Designing a bike solely for climbing...

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

Nobody has brought up biomechanics or how the system changes as the grade increases... I noticed something in the data with my clients who use the Kickr Climb, when the front fork is elevated their torque drops off. That's because their body weight is no longer over the pedals. With steeper grades the rider position must also adapt.

I've noticed this as well. When climbing steep slopes, I often find that I need to slide toward the front of my saddle to keep high force on the pedals. Unfortunately, sliding forward on the saddle also decreases effective saddle height, which is generally not what you want on a climb.

When I set up my bike for a hill climb race, I readjust my saddle forward (less setback). This is great for going uphill, but unfortunately this shifts my weight forward and isn't great for going downhill (particularly through switchback descents).

[David Tollefson]

I did this last year for the High Pass Challenge, with the intent of posting a PR for the ride (I was successful to the tune of some 32 minutes). I started with going to 650c wheels, a light fork, then built the rest of the bike around those. Duplicated my standard road position, didn't weight weenie the parts spec too much (SRAM Red crank, Shimano 600 single pivot brakes, full carbon saddle), but turns out this bike is my "fastest" on any road ride. Went with a 34/26 low gear, lower than the 34/28 I had on the same ride previously (700c wheels).

My point -- you might consider dropping down a wheel size or two.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by Dave

A 44/11 is only 9% lower than my 48/11. I can spin that up to 38 mph, with no problem. If the slopes are steep, you should be hitting 50 mph very quickly. I have some 10-12% grades to climb and hitting 50 on the descent is easy. No pedaling required.

The problem for some bikes will be getting the FD low enough. There is an adapter made to drop a braze-on FD down lower.

https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/

Speaking of Wickwerks. I ran thier 53/34 setup for years on my Lemond. Worked great and shifting was flawless.

https://wickwerks.com/products/road-...ra-wide-53-34/

Last year I built up a climbing bike with a triple using their chainrings too. That works amazingly well too.

[Dave]

In my responses, I was never thinking about racing up or down the slopes, just having enough gear to get up without any severe lack of gear for the trip down. FWIW, on normal rides, I put my energy into the climb and won't waste energy on a long descent. I've ridden the same 10 mile descent about 700 times and never gave any thought to my top gear, but it was either a 53/12 with a triple and probably a 50/12 with a compact. Either one gave me all the speed I needed. If I used my top gear, it was only for a short time. Gravity did most of the work, because the road was too winding to waste bursts of energy and then have to scrub off the extra speed for corners. I wasn't racing down, just getting down relatively fast.

As for the too-large jumps with an 11-34, I don't find that to be the case, but perhaps that's because I need the 34 to maintain a cadence in the 70's on the steepest slopes. The 29 is 15% lower, but that's only about 11 rpm, and the 25 is about a 14% lower gear, the 22 another 12%. I can climb efficiently with a cadence in the 70 to 83 rpm range, no problem. I don't like to pedal a lot slower or a lot faster on a steep climb. If I can even hit 83 rpm in my 32/34, then the climb isn't very steep and the 29 will do the job. I have easy climbs where the 22 and 25 are used.

Just recently I was riding back and forth with a couple of college age guys who could easily get out of the saddle and leave me in the dust on a steep climb. On one of the descents, I shocked one of them by using my 140 lbs to coast right by him and catching up to the lead rider. Don't know what that rider was doing wrong, but he was slow on the descent.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by joosttx

https://youtu.be/L0NyFjIS_wE

Phil in collabo with Heisenberg. Go to 0:30 minutes if your brain has been damaged by social media....


The bike doesnt matter as much as the fitness and fatness of the rider. I would focus on that more than the bike.

Well, since you addressed racing in another post ...

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by joosttx

For the sake of discussion... if I want to design a bike for a 10 mile 8% grade hill race. What would you suggest? And yes I agree you know a thing or two about climbing.

Here.

What does that have to do with my original post? I didn't mention anything about racing. I'm also not sure what I can glean from that video. Gaimon and Nate are professional racers. I am not. Nor, for that matter, are you. I just want to enjoy myself on a bike ride with extended climbing.

I should also point out that the concept of "fitness" you referred to earlier is much more involved than just going up a hill at a good clip. How is your balance? Flexibility? Functional strength, etc.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Here.

What does that have to do with my original post? I didn't mention anything about racing. I'm also not sure what I can glean from that video. Gaimon and Nate are professional racers. I am not. Nor, for that matter, are you. I just want to enjoy myself on a bike ride with extended climbing.

I should also point out that the concept of "fitness" you referred to earlier is much more involved than just going up a hill at a good clip. How is your balance? Flexibility? Functional strength, etc.

My first post was referencing Phil Gaimons video about loosely creating hill climb bike. They were getting silly about lighting the bike. Body weight and cardio fitness (that’s the fitness I am talking about) or watts/kg I think are more important than the bike. hence the silliness err satire of Phil.

Regarding my question to Ti designs he knows a lot, is smart, and has thought about the subject. I would like to know how crazy a bike design (geometry-wise) would be to design a bike that engaged the right muscles at an 8% grade hill.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

I would like to build a bike that's focused on going up and then down. A "screw the flats" type of bike. I'm thinking of going really small up front. Possibly a 26/44 (White Idustries) crank with an 11-36 in back. In the Bay Area hills, that's not that impractical. Something for doing a Mt Diablo double, for example. I know there's a bike ride that tackles all of the East Bay's major climbs as well, although I can't remember the name.

Anyone have a similar gearing for that type of terrain? How do you like it?

PS I already have bikes with standard compact gearing. Since I may have a surfeit of bikes, I want a bike with totally different gearing. Also, a nod to HTupolev and Mark McM who have been very helpful with tech questions.

Well, since you seem to be interested in gearing and not weight, isn't the obvious solution a triple crankset?

[colker]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Well, since you seem to be interested in gearing and not weight, isn't the obvious solution a triple crankset?

If going up and down, a triple w/ 12-25 cassette is right. If only climbing then start taking parts off the bike.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by colker

If going up and down, a triple w/ 12-25 cassette is right. If only climbing then start taking parts off the bike.

He suggested both up and down:

I would like to build a bike that's focused on going up and then down.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by colker

If going up and down, a triple w/ 12-25 cassette is right. If only climbing then start taking parts off the bike.

For many years, I used a 12-25 10 speed cassette and 53/39/28 triple crank. I changed one of my bikes to a triple, just before I moved from the Kansas City area to Highlands Ranch in 2003.

When 11 speed came out late in 2008, I switched to a 50/34 and 12/27. Now that I'm older and slower, the new 48/32 and 11-34 are working well.

[XXtwindad]

Lots of good insight here. Flash's concerns aside (and he might be right) the idea of a 26/44 married to an 11-36 really appeals to me. I don't mind coasting on hills greater than nine or ten percent.

I'm fortunate (or foolish) enough to have multiple road bikes, so this bike would be designed solely for a specific purpose.

[NHAero]

I really like the Ultegra 11-34, because the jumps percentage-wise are smallest where I do most of my pedaling.
If I wasn't really weight weenie-ing it, and didn't want hydro discs with integrated shifting/braking, I'd use a triple. I still run a 48-36-24 Sugino AT on my Bob Jackson, with a 12-30 10s cassette. But I like the 11-34 better, and have swapped the 11 for a 12 on two bikes because I never was getting into the 11.

Originally Posted by Dave

In my responses, I was never thinking about racing up or down the slopes, just having enough gear to get up without any severe lack of gear for the trip down. FWIW, on normal rides, I put my energy into the climb and won't waste energy on a long descent. I've ridden the same 10 mile descent about 700 times and never gave any thought to my top gear, but it was either a 53/12 with a triple and probably a 50/12 with a compact. Either one gave me all the speed I needed. If I used my top gear, it was only for a short time. Gravity did most of the work, because the road was too winding to waste bursts of energy and then have to scrub off the extra speed for corners. I wasn't racing down, just getting down relatively fast.

As for the too-large jumps with an 11-34, I don't find that to be the case, but perhaps that's because I need the 34 to maintain a cadence in the 70's on the steepest slopes. The 29 is 15% lower, but that's only about 11 rpm, and the 25 is about a 14% lower gear, the 22 another 12%. I can climb efficiently with a cadence in the 70 to 83 rpm range, no problem. I don't like to pedal a lot slower or a lot faster on a steep climb. If I can even hit 83 rpm in my 32/34, then the climb isn't very steep and the 29 will do the job. I have easy climbs where the 22 and 25 are used.

Just recently I was riding back and forth with a couple of college age guys who could easily get out of the saddle and leave me in the dust on a steep climb. On one of the descents, I shocked one of them by using my 140 lbs to coast right by him and catching up to the lead rider. Don't know what that rider was doing wrong, but he was slow on the descent.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

He suggested both up and down:

Well, if you go up, you have to come down eventually, right? Even if the views are great? Or even if there's a great microbrewery?

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Lots of good insight here. Flash's concerns aside (and he might be right) the idea of a 26/44 married to an 11-36 really appeals to me. I don't mind coasting on hills greater than nine or ten percent.

I'm fortunate (or foolish) enough to have multiple road bikes, so this bike would be designed solely for a specific purpose.

You are not foolish if you have multiple road bikes to make a climbing-specific bike. I really don't think you need anything but a compact crank with a big cassette on the back. What I would do is have a killer road bike frame with a compact and then two sets of wheels. 1) Aero wheels with a say 11X28ish cassette and 2) ultralight "climbing" wheels with a big cassette on the back. If you campy bora ultra II and hyperons will serve the purpose.