I don't quite get it. Increasing the stack on a bike that has at least some intention of being ridden uphill quickly is not the right thing to do - many of the type of riders this is aimed at will want lower stack to get over the front and attack the climbs more. And, for those interested in the weight of this XC focused bike (which I'd assume would be everyone interested in a Spur), the very high spec one reviewed on Pinkbike is 12.5kg, so it's not even light anymore - https://www.pinkbike.com/news/review-the-2026-transition-spur-is-lightly-revised-and-still-just-as-fun.html . I bet the one Benji's on is nearly 30lb, by which point you might as well get a bigger bike. The old one was sub 25lb with similar wheels/fork/drivetrain- https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-test-transition-spur-review-2020.html
Oh, and as you've mentioned the seat tube angle @Ben_Haworth - more cross country focused bikes tend to go for slacker seat angles because it's better for biomechanics, especially for long seated efforts. It gets the glutes working more effectively, so you can pedal harder for longer, which is what whatever-country bikes tend to be designed for. A steeper seat angle is alright for keeping the front down when you're pedalling with fewer watts on a bike with a larger wheelbase and a slacker head angle, winching yourself to the top of your plummet. Different tool for different jobs (I own bikes with both XC focused 75-ish seat angles, and a big enduro bike with a 78 degree one which is noticeably harder to mash for long stints).
I don't think this bike is actually aimed at 'climbers' TBH. And IME steep seat angles are just way betterer for steady, long climbs as well as short, sharp ones. Ironically, XC bikes have some of the worst geometry for climbing of any MTBs IMO 😀
We need to bust the myth that increasing stack height or running a higher bar on a modern bike somehow reduces climbing and steering ability.
It's bollocks.
Very nice bike, would be top of the list if I decide to get a short travel trail bike, which is something I've been thinking of recently.
We need to bust the myth that increasing stack height or running a higher bar on a modern bike somehow reduces climbing and steering ability.
It's bollocks.
@sharkattack - I'd be really interested to hear why. As someone who rides uphill hard a lot, and is a scientist by profession so I tend to look at the evidence to make myself go faster, a lower stack height is more efficient for power output on climbs and lets you keep the front wheel down. You can definitely put more power down when you have a more forward body position, enabled by a lower front end - peer reviewed scientific studies have shown that, so it's not bollocks-
"The GM and TD activation suggest that the body switches from a comfortable (upright) position to a forward (lower) configuration, as Savelberg et al. noted. This change in body position allows for an increase in power output through the pull of the handlebars and pedals." [Conceição 2022] What Savelberg said was that lower bar leans the pelvis forward, and your hamstrings and glutes are in a better relationship so can produce higher peak torque than in an upright position.
As your body moves forward, you get a deeper hinge at your hips, which engages your core and lets you transfer power better. Also, your arms are less engaged when stack height is higher, so you've less ability to brace your upper body which reduces power - "maximal crank power was significantly lower without handgrip... suggesting that the upper limb may heavily influence the crank power. A handlebar position set lower enables the specific upward-pulling counter-force required to drive the pedal downward with maximal force." [Baker, 2002]
There are more studies but it's generally well proven that (up to a point, and not a point encountered on a mountain bike that's still rideable downhill) a lower bar gets more power from glutes and hamstrings, improving climbing ability.
The Spur has never been a bike for XC racers. It's a kind of XC bike for people who just like ****ting about on bikes but want something a bit less travel.
I had a feeling this was incoming when V1 was on sale for the first time ever as far as I know.
Happily for me, this means I got a frame for 35% off, a bit lighter, better headset, external routing and fixed geo which I'm happy with.
I'm a high stack fan, with 70mm rise bars on mine.
I'd quite like the cubby hole, but that's about it.
I ride my bike outside, not in a lab. Also MTB geometry has changed a bit since 2002.
I know I want a bike that's comforatble 99% of the time and if I want a lower front end or to maximise my pelvic rotation I can just like, bend my elbows 1 degree or something.
I kinda get the impression that the 2002 science is based around pushing big gears in a race environment. I think the majority of normal MTBers are now spinning pretty high cadences these days. And not racing. And not on 2002 geo bikes. So whilst the science may be correct for the scenarios it was looking at it, I don't feel it's very relevant to modern twiddly climbing with big cassettes.
Interesting tweaks, rather than fundamental changes. Nothing to tempt me away from my V1 though, which I’m running with 130mm forks - I will go back to 120 if I can sort out a longer travel frame to build up.
Modern steep ST mean that a tall stack can climb well as the front wheel is weighted more naturally while the rider is more comfortable which helps efficiency.
Looks like the stack only increases significantly if you select the low setting with more BB drop which increases stack. High BB drop is same as old and HT length is the same, and stack within 7mm which is heehaw.
I'm with @munrobiker on this... a lower front end increases glute engagement. So, if you have good glutes, you'll be more powerful when hinged forward rather than more uprighty.
Case in point: My, reasonably light, Hightower felt rubbish on climbs... heavy, sluggish and slow. Changing to lighter tyres improved things a bit, but it was only when I slammed the stem (probably taking 30-40mm off the stack height) that the bike became more alive on the climbs.
The current "fashion" is for a high front end... what goes around comes around 🙂
I'd say the current "fashion" is a response to bikes increasing in size massively over the last 10 years but stack heights staying the same. It's the reason I've been using the highest bars I can get for years. I still pedal up hills.
"Hightower felt rubbish on climbs" - well, I'd assign that to the slack actual seat angle, short chainstays (and a general lack of support in the suspension post-sag). Slamming the bars was a sticking plaster solution, which is fine, but doesn't hold true for all bikes IME.
Bikes have got bigger (longer) but stack height only needs to increase (proportionally) if bottom bracket height does. And bottom bracket height has come down if anything.
"Hightower felt rubbish on climbs" - well, I'd assign that to the slack actual seat angle, short chainstays (and a general lack of support in the suspension post-sag). Slamming the bars was a sticking plaster solution, which is fine, but doesn't hold true for all bikes IME.
I wasn't talking about the handling... I was talking about the lack of glute engagement from my hip angle being too open (body too upright) and that leading to a loss of power. I've spent ages building strong glutes in the gym, so I want to get the most out of the buggers when on the bike! Also, tip of saddle just 20mm behind bb... so fairly steep. You do have a point about shock support just beyond sag; the shock does tend to wallow a bit in the sag to mid-travel area. Lock out sorts that out... Now that IS a sticking plaster.
Bikes have got bigger (longer) but stack height only needs to increase (proportionally) if bottom bracket height does. And bottom bracket height has come down if anything.
I'd argue that stack needs to increase when your bars are 80-100mm further forward than they used to be and your head angle is 3-5 degrees slacker.
Otherwise you end up stretched out with your bike glued to the ground.
Thing is... with these slacker angles at the front, short stems and steeper angles at the back, the saddle to handlebar distance isn't much different to how it used to be. Longer when stood up, but not so much when climbing.
I think that modern bikes are so good that we are all just tweaking things for personal preference. And my personal preference, at least, changes all the time!
I think that modern bikes are so good that we are all just tweaking things for personal preference. And my personal preference, at least, changes all the time!
I agree with this 100%. There is no killer setting that makes your bike faster and you can't double your power output by moving your hands up or down by a few centimetres. Only feel and comfort really matters. If the data said I could ride up a hill 10% faster if I replaced my saddle with a dildo I wouldn't do it.
Anyway, it's a beautiful day and I'm out here riding up the steepest hills in Sheffield with the highest front end I've ever had. No worries.
Thank the Lord for truly proportional chainstays.
Different bodies are different. As above, tweak things to your preference.
Long before I had the first clue about geometry, it always felt natural to me to chuck the de rigeur layback post in the scrap and replace with a straight one, saddle slammed forward .
A stretched out position with low front end always just gives me a stiff low back rather than a perceived power increase.
If that works for others though, or in a lab test then crack on, enjoy what works for you.
The Spur has never been a bike for XC racers. It's a kind of XC bike for people who just like ****ting about on bikes but want something a bit less travel.
Yup, that's why I got mine, a light mile muncher to compliment my bigger bike. Proper XC bikes are often so low that I'd never get comfortable. All I know is that the V1 is super comfy, flies up hill compared to pretty much any other bike I've had and can be converted from XC flier to rougher stuff ready with a change of wheels. Bet the V2 is a hoot (but I'll be sticking with my V1).
In the region where Transition Bikes are based it’s not uncommon to have rides that start with a 1000 meter or more climb that goes straight up. In this situation a bike that can be comfortably twiddled to the top is a good thing for the leisure cyclist.
longer bikes, ones with long front and rear centres, climb better than short ones. In my experience. The less energy you spend fighting the bike can only be a good thing.
on long climbs it’s nice to be able to change positions. In my experience this is easier to do if your bars are high, because once you are stretched out it’s hard to get lower or more upright.
Basically what this has made me do is kick myself for not buying one of the reduced lush purple frames from Windwave before they sold out in my size.
Procrastination bit me in the arse yet again. But saved me money. My Izzo is a riot, but for me, it's always my 'couldn't justify the Spur dream ' bike.
I am hugely envious of all of you owners! Gorgeous bikes.
V2 not hugely different to the original Spur - no need to make unnecessary changes I guess. Really appealed when first released and still appeals now, although sizing - even in XL - smaller/shorter than my preference. The changes they've made are in the right direction though IMO. Coincidentally bringing it closer in geometry to the Tallboy 5 I have.
longer bikes, ones with long front and rear centres, climb better than short ones. In my experience. The less energy you spend fighting the bike can only be a good thing.
Amen to that. First climbing I did on a Geometron was eye opening to me. Climbed better than the much, much lighter Tallboy 3 I had at the time despite a typical Geometron build - simply the extra length everywhere plus the steep STA made climbing much better. Pretty much sealed my Tallboy's fate from that first ride on the Geometron and was replaced soon after!
In the region where Transition Bikes are based it’s not uncommon to have rides that start with a 1000 meter or more climb that goes straight up. In this situation a bike that can be comfortably twiddled to the top is a good thing for the leisure cyclist.
thought I replied to this thread yesterday but looks like its gone in the ether.
100% agree with the above, but Transition do have quite an extensive catalogue of bikes good at doing that very thing, and probably more suitable for the descent that follows a 1000m climb than the spur.
those of us not so geographically blessed might find that the more "xc" position (and I mean modern xc not 90's arse up like that Chipps picture on the other thread) gives not only a more fun/engaging experience on flatter or uphill trails but also one that is more suited to outputting higher power than "sitting and twiddling" efforts.
If glute engagement and thus power increases with a greater hip hinge, why do I stand up when I need more power?
those of us not so geographically blessed might find that the more "xc" position (and I mean modern xc not 90's arse up like that Chipps picture on the other thread) gives not only a more fun/engaging experience on flatter or uphill trails but also one that is more suited to outputting higher power than "sitting and twiddling" efforts.
Thats a valid point and a short travel bike with a wider appeal would make sense.
That said,
100% agree with the above, but Transition do have quite an extensive catalogue of bikes good at doing that very thing, and probably more suitable for the descent that follows a 1000m climb than the spur.
Not all long descents need a long travel heavy hitting bike.
My guess is that they aren’t approaching the Epic evo type of bike head on with the Spur.
Very nice bike, would be top of the list if I decide to get a short travel trail bike, which is something I've been thinking of recently.
Do it, I picked up a 120/110 Full Sus XC bike and its so much more of a hoot then I thought it would be and handles some rough stuff fine!
If you've seen what World Champs/Cup CX racing looks like these days, it's no surprise - they're hitting techier stuff on XC bikes than most amateur enduro warriors on long travel bikes.
Given that you can get good parts at bargain prices currently, frame only seems the way to go imo. £3000 for the frame vs £5300 for the Eagle 70 build... Similar story with the new Hope frame vs full build rrp. Merlin doing a full XT groupset with brakes for £400, Fox 34s for between £300-£500...
If glute engagement and thus power increases with a greater hip hinge, why do I stand up when I need more power?
Poor technique? Probably so you can put your full weight on the descending pedal whilst pulling up on the 'bar. I bet you can't do it for long though. Or get traction on loose ground. If you often need to stand up to climb, then I'm afraid it might be a lack of strength or poor technique. Or a sore arse! Yes, even the professional roadies stand up to generate more power at times, but not for long 🙂
Anyway, it's a beautiful day and I'm out here riding up the steepest hills in Sheffield with the highest front end I've ever had. No worries.
Thank the Lord for truly proportional chainstays.
That's so far beyond just having a tall handlebar! You should do a write up on how it's working out. I imagine the steering feels very different with, what appears to be, an almost zero reach stem? Genuinely interested... I love an experiment or different approach... always learning 🙂
Poor technique? Probably so you can put your full weight on the descending pedal whilst pulling up on the 'bar. I bet you can't do it for long though. Or get traction on loose ground. If you often need to stand up to climb, then I'm afraid it might be a lack of strength or poor technique. Or a sore arse! Yes, even the professional roadies stand up to generate more power at times, but not for long
I wouldn't call it necessarily poor technique - just different. (if your aim is max efficiency over a long sustained time, time trialling may be a better avenue than mtbing-for-fun)
Like you say, pro roadies do it for a short burst.
Also CGG is a single speeder, so when climbing at a low cadence he'll need more force per pedal stroke even if his effective power output is only middling (e.g. sustainable for a few minutes for a southern england climb)
I've already written about it here...
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/bike-forum/does-anyone-make-a-very-short-stem
It's 60mm high with 10mm reach. It's one of those things that looks weird but you get used to it instantly.
It definitely wouldn't work on every bike though. My Druid has longer than average chainstays and a rearward axle path.
I haven't ridden it on anything difficult or technical yet but I've got some pretty savage climbs close to home and it's fine on those.