[Closed] Biggest factor on a bike's climbing performance

Have you compared the speeds uphill with measurements rather than just feeling? Slacker head angles can wander a bit and thus need more steering but they don’t make a bike any slower uphill.

The obvious but unhelpful answer is the rider. You can learn to compensate for many characteristics. I swear pedalling gets harder when you shorten travel adjust forks on the fly... Why? I have no idea, but I definitely feel it.

Seat tube angle

I could look this up, but is the cotic a longer wheelbase?

Weight, tyres and wheel size for me. I climb quicker on my Rallon than on my less slack hardtail. Lighter / quicker rolling tyres have also made a noticeable difference before.

Are we talking technical climbs with roots, rocks, step-ups or smooth fireroad climbs?

 I swear pedalling gets harder when you shorten travel adjust forks on the fly… Why? I have no idea, but I definitely feel it.

Do we still have travel adjust forks? I think modern geo got rid of them a while back?

Having seen a lot of people in the end it's the legs that does it

I swear pedalling gets harder when you shorten travel adjust forks on the fly… Why? I have no idea, but I definitely feel it.

Got to agree there...nice to know im not alone on that one

Are people talking about actual speed when climbing or how it feels?

The 2 are different, not even related necessarily.

I'm not sure the exact measurements, but I'm pretty sure the Cotic will have a longer wheelbase. The seat tube angle on the Canyon was probably a bit steeper too.

Tyres obviously make a big difference, but I had fairly draggy tyres on both bikes so imagine it's fairly similar on both.

This is all based off feeling, not actual timings. Fire road climbs feel draggy, but I also find it a handful to control the bike on more technical climbs I.e. I feel like I'm wrestling with the bike.

I'm not really complaining, as I know the bike isnt designed to go uphill fast, but I'm interested to know what's the biggest factor is.

I forgot to mention weight! The Cotic weighs around 0.5-1kg more, but the wheels are probably a bit lighter than the Canyon. Would that make a noticeable difference?

Many different factors effect the climbing ability of a bike above and beyond head angle and amount of travel. As others have mentioned seat tumble angle, reach, wheel base and other geo metrics (cain stay length etc) make s difference.

Currently riding a nomad 3 with 170 front, 160 rear - best climbing bike I’ve ever had. Sone down to weight (although I’m the biggest component of that) some down to geo (which deff plays s big part), but I think is he biggest part is suspension set up and system (VPP vs single pivot, vs Horst link, vs faux link etc etc).

If your suspension is set up to track well on tech climbs with vpp or similar, it’s s breeze. I also find use the ‘climb switches’ or lock outs on anything other than fire roads hamper your climbing (lack of output in terms of traction for the power you put in = harder climb)

the right tyres and going tubeless helps loads as well

Are the wheel sizes the same 27.5, just wondering if gear inch is factored in with bigger tyres are you running the same gearing, is your regular uphill gear the same and so your cadence is running the same on both bikes ..

i never got on with my spectral it climbed like a dog, I always preferred my shorter travel nerve.

since then I got a 130mm full sus and it’s night and day better than both canyons climbing is so efficient in pedal mode, no bob felt and downhill it’s pure fun

Are the wheel sizes the same 27.5, just wondering if gear inch is factored in with bigger tyres are you running the same gearing, is your regular uphill gear the same and so your cadence is running the same on both bikes ..

i never got on with my spectral it climbed like a dog, I always preferred my shorter travel nerve.

since then I got a 130mm full sus virtual pivot and it’s night and day better than both canyons climbing is so efficient in pedal mode, no bob felt and downhill it’s pure fun

The rider

I’m the limiting factor when it comes to climbing. My quickest climbs were on a 26” Cotic Bfe. Said climbs coincided with me being younger and a lot fitter.

What the Funkmaster says, losing 2 stone and starting running has me climbing way quicker and easier than ever, despite riding my bike less this year than I ever have....

Slacker HAs = more flop.

Whether or not it physically affects speed on climbing I don't know, but it requires more concentration and effort so you're not sawing at your handlebars on steep climbs, and that might.

However as said above, you can adapt to anything.

On a historical note, there were plenty slack angled HA old road bikes around when I was young and we avoided them because we regarded them as unpleasantly floppy on steep climbs.

The video is interesting. It does look like slackening the HA on that bike extends the Front Centre which is what I consider is the main geometry benefit of slack HAs. It would be good to repeat the experiment to maintain a constant Front Centre.

Assuming the rider fitness hadn’t changed and reach is the same it sounds like you have a few things that are worse for climbing. More weight, slacker headangle, longer travel and potentially less efficient rear suspension for pedalling. Is the rocket also 650b or 26”?

Also as above you need to separate the feeling of being slower with actual times. My Aeris should in my mind d be worse at climbing than my Boardman Pro Fs that I had before but on strava I’m quicker pretty much everywhere. Despite it being longer travel / plusher / heavier / slacker / longer etc. I think the more efficient pedalling position and length of the bike make it pretty reasonable uphill on most stuff.

The place it’s worse is on draggy fireroad climbs where there is no benefit to the length etc and the weight counts against me. Plus the wheels / tyres on the Aeris are bigger / heavier to take the pounding they get downhill.

I’ve just got a reasonably modern hardtail which I’m out on tonight so will be interesting to see how that is on times on strava on the boring pedalling bits. It’s more modern than the Boardman but not a full on hardcore hardtail- it’s very much trail. Although it will be dark and wet which won’t help speed!

I enjoy a climb as much as a descent. I also like numbers and have collected loads of times on various climbs and on various bikes that I pour over from time to time. It's a tricky one though. Obviously you are the main factor in the speed uphill and the "tests" aren't blind. You can't rule out just pushing a bit harder on a bike that you like for whatever reason. Next comes conditions (trail and weather), which vary so much that you need a huge number of runs to get anything approaching statistical significance. All those caveats aside, here are my current thoughts.

First, weight has no more effect that you'd expect i.e. if you add 1Kg to a system (bike+rider etc) that weighs 100 Kg then the effect is no greater than 1%. Given all the other factors that are much more significant than that it becomes almost impossible to detect that 1%

Tyres and tyre pressure makes a big difference. If it is smooth then low rolling resistance is king. As it gets more technical then you need more grip (as spinning out, even small slips that you can't feel, makes a huge difference).

Suspension slows you down on smooth climbs but becomes beneficial as it gets rougher. It does need to get quite rough before it is a benefit, but that point also depends on tyres and pressures. My fastest times up smooth to moderate climbs have been set on a 35lb rigid fatbike with 4.8" tyres ! But they are 4.8" JJ tyres which seem to have a very low rolling resistance (as long as you get the pressure right) and can smooth out small bumps very effectively.

Longer chainstays are faster in general.

I'm not sure about seat angle yet. The modern fashion seems to be for steeper angles and reviewers love simple statements like "the steep seat angle means that it climbs really well", but I'm not convinced. My hunch (and it's not much more than that yet) is that steep seat angles are good for short punchy climbs but a bit slacker is still better for long grinds. I love climbing on my FlareMax, which some people have caimed isn't steep enough, but climbs for me tend to be 30 min grinds up a mountain. Also, I've had 40 years of riding bikes (on and off road) with seat angles around 72 degrees, so it's perhaps not surprising that my muscles are conditioned to work best somewhere near that.

Flex matters, but in ways that I've not understood yet.

Head angle is useless as a number on its own. Yes more flop can take more energy to keep the front end pointing in the right direction, but in practice it depends on the whole package; geometry, bars, stem etc. Again my FlareMax is pretty slack for a 29er but seems to be easier to keep on line than some of the steeper bikes I've ridden.

Suspensions linkage design has a massive impact on how  a bike feels like it climbs, if is has the right amount of anti squat it will feel like it puts your power down more efficiently.

A bike that feels faster may not actually be quicker, it all depends what you are looking for...

Slacker HAs = more flop.

Yes, in isolation, but the point of new skool geometry is that with a steeper head angle and shorter stem, you should still have centred weight on the bike, thus eliminating the front end lightness.

If you're experiencing flop on a modern slack MTB, then I would respectfully suggest that you're seated too far back, or too up right.

IMO, this is one of the greatest benefits of the new skool for tech climbing. You get stability from the long wheel base, but you DON'T flop about like a landed fish.

I think that slacker seat angles make climbing more difficult. It's a great strain on one's core strength, trying to keep the rear wheel weighted when when you're as far forward on the saddle.

IME, seat tube angle and tyres make the biggest difference. I have some old U-Turn Revelations and Rebas, dropping the front of the bike helps on climbs because you're not having to drag yourself forward to stop falling off the back of the bike. Longer travel suspension bikes feel sluggish, but I find that if you stay seated and keep pedaling smoothly, they lose much less on climbs than you assume. They just don't feel very fast.

If I wanted to clear an absolute bastard of a technical climb then I'd take my transmitter. Big rubber, modern geo, upright sort of position but the front end feels steady - it's got me up stuff I thought was impossible for me. It's definitely not fast, though, and for general riding can start to feel tiring on the climbs [it's moderately heavy, like me]. I'm certain that my anthem29er is miles faster as an all round climber.

So as others have said, there's more to this climbing game than outright speed and it depends on what you want - wouldn't have thought that either of the OP's bikes are the tools for bagging KOMs, so perhaps the technical side of how they behave on the really tough climbs is a consideration?

Biggest factor for me is traction

I'm a big powerful unit, gravity is not my friend and a few lbs or degrees on the bike is neither here nor there. I need to put down a certain amount of power to keep going forwards and without traction I stall really easily. This is why my fatbike is so fast uphill I can really mash the tyres

Currently riding a nomad 3 with 170 front, 160 rear – best climbing bike I’ve ever had. Sone down to weight (although I’m the biggest component of that) some down to geo (which deff plays s big part), but I think is he biggest part is suspension set up and system (VPP vs single pivot, vs Horst link, vs faux link etc etc).

Isn't a large part of that down to pleasant surprise that it's not terrible uphill? Like you expected your 170 enduro bike to be a 1/10 pig climber but actually it's miles better than that - it's 5/10 average but comfy with it. Or do you really think it's outstanding, a better climber than XC bikes you might have owned?

Thanks for the replies, there's some interesting stuff here. I hadn't considered the type of suspension so that could definitely be a factor. I'm not sure what the seat tube angle is on the Cotic but I'm pretty sure it's a bit slacker.

Both wheels sizes are the same so that shouldn't be an issue. And my fitness hadn't changed from 1 week to the next, but i felt the difference immediately aftee I switched bike. Im not bothered about setting records on longer draggy climbs, it's the technical climbs that I find tricky.

If you’re experiencing flop on a modern slack MTB, then I would respectfully suggest that you’re seated too far back, or too up right.

Hmm.  really?  The Geometron was the first bike that really took new geo to extremes.  Very slack, long chainstays, steep seatangle, long reach (and Chris Porter advised running the saddle slammed forward to steepen the seat angle more).   It will climb up very steep slopes with the rider seated and both loads of traction and a front end that stays down.  However, a very strong steering flop and, as you'd expect from something that long, not the bike for quick changes in direction.  For climbing that meant you could grind up anything in a straight line but techy, rocky, climbs where you wanted to change direction were much more difficult. Standing up to climb didn't really work either.

Suspension curve might make a difference.  The Spectral is probably set up to be a bit firmer early in the travel, the Cotic a bit more plush.  Coupled with seat angle the Cotic probably sits futher into its suspension when it gets steep.  Try some extra air pressure in the cotic shock and see if it feels better - it might be something you can improve with shock tuning.  My Helius was cllmbing badly a few weeks back and it turned out the shock had lost some air pressure.

Rider / tyres / weight of bike

Ex roadie here, but have an old 90's rigid Diamond Back, and a newer (2014) FS 130mm trail bike.

Both climb as fast, and on the flat (checked same routes on strava - if anything, the FS is slightly quicker, even on smooth stuff).   The old bike is more like 73 degree angles.

Tyres make a huge difference, weight and rolling for climbing.

I'd be tempted to check over your regular routes via strava on a relatively smooth climb and see if there really is a difference.  If you are sat down on the FS, then there will be minimal effort lost - I've certainly not felt any lost power with the suspension fully open.

Biggest effects on road bikes are tyres, then weight - mainly wheel weight  for climbing and changing 'speed'. Same applied to MTB's

Light tyres roll well and climb well, but aren't as grippy, and aren't as tough.

Both the OP's bikes are reasonably similar, too similar to be much different going up.

Suspensions linkage design has a massive impact on how a bike feels like it climbs, if is has the right amount of anti squat it will feel like it puts your power down more efficiently.

And you can magnify it with shock tune/set-up.

Got several climbing PRs on my local hill on my Orange Stage 6 (tons of anti-squat) this year, especially when I had too many volume spacers in the shock.

Think about it like this, Marathon racers chose light, steep angled, nimble HT's or XC FS as there is far more time to be made on the climb than generally lost on the descent (when compared to a slacker bike). Shock tunes are typically pretty stiff and tyres are chosen for rolling speed primarily and then grip, especially rear ones.

I think it's seat tube angle first, then weight second. The only thing I've got as a reference is the fire road climb up from the car park to Transmission at Hamsterley, I bloody hate it. I'm off and pushing my Switchback but I can sit and spin on a steeper seat angled bike (Stereo 140) right to the top. Both bikes were built with the same parts (I stripped one to build the other) and I didn't really notice the extra kg or so on the FS over the HT.

Flex matters, but in ways that I’ve not understood yet.

Guess flex has an huge impact.

rear suspension design: as mentioned above - also huge impact!

Weight: personally don't care about the weight of my bikes. But there are bikers which have difficulties with "1 more kg". They are struggling and slow with such an "heavy bike" but mountain goats on the lower weight bike. Also the difference in weight is only around 1 kg ...

Same actually with "soft" and "stiff" frames. But generally: less flex is quicker uphill.

Spectral is much stiffer than the Rocket - or?

I just double checked the figures for the Cotic and it's even more similar to the Canyon than I first thought. The seat angle and head angle are 1 degree slacker, the chain stays are only 3mm longer, and the reach is 3mm longer. I'm guessing the rear shock tune/suspension design is making the biggest difference as everything else is so similar.

I'm not sure how that causes the bike to feel like more of a handful on climbs though. I can see how it makes it feel less efficient, but not why it feels like I'm wrestling with it.

On previous bikes I've had similar problems when I set the bars up too high, but if anything the bars on the Cotic are lower than the Canyon so I can't imagine it's that.

Hardtail > FS

Not relevent to the OP's 2 bikes, but to some others in this thread, when regarding bigger travel bikes climbing worse, all else being equal.

If I set my bike for 27.5% sag front and rear (by which I mean somewhere between the 25 and 30 line ;-)) in the attack position, for seated spinning climbing my fork is nearly unweighted - prob 5% sag or less, the rear shock is pushing 40%. on a 150mm bike thats 37.5mm of 'change' from the static geo at sag point. thats 2 to 3 degrees slacker STA than stated.

Do that same thing on a 100mm bike, the effect is less, hardtail even less so. These steep seat tubes on big travel bruisers are actually just bringing the seated climbing position back to 'normal'.

Too much damping. Chainring size mismatched with rear suspension kinematics. Sag/support mismatched for rider CoG, rear suspension kinematics.

There is a sweet spot.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowledge/article/izn20170817-Mountain-bike-How-to-climb-on-a-mountain-bike---Trail-Smart-0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuJtiqW23ks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUFs6T8bMT4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5fz1o5-GJQ