Forum menu
Cranks the same length for both bikes?
I think you’ve underestimated just how good a bike the 5 was. And I’m pretty sure that it all comes down to a lighter bike with lighter wheels climbing faster than a heavier bike with heavier wheels. Conversely the heavier wheels should help carry momentum on the descents.
I have a 35lb 2012 Alpine 160 (with a -1.5 headset, offset bushes and a coil CCDB) and it was a bloody brilliant climber (better descender) compared to a lot of my friends bikes with fancier suspension.
I think that that generation of 5 was one of the best bikes around, a good blend of weight, flex/stiffness and responsiveness under power.
I don't think you'll ever get to the bottom of this without having both bikes back to back and a known collection of analytical collection devices to tell you what your body is doing.
Power meter swapped between bikes, same heart rate strap / device and measure from there.
If you can't do this, you have no way of knowing what your working with as a base line and will just waste hour after hour swapping bits out and coming to no real conclusions.
I too have heard good things about the Flaremax and climbing. It's now on my shortlist, hampered slightly by being out of stock.
It's a heavy lump though for it's travel.
I'm currently on a very elderly 2009 Turner Flux with DW link suspension. I have a sneaking suspicion all bikes on my want list might be a backwards step in comparison to that when it comes to climbing. But descenting on it is a lottery and a I fancy bigger wheels to roll over lumpy bits so I guess a compromise worth making.
Also the Ti456 was an utterly shite climber. The only thing that bike did right was descending. I always felt like I was perched on it and only when hanging off the back of it did it feel truly right.
It’s a heavy lump though for it’s travel.
Less than a kg more than the Spesh Camber Evo Carbon it replaced (swapped parts over), and about 6" longer 🙂
An e bike is the best climber by far
Just wanted to put this one to bed. I changed the RockRazor/Magic Mary tyres for a set of older Racing Ralph/Nobby Nic tyres (snakeskin/pacestar) that were in the shed and managed a new PR on an ~23 minute climb (700' at an average of 7.5% with a few steep sections). I took nearly a minute off the time I'd set on a Smuggler back in 2016. So, I think I've shown (at least to my own satisfaction) that the FlareMax can climb as well as any other bike I've owned, it just needs the right tyres.
Part of the issue was me specking a tyre that was more aggressive than I needed and part was due to Schwalbe making their newer tyres a fair bit heavier. The old snakeskin casing suited my mincing very well. I hardly ever punctured and could probably have used the liteskin version without too much issue. But plenty of people did puncture and I guess Schwalbe got fed up with being labelled as fragile. So now, even the SuperGround, which sounds as though it should be the XC carcass tends to be heavier than the old snakeskin. I guess this is a trend that will only continue as more and more people decide that cycling can be improved by bolting an engine to their pushbike.
29 is fastest uphill for me in a specific set of circumstances - relatively untechnical, not particularly steep climbing. As soon as it steepens up, I find I'm putting in a bit more effort to overcome wheel decceleration between each pedal stroke compared with my 27.5 bike. I've probably got a slow cadence compared to quite a few riders, and I guess that amplifies the effect.
On one steep grind of a climb I do fairly regularly, I find it easier on 32-46 on my 27.5 (with slower tyres) than 32-51 on my 29 even though the gear calculator suggests it should be the other way around.
I guess this is a trend that will only continue as more and more people decide that cycling can be improved by bolting an engine to their pushbike.
Hopefully XC racing will still remain a thing, with appropriate tyres. I would therefore expect everything from there on up to full DH tyres to exist. Unfortunately in ever growing numbers of variants, sub niches, and baffling naming conventions.
I find I’m putting in a bit more effort to overcome wheel decceleration between each pedal stroke compared with my 27.5 bike.
You're imagining this. It's not a real thing.
^that does assume that you are putting out your maximum power and are being somehow hindered in applying it to the bike/ground, much like the "clipless pedals and pull up on the backstroke for added powaaar" argument. Which I'm going to assume most of us non pro racers do not do on an extended basis, such as the long climb in the OP
There's a lot to be said for being over-tyred (wasn't there a thread on that recently?) you'd be surprised what you can get away with grip/durability wise. The thing with a lot of modern bikes is the geometry allows riders to just plough through things, but that's not always the best way and tyres/rims take the brunt of the abuse. Be a bit more selective with your lines and not just rely on the geometry to get you through it and lighter, faster tyres might become more useable and make climbing less of a chore. Same can be said of enduro bikes for a lot of folks, but that's a whole different debate! Does make me wonder though if the riders who have sold their enduro bike to get an ebike or one to go along side it would have done so had they actually ridden a more appropriate, lighter, shorter travel bike rather than lug a 35lb+ beast around a lap of trail centre...
You’re imagining this. It’s not a real thing.
Stop gaslighting me! I'm not going mad!
Anyhow, I thought that was the key supposed difference between bigger/smaller wheelsizes? Bigger is harder to accelerate, but holds speed better once turning? My perception was that, once it gets steep enough, it's harder on the 29, despite being a lighter bike, with an easier gear and tyres with lower rolling resistance.
My old 26" alloy hardtail on fatter tyres and less suspension seems a much more capable climber that my newer steel, semi-slack angled, longer travel 27.5" HT.
I reckon it's just down to my CoG being in a better place on the 26". Also, As it is a smaller bike, relatively speaking, I can move around more to get my weight in the right place for traction when things get a bit technical.
Bigger is harder to accelerate, but holds speed better once turning?
The difference in a steady climb is negligible. Basically, a wheel rim and tyre count for twice as much when you are accelerating because you need to spin it faster and also move it forward. However, the difference between a 29" and 27" tyre and rim is not that huge. Unless you are climbing at a walking pace and pretty much coming to rest between pedal strokes, your speed is not varying by as much as you seem to assume so you are not accelerating the wheel very much. The tyre's rolling resistance will make a much bigger difference than the difference in weight between 27" and 29" versions of the same rim and tyre.
My incredibly unscientific 'test' recently, showed that a 26" wheeled hardtail from 10 years ago or more, was quickest up most climbs, although a 29" lightweight carbon framed bike rolled better over roots and bumps, and a 27.5" full suspension 'trail' type bike was an absolute pig. I also know that I was a fair bit quicker say 20, 30 years ago. Thus proving that the bikes back then were better at climbing. 😀
The whole idea about 'rotating weight' is a bit of a cycling myth. On road bikes, there's basically no difference between heavy vs lightweight wheels on a weight-compensated frame.
https://www.swissside.com/blogs/news/aero-vs-weight?locale=de
I guess MTBs are slightly different, as depending on the terrain, the wheels may be forced to accelerate / decelerate more often than on a steady road grind with constant wheel RPM.
Interesting about the tyres though. I'm usually running heavy carcass Magic Marys (which are great on the descents), but I ended up doing a ride on far lighter Nobby Nics which felt way quicker. Perhaps the pendulum needs to swing back to slighter lighter tyres.
Back when 26 x 1.95 tyres were normal, you were looking at 400 g to 500 g for an XC tyre. A fat 29" DH tyre is going to weigh two or three times as much, plus the rims will be heavier, so you're adding a couple of kilos of rotating mass, along with very draggy tyres that are optimized for grip with no concern for rolling resistance. In that case, the heavy tyre will feel very sluggish to pedal but stable at high speed because the wheels have a strong gyroscopic effect.
Back when 26 x 1.95 tyres were normal, you were looking at 400 g to 500 g for an XC tyre. A fat 29″ DH tyre is going to weigh two or three times as much, plus the rims will be heavier, so you’re adding a couple of kilos of rotating mass, along with very draggy tyres that are optimized for grip with no concern for rolling resistance. In that case, the heavy tyre will feel very sluggish to pedal but stable at high speed because the wheels have a strong gyroscopic effect.
This is a really good, concise analysis. Thanks.
Interesting about the tyres though. I’m usually running heavy carcass Magic Marys (which are great on the descents), but I ended up doing a ride on far lighter Nobby Nics which felt way quicker. Perhaps the pendulum needs to swing back to slighter lighter tyres.
It sounds right but I'll refer back to my post from the top of the page.
#2 would've been on a 1450g wheelset & Ardent/Larsen combo - all in about 3kg
#5 was on a 1900g wheelset & Michelin Enduro 2.4's - all in about 4.1kg
Rank Date Time Bike
1 2 Aug 2015 46:23 Cube Stereo
2 10 Oct 2012 47:00 456Ti
3 24 Nov 2019 47:07 Flaremax
4 8 Mar 2013 47:55 456Ti
5 22 Dec 2020 48:17 Flaremax
Geometry? Particularly CS length.