Best Frame for Climbing

Hoya1500 said:

What is the best type of frame for climbing? Does a sloping geometry have any advantages over a traditional frame? Obviously lighter is better but what about flex, etc? Do you need a stiff frame? What kind of material should it be made out of? Do good sprinting frames make good climbing frames? Do frames matter as much as i think? (I am aware of the necessity for a good engine as well) And what's with hourglass seatstays and chainstays?

I'm asking because I love climbing. Masochistic, i know. But, IMO, nothing is more offensive than suffering up a steep climb only to have some guy beat you to the top. If i'm gonna hurt, it better pay off.

Cheers

Climbing is all about power-to-weight. If you can save a pound on the frame, and have a bike-plus-body weight of 200 lbs now, you'll be 1/2% quicker by lifting one pound less. That's 1.5 seconds saved on a steep 5 minute climb, or about 1-2 bike lengths. Maybe a big deal for Lance and the TdF guys, but not really for me.

The guys that beat me now tend to be 20-30% faster, and weigh in at 125-155 vs my 180 lbs. As you can see clearly, shaving 1 lb off by going to a 900 gram CR1 frame isn't going to make me the club hero 🙁

dhk said:

Climbing is all about power-to-weight. If you can save a pound on the frame, and have a bike-plus-body weight of 200 lbs now, you'll be 1/2% quicker by lifting one pound less. That's 1.5 seconds saved on a steep 5 minute climb, or about 1-2 bike lengths. Maybe a big deal for Lance and the TdF guys, but not really for me.

The guys that beat me now tend to be 20-30% faster, and weigh in at 125-155 vs my 180 lbs. As you can see clearly, shaving 1 lb off by going to a 900 gram CR1 frame isn't going to make me the club hero 🙁

So, all that stuff about frame stiffness is secondary? What about geometry? Shouldn't there be some advantageous position to climb in? You obviously don't climb in the same position you'd normally be in on a flat...

Hoya1500 said:

So, all that stuff about frame stiffness is secondary?

Flex wastes energy, but gives a more comfortable, stable ride. If you're really that masochistic, then go for the stiffest frame you can find. I can't quantify the difference for you, but it'd surprise me if the advantage were any bigger than from saving a pound of weight, because the forces involved during a climb just aren't terribly high (as opposed to sprinting) unless you're really tugging on the bars on a very steep hill.

Hoya1500 said:

What about geometry?

Sitting upright brings your lower back and glutes more into play, which will give you a bit more oomph on a longer climb. I'd guess that this is the biggest factor of the three frame factors that you mentioned, but you can get pretty close by putting your hands on the bar tops of a typical road bike. Unfortunately, if you climb a lot on your rides, then I'd guess you descend a lot too, and you buddies will likely drop you like a rock going down the other side of the hill because of your more upright position.

As a project for the holidays I am putting together a new bike I intend to use for hillclimbs. The bike is based on a Giant TCR Aero time trial frame small size (yes a time trial frame). I found the frame to be very stiff and very light/nimble after riding a friends machine and I think it would make a good hillclimbing bike. I agree with the comments on saving weight wherever you can find it, hence, target bike weight - sub 17lbs. Components - Campy Record, mavic wheelsets, Giant A1 finishing kit. I hope to publish the bike build-up pics once I start the project around xmas time.

Hoya1500 said:

And what's with hourglass seatstays and chainstays?

Half practicality and half marketing gimick. Manufacturers typically use hourglass stays because they simplify construction. The angles of the welds/glue joints at the dropouts and bb shell become independent of frame size. The fact that they're just plain cheaper to build is rarely in the sales literature. In some cases however, hour glass chain stays allow the builder to use bigger tubing without having to crimp it to clear the chain rings.

hd reynolds said:

As a project for the holidays I am putting together a new bike I intend to use for hillclimbs. The bike is based on a Giant TCR Aero time trial frame small size (yes a time trial frame). I found the frame to be very stiff and very light/nimble after riding a friends machine and I think it would make a good hillclimbing bike. I agree with the comments on saving weight wherever you can find it, hence, target bike weight - sub 17lbs. Components - Campy Record, mavic wheelsets, Giant A1 finishing kit. I hope to publish the bike build-up pics once I start the project around xmas time.

That's a very interesting approach. I'm looking forward to see some pictures. Sounds expensive though.

artmichalek said:

Half practicality and half marketing gimick. Manufacturers typically use hourglass stays because they simplify construction. The angles of the welds/glue joints at the dropouts and bb shell become independent of frame size. The fact that they're just plain cheaper to build is rarely in the sales literature. In some cases however, hour glass chain stays allow the builder to use bigger tubing without having to crimp it to clear the chain rings.

Exactly. My bike was built by a local frame shop using one of the hourglass CF rear triangles, with single top and "monobox" BB plug. When I asked about advantages, he told me it saved him a good bit of time vs having to fit and align seperate chainstays and seatseats like he would on an all AL or steel frame.

The CF rear triangle I've got has some lateral flex when paired with the stiff 58cm AL front triangle. It rides nice for my club rides, but not the stiffest set up for a strong sprinter.

dhk said:

Exactly. My bike was built by a local frame shop using one of the hourglass CF rear triangles, with single top and "monobox" BB plug. When I asked about advantages, he told me it saved him a good bit of time vs having to fit and align seperate chainstays and seatseats like he would on an all AL or steel frame.

I'm not saying it's always a bad thing. If you can get good performance for less money, that's great. The thing is, a lot of companies cut corners (1 1/8" steerers anyone?) and try to convince you that it's somehow inherently better that way. At least your builder is honest.

Hoya1500 said:

That's a very interesting approach. I'm looking forward to see some pictures. Sounds expensive though.

I'm looking forward to the video of him going down a mountain road on a size small TT frame. 😉 I'm guessing it'll look like Rasmussen's TT from this year's TdF. 😄

Remember when buying/building your "climbing" bike that it should be a good "descending" bike as well.

frenchyge said:

Remember when buying/building your "climbing" bike that it should be a good "descending" bike as well.

Unless you're just using it for select hill climb races. I know of a number of them that won't let you ride back down after the race.

What about the rest of your bike??? don't look at just the frame... your lightweight sloping top tube frame won't help you much if you're running 36 spoke 3 cross wheels.

What's wrong with the one you're riding now?

Tubbs said:

What about the rest of your bike??? don't look at just the frame... your lightweight sloping top tube frame won't help you much if you're running 36 spoke 3 cross wheels.

What's wrong with the one you're riding now?

So sloping top tubes perform better on climbs than traditional flat ones? Why?

There's nothing wrong with my bike (Trek 1500), especially seeing as how i just bought it last July and am a poor college student. I've been thinking about a new set of wheels (nost likely Kysrium SL's, unless someone can suggest a better substitute). I guess its a good thing i work at a bike shop. My questions are derivative of my interest in differing frame geometries and their application to certain situations, namely climbing. We all know about power to weight ratio, but my question is: What else is there?

Hoya1500 said:

So sloping top tubes perform better on climbs than traditional flat ones? Why?

My questions are derivative of my interest in differing frame geometries and their application to certain situations, namely climbing. We all know about power to weight ratio, but my question is: What else is there?

Dude, what is your imagination like..... and how big is your budget 😉

For real though, there is no single best frame geometry. Every rider has a different perception of what is "best", vs. what is "inferior". Basically , its about experiencing as many frames as you possibly can.... in the shortest amount of time, so you can dial in what you prefer as a rider- your riding style. Maybe if you can submit your measurements(height, weight, inseam) to us all, we can make some general recommendations that might have worked for us...... but it might not be the right bike for you.

Adam-from-SLO said:

For real though, there is no single best frame geometry. .

Exaclty. Merlin is offering their new M Works frames in both traditional and compact. Here's their view on the subject:
http://www.merlinbike.com/2006/works/tech_frame.aspx
Notice how they didn't say anything about weight or stiffness?

Hoya1500 said:

So sloping top tubes perform better on climbs than traditional flat ones? Why?

There's nothing wrong with my bike (Trek 1500), especially seeing as how i just bought it last July and am a poor college student. I've been thinking about a new set of wheels (nost likely Kysrium SL's, unless someone can suggest a better substitute). I guess its a good thing i work at a bike shop. My questions are derivative of my interest in differing frame geometries and their application to certain situations, namely climbing. We all know about power to weight ratio, but my question is: What else is there?

An interesting approach come from some of the pros. I remember that Tony Rominger defended his 2nd Giro d Italia title with a crucial mountain top time trial victory using a custom made hill climbing bike. He used a custom-made Colnago bi-titan with 26 in. wheels and is said to have weighed less than 14lbs.

Richard Virenque also copied this approach in mountain time trials of the tour during the 90's with a custom made titanium tubed bike shod with 26 in wheels. Altho it was badged a Peugeot (which was the official bike supplier for the Festina team) it was actually built by Litespeed.

Also some British time trial specialists like Start Dangerfield (among others) prepare their bikes for hill climb time trials with single speeds and compact cranks or use 5 speed gears and a single speed compact chainset.

hd reynolds said:

An interesting approach come from some of the pros.

Iban Mayo climbs on custom aluminum Orbeas that have shorter chain stays and steeper seat tubes than the stock models.

Hoya1500 said:

There's nothing wrong with my bike (Trek 1500), especially seeing as how i just bought it last July and am a poor college student.

Ah!!! those 3 key words... poor college student...

Dude... I once was in your shoes... save your money... so you have a Trek 1500 aluminum frame with a bontrager carbon fork. (I'm assuming it's a stock rig for now) Fairly lightweight and pretty stiff to boot.

If you must upgrade... again I do say IF... I would start with the wheels... a good set of lightweight and stiff wheels will make a big difference with minimum damage to your wallet. Ksyrium SL's are nice but I find they can be kinda pricey... but if you work for a shop then i'm sure you can work out a deal. Bang for the buck, I'd go with Campy, yes... Campy wheels... you can get them with Shimano cassette bodies. Eurus may be a bit more than Ksyrium but i find they are stiffer. I've been riding on a set of Campy Proton's for a number of years now... with Ultegra... nice lightweight... the spin up nicely... great for climbing and are very durable.

I don't know if your bike comes with a triple chainring crankset... but if you've got one... ditch it. C'mon man... you love climbing... you don't need the granny ring. Instead of the 52-42-30 triple, see if you can swap it for a 53-39 double... Unless you are climbing the Angliru is Spain or the Treviso pass in Italy, you don't need the triple. I don't have much experience with the new compact cranksets yet so I can't really comment on them.

I believe the stock 1500 comes with a 12-25, 9-speed cassette. If climbing is your forte, then maybe you might want to go with some lower gearing like a 12-27 or 13-27... not sure exactly how they come. That 27 in the back with a 39 up front should allow you to spin like Lance Armstrong on speed.

Voila... a climbing bike on a college budget. When you're done college... then pick youself up a sweet Carbon or Ti ride

Tubbs said:

Ah!!! those 3 key words... poor college student...

Dude... I once was in your shoes... save your money... so you have a Trek 1500 aluminum frame with a bontrager carbon fork. (I'm assuming it's a stock rig for now) Fairly lightweight and pretty stiff to boot.

If you must upgrade... again I do say IF... I would start with the wheels... a good set of lightweight and stiff wheels will make a big difference with minimum damage to your wallet. Ksyrium SL's are nice but I find they can be kinda pricey... but if you work for a shop then i'm sure you can work out a deal. Bang for the buck, I'd go with Campy, yes... Campy wheels... you can get them with Shimano cassette bodies. Eurus may be a bit more than Ksyrium but i find they are stiffer. I've been riding on a set of Campy Proton's for a number of years now... with Ultegra... nice lightweight... the spin up nicely... great for climbing and are very durable.

I don't know if your bike comes with a triple chainring crankset... but if you've got one... ditch it. C'mon man... you love climbing... you don't need the granny ring. Instead of the 52-42-30 triple, see if you can swap it for a 53-39 double... Unless you are climbing the Angliru is Spain or the Treviso pass in Italy, you don't need the triple. I don't have much experience with the new compact cranksets yet so I can't really comment on them.

I believe the stock 1500 comes with a 12-25, 9-speed cassette. If climbing is your forte, then maybe you might want to go with some lower gearing like a 12-27 or 13-27... not sure exactly how they come. That 27 in the back with a 39 up front should allow you to spin like Lance Armstrong on speed.

Voila... a climbing bike on a college budget. When you're done college... then pick youself up a sweet Carbon or Ti ride

If he's on a budget, and really wants to lose the triple ( for "image" reasons?), why not remove the inner ring and swap the 42T for a 38T or 39T. Re-adjust the inner position limit screw on the FD and ride on. Much cheaper than getting another crank. Also, he could always re-fit the 30T inner for a really big climb.

Ozark Bicycle said:

If he's on a budget, and really wants to lose the triple ( for "image" reasons?), why not remove the inner ring and swap the 42T for a 38T or 39T. Re-adjust the inner position limit screw on the FD and ride on. Much cheaper than getting another crank. Also, he could always re-fit the 30T inner for a really big climb.

yeah... that will work too...