What makes a good climbing bicycle?

the climber on it.😄 example Rasmussen. 😄

Nas_kaj said:

What makes a good climbing bicycle? Please give examples! Super thanks!

FREDBLACK said:

the climber on it.😄 example Rasmussen. 😄

+1 on the climber. It's all in the motor. Most of the weight issues that surround a climbing bike really don't apply to the real world. I guess wight savings may factor into the top pros, but most even mid lvel pros consider themselves lucky to have one road bike and one TT bike. Personally, I like to climb on all AL frames bacause I prefer the stiffness.

I agree with the responses so far. The engine. Work on the engine. But that wasn't the question. What are the qualities of a good climbing bike?

Considering that while climbing your cadence drops, your torque must increase for a give power output. So I'd say the lateral stiffness of the frame, wheels, cranks and handlebars are all semi-important. I calculated it out a few times and the losses in those parts aren't big. Maybe a Watt or two at most.

Weight is also important. Though it's easy to get carried away and miss the big picture. If you and your bike and all your gear come in at 180 pounds, 1 pound isn't a lot. In fact, if you neglect wind resistance and rolling resistance one pound is only ~0.5% difference in power output at the same speed. Again a Watt or two depending on your output.

I'd say the most important part is getting a comfortable, efficient position on the bike. Relaxing and opening up the upper body to allow your chest and lungs to expand to their full capacity. Learning your optimal cadence and rhythm. Knowing when to stand and when to climb seated. These can all affect your performance in a huge way.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

Nas_kaj said:

What makes a good climbing bicycle? Please give examples! Super thanks!

Climbing bikes should have light and stiff frames, you should be able to sit in an upright position comfortably, and the wheels should be light with less focus on aerodynamics and more focus on reduced rotational mass. Fortunately, road bikes aren't that specialized (as opposed to skiing where a GS ski would have much different properties than a slalom ski). Assuming no changes are going to be made to the engine, I would always opt for the lightest frame and wheels possible.. Consider a triple or compact chainset as well, if the intended use is long steep climbs. Examples? If I was building a bike solely for climbing (and money was no object) it would be something like this:
Frame: Litespeed Ghisallo
Components: Campy Record with carbon compact crankset.
Wheels: Zipp 202 or Campy Hyperion Ultra's
Bear in mind, don't sacrifice too much downhill stability. Most long tough climbs are followed with screaming descents. If you're shimmying at 45 mph, you won't care how many grams you just saved on that whippy fork...
:eek:

PeterF said:

Climbing bikes should have light and stiff frames, you should be able to sit in an upright position comfortably, and the wheels should be light with less focus on aerodynamics and more focus on reduced rotational mass. Fortunately, road bikes aren't that specialized (as opposed to skiing where a GS ski would have much different properties than a slalom ski). Assuming no changes are going to be made to the engine, I would always opt for the lightest frame and wheels possible.. Consider a triple or compact chainset as well, if the intended use is long steep climbs. Examples? If I was building a bike solely for climbing (and money was no object) it would be something like this:
Frame: Litespeed Ghisallo
Components: Campy Record with carbon compact crankset.
Wheels: Zipp 202 or Campy Hyperion Ultra's
Bear in mind, don't sacrifice too much downhill stability. Most long tough climbs are followed with screaming descents. If you're shimmying at 45 mph, you won't care how many grams you just saved on that whippy fork...
:eek:

So...is the trek madone ssl better than the cervelo soloist carbon or R3?

Nas_kaj said:

What makes a good climbing bicycle? Please give examples! Super thanks!

Go to: analyticcycling.com. You can enter any hypotheticals and their computer program will answer all your questions.

Nas_kaj said:

So...is the trek madone ssl better than the cervelo soloist carbon or R3?

Yes. I mean definitely not. Well, sometimes, but then again ... It would depend on what you mean by "better". As you make your question more specific, it will tend to answer itself. Good luck in sorting it out.

Nas_kaj said:

So...is the trek madone ssl better than the cervelo soloist carbon or R3?

Is the Trek Madone SSL better than the Cervelo Soloist Carbon in durability and assisting in climb. I was curious because I think I remember Trek wanting to call their crown jewel bicycle "The Climbing Bicycle," but Disco decided against it. The Soloist Carbon's down tube is thin, so I was woundering if that gives the proper amount of energy transfer and durability.

Nas_kaj said:

Is the Trek Madone SSL better than the Cervelo Soloist Carbon in durability and assisting in climb. I was curious because I think I remember Trek wanting to call their crown jewel bicycle "The Climbing Bicycle," but Disco decided against it. The Soloist Carbon's down tube is thin, so I was woundering if that gives the proper amount of energy transfer and durability.

Almost all of the pro climbing bike framesets, YOU can buy. All of the pro framesets, I know about, have a threaded boss under the bottom bracket to add a lead weight to, to bring the bike up to the UCI minimum of just under 15lbs. Why? For the same reason a sailboat has it's lead keel centered and as low as possible. Buy/ride what the pros do and worry about geometry and if it's too quick for you. There is no answer to your question's, unless you provide an infinite number of parameters you want the bike to perform to, and your ability.

The best climbing bike is the one that you think is the best. Everyone has an opinion on what is more important. There are always balances. Is it better to be lighter and not as stiff or stiff and not as light. Loosing the rotational mass in the wheels is great for going up but you loose stability when going down the other side. The way to have the best climbing bike is to have the best climbing engine. Overall lighter is better if you can maintain the stiffness.

unicos said:

The best climbing bike is the one that you think is the best. Everyone has an opinion on what is more important. There are always balances. Is it better to be lighter and not as stiff or stiff and not as light. Loosing the rotational mass in the wheels is great for going up but you loose stability when going down the other side. The way to have the best climbing bike is to have the best climbing engine. Overall lighter is better if you can maintain the stiffness.

The best climbing bike, is any one the pros ride. It's at the UCI minimum weight, it's stiff enough not to sacrafice energy transfer, and it's stable enough to descend at 55mph+. Most of these are availible to the public.

Rotational mass has no effect at all on climbing. 100 grams of the rims is no different to 100grams off your [censored] or seatpost or bars etc.

unicos said:

The best climbing bike is the one that you think is the best. Everyone has an opinion on what is more important. There are always balances. Is it better to be lighter and not as stiff or stiff and not as light. Loosing the rotational mass in the wheels is great for going up but you loose stability when going down the other side. The way to have the best climbing bike is to have the best climbing engine. Overall lighter is better if you can maintain the stiffness.

11ring said:

Rotational mass has no effect at all on climbing. 100 grams of the rims is no different to 100grams off your [censored] or seatpost or bars etc.

You mean, at a constant speed and not when sprinting or trying a breakaway?

Yes. But accelerating like this is not specific to climbing, so to say a bike with good acceleration is a good climbing bike doesn't really make sense.

Rotating weight does affect acceleration.

lks said:

You mean, at a constant speed and not when sprinting or trying a breakaway?

11ring said:

Yes. But accelerating like this is not specific to climbing, so to say a bike with good acceleration is a good climbing bike doesn't really make sense.

Rotating weight does affect acceleration.

I never said that a bike with good acceleration, is a good climbing bike. I will say that a bike without good acceleration is not a good climbing bike. All the Tour bikes weigh the same. The Pro riders sprint/breakaway frequently and low rotating inertia facilitates this. Anything else, wouldn't make sense to them.

11ring said:

Rotational mass has no effect at all on climbing. 100 grams of the rims is no different to 100grams off your [censored] or seatpost or bars etc.

Yes it does

unicos said:

Yes it does

Here's what a prominent cycling engineer has to say on the topic (apologies for the length):

Quoted message said:

The most important weight is that which is at the periphery of a
rotating mass. In other words, pedals, rims, tires, tubes are more
important than cogs, BB's, hubs, etc.

This is an age old fable in bicycling and useful to cite when an
excuse for some new wheels is needed. If they are aerodynamic, then
that's easy to justify even though they are heavier, but just a bit
lighter ones are less so, so out comes the rotational inertia bit.
Inertia is important for acceleration but not at constant speed where
it is probably beneficial, although I don't know of any study that has
quantified this. Francesco Moser used a large flywheel rear wheel in
his last attempt at increasing his Hour Record but the flesh wouldn't
respond. I am sure they analyzed the effects however.

Although it may seem daunting, when another rider pulls away on a hill
or in a bike race on the flat, these accelerations, except in standing
starts, are so small as to make the rotating mass story a hoax. Sure,
the mass counts twice as much when accelerating but two times zero is
still zero, and how long does a rider accelerate. Weight of bicycle
components for climbing is the main consideration, not acceleration.
The rotating mass story is a fable that sounds good and has just
enough technical truth to be one that will probably sustain itself
indefinitely. Making equipment choices by it are a matter of faith,
not fact.

Jobst Brandt <[email hidden]>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email hidden] (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: My proposed wheelset....opinions please.
Date: 5 Jan 2001 18:30:36 GMT

Mike Krueger said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When one pushes down on the pedals, and the bike speeds up, that
is acceleration.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sure. but no acceleration worth mentioning when talking about
inertia of rotating mass.

Quoted message said:

OK, I'm not an engineer. Let's put this in layman's terms, so that I
can understand it. Are you saying that it does not require more work
to increase the rotating speed of a heavy wheel vs. a light wheel?
(aerodynamics, tire rolling resistance, and all else being equal)

For bicyclists the main effort is overcoming wind resistance, the
second is raising weight up climbs (unless this is your specialty),
the two are distinctly different in human response as most of us
recognize. Way down the list for better bicycles lies tire rolling
resistance and friction in the chain. After that, at a great
distance, comes acceleration of changing speed... affected primarily
by the mass of the rider and bicycle. The difference of whether that
weight is at the periphery of the wheel or not is triflingly small as
was demonstrated by another writer. However, bicycles do not
accelerate at any perceptible rate from one speed to another, and when
they do, its at startup from the standing start. It has almost
nothing to do with riding once underway where change of speed occurs
at glacial accelerations (aka <1/20g).

Therefore, although one gram more or less on the tread (periphery) of
a tire is equivalent to two grams on the hub *for acceleration only*,
this is a greatly exaggerated physical effect that enables bicycle
shops to sell unnecessarily expensive wheels on the basis of this true
but irrelevant physics.

Jobst Brandt <[email hidden]>

artemidorus said:

Here's what a prominent cycling engineer has to say on the topic (apologies for the length):

Quoted message said:

The most important weight is that which is at the periphery of a
rotating mass. In other words, pedals, rims, tires, tubes are more
important than cogs, BB's, hubs, etc.

This is an age old fable in bicycling and useful to cite when an
excuse for some new wheels is needed. If they are aerodynamic, then
that's easy to justify even though they are heavier, but just a bit
lighter ones are less so, so out comes the rotational inertia bit.
Inertia is important for acceleration but not at constant speed where
it is probably beneficial, although I don't know of any study that has
quantified this. Francesco Moser used a large flywheel rear wheel in
his last attempt at increasing his Hour Record but the flesh wouldn't
respond. I am sure they analyzed the effects however.

Although it may seem daunting, when another rider pulls away on a hill
or in a bike race on the flat, these accelerations, except in standing
starts, are so small as to make the rotating mass story a hoax. Sure,
the mass counts twice as much when accelerating but two times zero is
still zero, and how long does a rider accelerate. Weight of bicycle
components for climbing is the main consideration, not acceleration.
The rotating mass story is a fable that sounds good and has just
enough technical truth to be one that will probably sustain itself
indefinitely. Making equipment choices by it are a matter of faith,
not fact.

Jobst Brandt <[email hidden]>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email hidden] (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: My proposed wheelset....opinions please.
Date: 5 Jan 2001 18:30:36 GMT

Mike Krueger said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When one pushes down on the pedals, and the bike speeds up, that
is acceleration.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sure. but no acceleration worth mentioning when talking about
inertia of rotating mass.

Quoted message said:

OK, I'm not an engineer. Let's put this in layman's terms, so that I
can understand it. Are you saying that it does not require more work
to increase the rotating speed of a heavy wheel vs. a light wheel?
(aerodynamics, tire rolling resistance, and all else being equal)

For bicyclists the main effort is overcoming wind resistance, the
second is raising weight up climbs (unless this is your specialty),
the two are distinctly different in human response as most of us
recognize. Way down the list for better bicycles lies tire rolling
resistance and friction in the chain. After that, at a great
distance, comes acceleration of changing speed... affected primarily
by the mass of the rider and bicycle. The difference of whether that
weight is at the periphery of the wheel or not is triflingly small as
was demonstrated by another writer. However, bicycles do not
accelerate at any perceptible rate from one speed to another, and when
they do, its at startup from the standing start. It has almost
nothing to do with riding once underway where change of speed occurs
at glacial accelerations (aka <1/20g).

Therefore, although one gram more or less on the tread (periphery) of
a tire is equivalent to two grams on the hub *for acceleration only*,
this is a greatly exaggerated physical effect that enables bicycle
shops to sell unnecessarily expensive wheels on the basis of this true
but irrelevant physics.

Jobst Brandt <[email hidden]>

I am an engineer but it doesn’t matter because my field is fluid mechanics and this is not fluid mechanics; but I do remember some very basics about mass concerning a spinning body. There is a difference concerning weight in a spinning body. More specifically you should take center of mass for the wheel in this case. It takes more energy to accelerate a wheel with a center of mass further out from its rotational axis than one that is closer. It would also take more energy to accelerate a heavy wheel than it would a light wheel with the same center of mass. The reason this comes into play with climbing is because we do not climb at a constant rate. There is acceleration and deceleration constantly as we climb. The amount of energy required for a light wheel versus a heavy would be small but the longer the hill the greater the energy difference required to accelerate the wheel. I’m not saying that this is a make or break portion of the question here but if you want all of the variables then it would be included. Bottom line is perceived value.

All good advice so far but i feel you guys are missing the point. Every person has a different body size and shape so to say that one particular bike is a climbing bike does'nt work. Consider the peddling position your body requires not what some pro does. Some basic giudelines would be.

1 pick a bike with short chainstays so as your weight is toward the back,this changes the peddling geometry so you can realy "stomp"

2 go for the most rigid frame you can afford, chrome alloy or titanium, and a short seat stay, aluminium is light but doesent stay rigid for long.

3 Think about your standing up body position. a short frame and long handle bar stem and wide bars, will all help

The more inportant thing to remember is dont go for any thing to different to what your used to. Make small changes, cause there are hardly any races that are all up hill and you still have to make the distance.

If your realy interested in climbing the single biggest advantage is body weight you could have the lightest bike in the world but if you weigh 85kg forget it.