[Closed] what bike for climbing?

depends on so many things but FS are easier on very rocky rough stuff anything else a lightish hardtail as a general rule
Unfortunately the bike you want to ride up a hill is not the bike you want to ride down a hill.

first you, your never going to get a bike to climb well if you aren't fit. But also knowing when to use gears, don't assume spinning is the solution, sometimes it is sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is easier to honk rather than spin.

Anyway the bike, light is good, low front end helps to keep weight forward when going gets steep. short travel, means less bob which is good, particularly when you get out the saddle. Run the suspension on the stiff side, again to keep the bobbing to a minimum.

My personnel bike is a Trek Top Fuel which does what i need it to do.

Cannondale scalpel is the best I've ridden myself - real forward position and soft tail design out back for a bit of traction on the rough stuff.

tbh though any xc race bike should get down to business on the climbs. You'd be unhappy if you bought one that didn't feel sharp there. Maybe more interesting to hear about less racier designs - the shorter travel mavericks are meant to be excellent uphill, not ridden one myself though.

No other full sus climbs like a Mav, let alone one with 6.7" of travel.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Best climbing bike I ever rode was a Commencal Meta. That rear suspension design ensures that the real wheel stays in contact with the ground and gives you fantastic traction.

I can get up most long steep xc climbs on my rigid 20lb fitness compensator, sometimes even surprising myself. However, mrmo is correct, apart from his first statement, try riding a 20lb mince machine mate!, instant xc legend.

I've had a few bikes over the last couple of years but I am now on a 2008 Anthem 1. 80mm travel out back, 100mm up front and this thing flies. For years I wondered how all the boys I saw on Anthems were so quick, well now I kind of know. You still have to be fit but these are fast bikes. Not so bad on the way back down either, if set up with a reasonable stem and wide low bars.

B.A.Nana, now put a fit rider on your 20lb fitness compensator and you will see how fast it can really go..

But yes it is incredible how much difference a few pounds off the weight of a bike makes. For those that say have a dump, it isn't the same thing.

Weight and grip the big factors here (after the rider of course).
I know people will laugh at me for saying this but I have a 'light' rear wheel and a 'robust' rear wheel, about 1/3Lb difference and I can really feel it on the climbs. The same difference in, for example, my water bottle is barely noticable.

For silly steep stuff where getting up at all is an acheivement I liked my old Marzzochi Marathon SLs, the lock-out locked them down, lowered the front of the bike 4", brilliant idea. Why don't more manufacturers do this?
(Got rid of them in the end due to Windwave being absolutely hopeless at getting spares, gave up after 3 months, got something else off ebay and sold them as spares)

mrmo, the original question was about nailing a climb, not how fast 😉

mrmo, the original question was about nailing a climb, not how fast

nailing a climb is doing it fast and smooth, if you vomit at the top you got it right 😉

Not really enough expereinces here to be realy useful nut

my fuel ex gets up things my hard tail wouldn't

I think a bike that fits you is key. i think for a tall rider the longer chain stays of an FS or 29 er help get you in the right place climbing

Whichever one Liam Killeen is riding.

The tortoise and the hare then? both on a 20lb bike of course.

Maybe more interesting to hear about less racier designs - the shorter travel mavericks are meant to be excellent uphill, not ridden one myself though.

No other full sus climbs like a Mav

A bit predictable perhaps, but I'll wade in here...

Now I for one am no climbing god, far from it in fact, but I can say that both Mavericks I have owned have been far better climbers than any other full suspension bikes I have ridden (which is a lot). Mavericks are known for being good climbers (what's less well reported is just how good they are all round too, and how stable and quick they are downhill!), but compared to a full on XC race bike, even built light, they're always going to be a bit heavy. My Durance frame is 5.5lb including shock, which is pretty light, but some top end XC race sussers are closer to 4lb including shock.

The short answer is if you want a really good climbing bike, ultra lightweight is the way to go... Which invariably means a carbon hardtail.

The short answer is if you want a really good climbing bike, ultra lightweight is the way to go... Which invariably means a carbon hardtail

my blue pig is chuffing brilliant on technical climbs.

the steep seat-tube keeps my weight forward, so i can climb in an efficient position without the front wheel lifting.

there's probably other stuff going on that helps, but the lack of front-wheel-lift is a revelation.

imho - i prefer a hardtail for techy climbs, i find stand-up climbing on a bouncy bike is just soul destroying.

The best I've ridden was a Trek top fuel 9.9 carbon jobbie on a demo day. It was the first one I rode that day and I only realised the first fire road bit was actually a climb when I came to do it next on a Meta 5. It just made the climbs feel easy but wasn't great (relatively) down hill.

It's not all about weight. Get the right position, the right head angle, and the right suspension set up and I reckon you could get a heavyish bike up anything with low enough gearing.

My dad's steel rohloff hubbed ht just never stops. It's got a ton of weight keeping the rear in traction, and he's got a decent sized stem on giving him the weight over the front he needs, plus a frame built around a 100mm fork. Combine that with the stupidly low gearing a rohloff gives, plus the seamless gear changes, and it can handle lots. Weighs a ton though, so I'd rather have my bike over his for a long fire road.

Equally a lighter bike can be better if it's a really techy climb that involves lots of acceleration and direction changing. But if it's a climb that demands smoothness and steadyness, I don't think weight is a big issue.

If it's a rocky climb I find a bash guard makes a difference too. Probably all in my head but I really don't like rock steps where I know the big ring is going to take a big hit.

Second the Anthem comment, had a go on a 2007/8 one recently and was pretty amazed what it'd go up. First gear almost seemed pointless too.

Definitely NOT a Saracen Havoc 😀

Yeti 575 and SC Blur LT are both excellent techy/rocky trail climbers, and my old Pace RC405 also used to climb like a mountain goat.

Agree with Paceman, but the Rocky Mountain ETS-X is better than both at climbing. Not so good going down though.
Didn't RM design the Altitude specifically to be a good climbing bike? Never ridden one so can't comment on their prowess.

I reckon a this might be pretty good.
[img] [/img]

Light and a bit of flex at the back to improve traction

Mavericks are known for being good climbers (what's less well reported is just how good they are all round too, and how stable and quick they are downhill!), but compared to a full on XC race bike, even built light, they're always going to be a bit heavy.

My ML7 in race spec weighs a real world 23lb with DUC32s on the front - spaced down to 135mm - I suppose in some people's worlds, that'd be 'a bit heavy', but it feels okay to me and is good on technical climbs. Then again, so's my RC405.

The Maverick does have a sort of magic about it on climbs though.

03 Heckler

/THREAD CLOSED

Short travel rear suspension, maybe 60mm, set hard.
Rigid fork.
29er rear wheel, 26er front.
Long stem, bar ends.
20lb (or less) build.

Would fly up hill but would be a dangerous to go down again.

I reckon a full suss fat bike would outclimb anything else.

I reckon a full suss fat bike would outclimb anything else

You might be able to climb but you could have issues climbing quickly, and as pointed out earlier climbing is about fitness , ie speed, and technique.

surely the tyres on a fat bike have loads of drag, cancelling out any benefits?

I'd have thought that a 29er would roll better, and help climbing over rough stuff?

Felt Virtues climb very well.

29ers - I don't like 'em.. But they climb like sh*t off a stick.

rigid bike if there are technical step type things- the lack of geometery change and the low weight are ace for climbing.

My 2009 Anthem X1 is pretty epic uphill. Not quite as fast my trek hardtail, but I can clear obsticles (those evil slippy tree roots wrapped around rocks) that I can't do on the HT due to the rear boing allowing me to keep enough weight over the rear and keep spinning smoothly. I do wind the front suspension down to 100mm (it's a 100-130 fork) on proper steep stuff, and I run it with quite a lot of sag as well so I guess close to 90mm real money?
Oddly, I found wider bars gave me a better position as well, changed from 630 to 690 (not that wide I know) and I can pull on them like I could on the old school x-lite stubbies that I had on all my bikes back in the day to allow honking up shorter stuff.
Proper uphill speed though on a relativly smooth course, I've yet to find a bike that goes like my makes Charge Titanium with full top end Sram on it. How light can a bike be!!

I think I want a Cannondale Flash. Please.

my marin quake climbs well, however the sheer bulk of it limits any speed. I reckon something lighter with the same suspension set up should be decent.

If you want a bike that's good up and down, what about a Remedy, or C'dale Jekyll?

where i ride, a fs with a high bb.