on my others.
A race is won on the climbs and lost on the descents... or something. Whilst a good descender can get so far in an XC race, fitness is more important. Why have a race bike which you've set up for descending, why not just ride a 'trail' bike (serious question)?
you all seem to see HT’s as somehow having become un-ridable for any serious up or downhill use
Not at all. Riding my FS has a higher free-wheeling and pedal-cruising top speed, esp. cornering, because of the added stability from the rear-sus. But the HT it's a bit sharper climbing, at slow-speed steering and accelerating
What are you looking for in a review then. A technical break down of how well a bike climbs and how much faster it will make you?
Plus how technical are we talking here when you mention this need to have trials like skills to get up some trails?
My hardtail climbs pretty badly but it makes it for it when going down. I demo'd a spec enduro last year and it climbed amazingly when compared to my ht but going downhill the longer stem and steep head angle made it feel much worse.
My favourite ride so far was on a Cove Hustler, climbed nice, felt just like my hardtail going down (though a bit nicer due to rear suss) and was also lighter.
Look at his photo
I have a similar problem with ski mags being too freeride oriented these days. Yes, I board off-piste when the opportunity and lowish-risk level is there, but it's not the mainstay of my boarding so I find the mags boring. Freeride/DH is not the mainstay of my bike riding either.
What are you looking for in a review
Well I think I agree with the OP. It's not specifically about bike reviews. More about the impressions from turning the pages of bike mags.
I have a similar problem with ski mags being too freeride oriented these days.
Isn't it just that freeride is more exciting/interesting than other aspects of skiing (or biking) though? I mean obviously it can get dull, but to me pictures of someone gapping a huge river on a bike or riding some crazy mountain face on a board is a bit more interesting than 'man skis down piste at moderate speed'.
Seen the photo, i'm sure that's do-able on a light/mid weight bike with enough rider skill and fitness (not saying by me though).
Can't really comment too much on magazines as I only really read Dirt and their mainstay is DH/Freeride and a bit of DJ so the ads and reviews work just fine.
geda, i forgot you were in sweden. that makes everything clear! i think you're down in skane? when i've been out wandering about around stockholm (without bike, all the family fishes) i've often thought about the tricky, rooty, rocky nature of a lot of the tracks, esp as i've never seen anyone riding them which in itself might be a clue!
that said i'm used to riding this type of terrain where i am and, most of the time get along with it, usually on my xc ht but these days i'm succumbing to the darkside that is fs. tyres are an issue for sure but not as big as rider style. i ride with what my regular riding partner describes as 'ridiculous pressures' but i ride on the road a lot so low pressures just seems un-natural! he, on the other hand, rides v low pressure and tubeless and while he may be slower on the straight uphill on the technical section he gets to show off just how much better he is in the skills department.
i've always had light xc bikes, never felt the need for anything else as my manly girth is enough weight to carry. what the magazines say? who cares! there's a bike out there for everyone
The contents of magazine is all about selling magazines and hence advertising space, it doesn't necessarily reflect what actually goes on at the grassroots of the sport.
Sorry Grumm what I was trying to say was that the tone of this thread suggested the only bike worth owning was a 4" full bouncer, obviously STW as a whole is full of die hard SS, Rigid, HT riders...
As for my Doddy comment, Nope I stand by it, he is a toss bag, I finally stopped reading Future's various comics years ago, about the time he reared his annoying bean shaped head; can't stand the fella, seems his best trick is jumping on whatever cycling bandwagon is going, has very little of use to offer yet another worthless member of the cycling fashionista..
Am I a snob? probably, but like all snobs I like to think it's taste and judgement 😉
The term "Over-biked" seems to be chucked about more these days, I see plenty of people on expensive bikes grabbing fistfulls of brake wearing harrased and flushed faces on the simplest of descents, most don't seem to have their mood enhanced by having some goon on a HT worth a quarter of their own bike zip past, the same riders don't look to be enjoying the climbs either, I can't really see the fun in it if they are this misserable when riding...
Isn't it just that freeride is more exciting/interesting than other aspects of skiing (or biking)
Quite possibly. But what they are doing is so far removed from my experience that I lose interest 🙁
I should stop reading mags and ride more (except ST obviously)
Njee- I've struck a fine balance between DH and tech capability and lightweight. A trail bike would be too heavy and bobby up hills, you know how it is. Also, it doesn't have that rangy top tube length. However, when I'm racing, I excel on the techy bits so prefer a bike that panders to that.
Still, got the results to back up the fact that I can ride up hills last weekend, when I thought I was undertrained and overweight, so I must be doing something right 😉
@buzz-lightyear - Most mags are like that for me too.
Give [url= http://www.xxcmag.com/site/XXC.html ]XXC[/url] a try. It's well removed from my own experience, but it's inspirational rather than 'Why?'.