# Climb techniques for clydes



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Im a new rider and learning. Writing on an ipad so excuse the grammar, formatting etc.

Do you stand or sit on a climb?

what is a climb to you? 

Is it 4 miles of fire road up the mountain, 800 feet of tight mountain switchbacks, or anything that causes a downshift from flat riding?

what technique do you use? Does it vary?

are you pedalling using mainly the muscles in the front of back of your legs (quads / ham string)

on my hardtail, i really cant sit much without destroying my back, so i stand alot. 

Being a clyde means the rear chain stays are way way way too short. The back of my shoes can be behind the rear axle. Tall means my cg is way up high. So add this to an incline and my weight is behind the axle. then we All know what comes next.

modern geo trends push the seat tube forward to preserve short chain stay lengths and forward bias the reach numbers everyone seems so fond of. This shifts weight forward for climbs. But we clydes are 10% bigger than the normal rider. So why not 437 x 1.1 = 480mm chain stays. 

How would that affect our climbing abilities. Positively of course! Could we then sit lower in the frames? With more rearset seat posts. Wouldnt our bikes handle better all the time then?

I like feeling down inside the bike. Not perched up on top of it. I have experimented crouching through turns to feel the benefits of this. There seems to be a sweet spot. (32” wheels would be nice, course they would have longer chain stays)

On short technical climbs, I have lowered the seat, slid way back past the edge of the seat and powered up climbs using the back ham string muscles in the legs. When done right im not really sitting on the seat but more hovering over it. I think others just stand and some slide their but forward. Many techniques work. Just depends on what muscle is strongest at that moment of your ride.

Lately in the gym, i have experimented on the bikes changing positions. Seat forward changes the point in rotation where power is applied and forces you forward (pressure on hands). The opposite happens when sliding back (pulling on hands). But we need to think about gravity and what works best. On the trails i believe im balancing force applied into the slope of the climb using seat height adjustment and body position to maintain even hand pressure. (Arent dropper posts awesome). 

Perhaps everyone does this. As im new, just curious what you all thought and did.

finally wouldnt it be great to have one more bigger wheel size for clydes and chain stays sized just for us!


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

I strongly disagree, with all of that. Especially about steep STA's. 

For the first time, it finally feels like bikes fit me. I don't love the ultra low bottom brackets, but that's more prefence than anything and most like that too.

I mostly sit for climbs, because they can be hours long. I only stand for short sections or to give my butt a rest, but it's all easier and more pleasant on a modern geometry bike.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

It sounds as if you need to strengthen your core muscles and you have a bike that is too small for you.

Sitting and spinning is usually the most efficient way to climb. You have more weight over the back wheel to maintain grip and it's more efficient than standing.
Why is your back giving you so much pain when sitting? Is that the beating from the trail or something else?
Lowering your seat and sliding back to climb sounds completely counter intuitive . I'd be more inclined to have the seat up and be perched on the front if it's steep and technical otherwise I'd loop out.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I'm 6'5" and my hardtail has 419mm chainstays. It climbs great because the seat tube is steep enough to keep the front end down.

You probably could increase chainstays to make up for a slacker STA but they'd have to be VERY long because even if you lengthened them proportionally to the set back of the seat your weight will still be further away from the front wheel, making it easier to lift. Also, a bike with 480mm chainstays will probably handle worse almost everywhere. As a clyde my wheelbase is already an issue on tight trails but short chainstays helps shorten the wheelbase and make it feel nimble.

Of course, on higher speed terrain super short stays are not ideal. There are some enduro/AM bikes coming out with what I'd consider detrimentally short chainstays. For enduro or DH type riding I'd prefer ~440mm-450mm stays for stability at high speeds. The downside to the really short chainstays, at least on a hardtail, is that your feet are more on top of the rear wheel and it bumps/impacts feel more direct. You have to be more active through your legs to keep the rear end of the bike in check.



> I like feeling down inside the bike. Not perched up on top of it. I have experimented crouching through turns to feel the benefits of this.


I know what you mean, it does feel better to be lower if you're seated on flat turns. You could partially drop your seat for certain sections. However, if speed matters then you should be standing anyway and STA doesn't matter.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Im just trying to see if anyone has or will try this. Also what works for others.

Let me try to answer....

Im tall so im up in the air like a pig on a pole. When you tip it backwards as on a slope, it doesnt take much to tip over backwards as the weight moves over and behind the rear wheel axle. If the heels of my shoes line up with rear axle where is my backside at? Being way up in the air isnt that stable either. Sliding 25 or 30mm forward with a steeper seat tube angle doesnt change that position much. It also foces you to ride with a more extended leg position. Pushes you higher still. my bike doesnt have that steep sta. So i found a unique way to compromise.

Back to the pig on the pole, if you lowered that mass down into the bike, it actually moves forward as your on an incline. This forward movement does have a positive effect lessening the desire to tip over. 

I also move from the balls of my feet to centered as this helps with knee alignment.

Im using this on short punchy climbs (few hundred meters) covered in roots and rough holes. You arent sitting this type of climb out on a hardtail. anyone with bad discs in their back will understand more. I will frequently ride 20 miles and stand for as much as possible. Maybe thats why the hams are fresh for a quick power climb like this.

Are far as traction and weighting the back wheel, what works better transfering weight to the front tire or concentrating it low and just ahead of the back tire?


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> I'm 6'5" and my hardtail has 419mm chainstays. It climbs great because the seat tube is steep enough to keep the front end down.
> 
> Also, a bike with 480mm chainstays will probably handle worse almost everywhere. As a clyde my wheelbase is already an issue on tight trails but short chainstays helps shorten the wheelbase and make it feel nimble.
> 
> ...


If my bike was a super long reach, say... 540mm. Id have much less ability to move back over the rear wheel and pop up and around tight trails.

I love riding my current bike on tight stuff. I move around forward backward and side to side so easily on it. Its a blast.

There is a diff standing upright to rail a berm and dropping down low into attack position . Im only pointing out that with a 37" inseam there really is no low as compared to someone sized for a large and on the same wheel size. Their ability to move back over the bike though isnt as great as we cyleds have it! Another reason we clydes can rock a longer chain stay.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> If my bike was a super long reach, say... 540mm. Id have much less ability to move back over the rear wheel and pop up and around tight trails.


You would if the wheelbase was the same...ever see a trials bike? They have a long effective reach and super short stays for leverage.









Similar concept with bmx bikes.








Increasing STA is more effective at improving climbing performance than increasing chainstay length. Get a 10+ year old 29er if you want long stays and a slack seat tube.


----------



## rjcobra (Mar 18, 2004)

If you ride flats, try these:
https://pedalinginnovations.com


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

as i said, im new at this and see alot of variables. Bbh being one of them as well.

But i cant wrap my head around someone 5’4” riding the same rear center as someone 6’6”. 

Eg. how about a moto gp rider who happened to be 6’6” getting the same bike as his team mates bike, just with a longer top tube and some more stack. Should be competitive right?

but back to climbing. 


Maybe i should have asked do clydes climb as well as non clydes? If not then why?


have you ever been outclimbed by a smaller rider? 
How about by a bigger one?


----------



## sturge (Feb 22, 2009)

"On short technical climbs, I have lowered the seat, slid way back past the edge of the seat and powered up climbs using the back ham string muscles in the legs."

I'm 6'4" and don't have a bad back but what you described above regarding short steep tech climbs is total opposite of what I've always done. I find best climbing position is with seat up so I get 100% leg extension then use my long arms, torso and bend at hips to move center of gravity forward as terrain gets steeper. I also slide FORWARD on seat if necessary. If I need to, I can quickly stand to get up/over when more power or forward shift in cg is needed. On some sections, bars are almost against my chest and my chin can be forward of bars directly over front wheel.

I've never had an issue of going over backwards and some of the climbing terrain around here is very technical because of steepness and built in obstacles. For those very tough spots, it's less about bike geo and more about using body position to ensure weight is properly positioned to keep front wheel down and traction applied to rear wheel. 

For what it's worth, I'm a FS guy and this applies to older 'non-modern' geo and newer bikes...it's based on feeling what is needed at the moment.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Climbing to me is over 1,500+ feet of vertical under 5 miles. For me, climbing normally involves me huffing, puffing, and stopping regularly to catch my breath. That's how I climb to a summit


----------



## Pitch (Aug 9, 2008)

6'9" here. Longer chain stays make my bike more stable. Period. Launching into the air, on the flats, climbing, in the chunder, downhills, all of it. Is the bike less flickable? Yup, but it is all a concession; just like the wider bars, taller saddle, longer cranks, wider tires, all of it. I have 2 MTB's with slider drop outs. The bike is less "playful" with longer chain stay length, but it is much more planted and confidence inspiring. FWIW, I never drop my saddle on climbs.

A "pig on a pole" is more balanced with a wider base under the pole.

Climbing is about body position for us. Shorter stems, and a better grip on a rear tire all have their influence here as well, but on a hardtail, you usually can't just sit and spin. Frequent body English to change position, forward and "on the rivets" when it gets steep, standing up with weight back in the steep tech, when you are at the limits, you will learn what has to be done. 

Want to learn better climbing techniques? Ride a single speed for a while. You will be at your limits and find that there are very few ways to manipulate your body to get up/through/over a climb or an obstacle. It will also make you a faster/more aggressive climber, read trail obstacles better, etc. Learning this aggressive way to attack a hill on a SS will translate to faster climbing on a geared bike IMO.

Frequent positional changes from standing to sitting allow different muscle groups to rest and recover from their ischemic state on long climbs for me (up to 2K climbing over 6 miles). On short punchy stuff of under 300' I tend to stand and hammer. This recovery from frequent positional changes applies to all of your climbing muscles: quads, hip flexors, hams, gluten, quadrates lumborum, etc


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Pitch said:


> 6'9" here. Longer chain stays make my bike more stable. Period. Launching into the air, on the flats, climbing, in the chunder, downhills, all of it. Is the bike less flickable? Yup, but it is all a concession; just like the wider bars, taller saddle, longer cranks, wider tires, all of it. I have 2 MTB's with slider drop outs. The bike is less "playful" with longer chain stay length, but it is much more planted and confidence inspiring. FWIW, I never drop my saddle on climbs.
> 
> A "pig on a pole" is more balanced with a wider base under the pole.
> 
> ...


Great comments.

This started while doing a moderate double track climb, side by side, w a 67 year old guy who was about 5'8" on a rocky mountain full suspension bike. As we both applied power i started lifting my front wheel trying to keep pace w him. I simply dropped my saddle about 35mm or so and stabilized the front wheel lift. I had 100lbs over him as well.

eagle w 28t, same cadence as he.

i have gotten alot stronger and better at technical stuff. Some short small stuff i found i just have to smash up it. Some smooth flat stuff you can sit and spin w a decent cadence and lean forward. Stay smooth. It makes a diff learning where to apply power in the crank rotation. I did 800' of tight switchbacks down in ridgeway (big cheese) this summer. No issues. But i imagine my 67 year old buddy would do it much easier! I also think my climb skills rate about 2 out of ten.


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> but back to climbing.
> 
> Maybe i should have asked do clydes climb as well as non clydes? If not then why?
> 
> ...


Us big guys on longer climbs are like short guys playing basketball. Small guys will outclimb you if all else is equal. BUT the same things they do will help. Using a variety of techniques depending on the situation. Just slower.
So on a long climb, you can go from sitting spinning a small gear, to standing in a bigger gear in a lower cadence, or maybe same gear for an extra steep section, and back. You'll vary the muscles and movements and it can help.
Find local more experienced riders as you run into them on the trails and tag along and see what they do in particular situations too if possible. Join a club and do their weekly ride or something.
On shorter or technical climbs where bike handling is what matters a big guy can be just as good, and maybe better for some of it if you're stronger in the upper body I'd say, or if you have strong bursts of power. Shorter climbs you can use your overall power but you have to be good at recovering because you'll need more energy than a small rider for it.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> I also move from the balls of my feet to centered as this helps with knee alignment.
> 
> Im using this on short punchy climbs (few hundred meters) covered in roots and rough holes. You arent sitting this type of climb out on a hardtail. anyone with bad discs in their back will understand more. I will frequently ride 20 miles and stand for as much as possible. Maybe thats why the hams are fresh for a quick power climb like this.
> 
> Are far as traction and weighting the back wheel, what works better transfering weight to the front tire or concentrating it low and just ahead of the back tire?


Know all too well about the bad disks. That's why I have a FS now and a suspension dropper on my hardtail. Interesting question because the steep seat tube is supposed to be the end all for climbing, but if you have big feet and are long in the femur it doesn't really work out well. For me, add to that 50 years of riding with the ball of my foot well behind the spindle. I habitually sit off the back of the saddle on most every bike because that is what fixes the geometry issues. Ironically my best climbing MTB is a 38lb steel hardtail with the biggest cog at 32, a slack seat tube, high BB, longish stem and narrow bars. On that I just stand leaning forward, mash and torque the bejeesus out of the handlebars (a lesser built bike would not survive that for very long). On the FS w/ 42 cog, there is no answer. I've got the rear shock at max pressure and still have to sit. Can't really spin that well on flats, so I just sit and push my chest as close to the bars as I can. Remember thinking when I got my first 32t cog, why on earth would anyone need a cog that big. But on the FS, there will never be a cog big enough.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Climbing is anything pointed up...

Descending, anything pointed down...

Whilst fire road/flat-ish trail climbing I prefer seated... unless o/c it's short/loose/steep

For technical climbing, I drop the saddle approx. 2cm & run a slightly harder gear. 

My taint hovers lightly (just) above the seat. I then try to power up & over - preventing getting hung up.

Descending, unless on a flow trail... The seat is slammed. If there are pedally sections, I'll either roll or pedal through (again a smaller cog).

If you really want assistance with climbs. Get an Oval chainring - you won't look back.

PS - find your natural cadence i.e. a place you feel comfortable for extended periods of uphill pedaling.

'Born to ride!'


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

targnik said:


> Climbing is anything pointed up...
> 
> Descending, anything pointed down...
> 
> ...


Great comments.

i found that w my eagle and 28t i ran 10th gear standing most of the time as thats where i progressed to and could go that speed reasonably in the trails we have. Its pretty much a shift two gears harder from sitting to standing. Wore out tenth this summer i think. 50 miles of real trail a week can do that i suspect. I think its would be more efficient to use a larger 30t as putting power down on those little teeth is hard on the parts.

on the hard tail, street height is not trail seat height. But are you dropping 2 cm more as well just before the climb? This might mimic me a bit. But i take it a little further depending on slope. Im going up as hard as i can. Trying to build strength sort of like interval training i suspect. The flats become my breaks. I also shift feet forward on pedals to save the knees.

on the oval. The smallest i found was 32, so i think that makes a 34 in the power mode and 30 in the gap. Since i was 270 this spring when i began. I needed all the gear i could get so i skipped the 34 for 28. But my try it for next year. See how training goes.


----------



## TNTall (Nov 7, 2016)

Mountain biking for very tall riders will never be optimal. With a 39" inseam, I should have a 205 mm crank arm to get the torque out of my legs, but that would require an even higher BB. I've always wanted to try long cranks, but they're so expensive (Zinn) that it probably won't ever happen. Oh well... I still love riding.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

TNTall said:


> Mountain biking for very tall riders will never be optimal. With a 39" inseam, I should have a 205 mm crank arm to get the torque out of my legs, but that would require an even higher BB. I've always wanted to try long cranks, but they're so expensive (Zinn) that it probably won't ever happen. Oh well... I still love riding.


. For sng you could take two crappy sets and cut off then weld the half to the other. Fix the q fator also. But like i said it would be just for sng to test!


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Fuse6F said:


> Back to the pig on the pole, if you lowered that mass down into the bike, it actually moves forward as your on an incline. This forward movement does have a positive effect lessening the desire to tip over.
> 
> I also move from the balls of my feet to centered as this helps with knee alignment.


I've played this game before: Lower saddle (which also shifts weight forward) - CHECK. Feet forward on pedals (or mount cleats fully rearward) - CHECK. Here's another: Longer cranks so you can lower/forward your saddle yet again - CHECK. And how about: Avoid full-suspension because the rear suspension squat exacerbates the problem - I failed that one (but chose well). Lastly, just be done with the whole thing and go to a single speed - indeed.


----------



## TNTall (Nov 7, 2016)

Fuse6F said:


> . For sng you could take two crappy sets and cut off then weld the half to the other. Fix the q fator also. But like i said it would be just for sng to test!


That's an interesting idea! I think I'll try that. Hopefully won't kill myself from pedal strikes.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Fuse6F said:


> Im a new rider and learning. Writing on an ipad so excuse the grammar, formatting etc.
> 
> Do you stand or sit on a climb?
> 
> ...


Long stays might increase stability but I don't think they're a remedy for the disadvantages that come with climbing with a slack seat tube angle. A steep STA allows you to keep more of a "pressing down" angle on the BB as the slope increases. You get the assist of gravity. When you're sitting way back (which I do), the rewards of pushing-down gradually evaporate (else you push yourself off the bike). And so you revert to a primitive, crunched-over torque-grind that utilizes your posterior muscle chain (hams/glutes/back). I find it effective (360 degrees of good torque) but I don't think it's especially healthy for the body. And as said elsewhere, long stays are a buzz kill on the rest of the trail. As always, the solution is a single speed.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

OP - how tall are you and what bikes are you riding? I'm trying to picture a big guy dropping his seat and crouching using about 40% of his leg potential on a climb!


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

TooTallUK said:


> OP - how tall are you and what bikes are you riding? I'm trying to picture a big guy dropping his seat and crouching using about 40% of his leg potential on a climb!


Yes, I wonder about that too. My seat height is about the same as on my road bike. Maybe 7mm lower to compensate for the different foot position on flats. You compromise power transfer with a lower seat position. I'm not one that buys that it is bad for the knees, but it is not efficient. I'll only lower the saddle for technical stuff, fast downhills or if I'm likely to get launched off the saddle by the terrain.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Fuse6F said:


> Are far as traction and weighting the back wheel, what works better transfering weight to the front tire or concentrating it low and just ahead of the back tire?


Get your torso low and horizontal. You'll get good traction on both ends and be able to quickly make well-modulated adjustments when traction begins to fail.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ryder1 said:


> Get your torso low and horizontal. You'll get good traction on both ends and be able to quickly make well-modulated adjustments when traction begins to fail.


20+ posts and this is the first real, beneficial advice offered on this thread.

TooTallUK gets half credit; he offered a bit of corrective commentary. Lowering your seat for climbing is just a bad idea. Fatiguing your legs and slowing down is NOT the best way to clear any technical obstacle(s).

+1 to both of you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Im 6'6" 255 37" inseam. As i said earlier. I rode side by side w a smaller rider and while popping the front tire at the same cadence realized it was a cg issue associated with my body being so high over the bike. So i compromised. While on the slope i lowered the saddle which pushed my body forward (your on a slope) relative to my rear axle and my front tire popping went away. 100% proof as this was just one single change. 

As i experimented with this i found that even lower saddle positions compromised my knees enough that i switched to a mid foot pedal position on my flats and found a little more comfort. What i discovered next is that i was also balancing my body weight over the pedals by selecting an appropriate gear. Yes i do lean forward. But my behind also moves back as i get lower with a more horizontal body position. 

I think this will change for a full suspension bike as it appears alot of normal sized riders just sit down, select a easy gear, and pedal away. Leaning forward as necessary

I did not find the same success staying seated and trying to slide forward for weight transfer. I would need to raise my body higher doing so. 

Power comes from the ham strings like you would coming out of a squat. Power lifters dont stand on the balls of the feet also so maybe some stability and power increase there. 

One of my fav trails has a bumpy rooty climb and its a great work out!


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> 20+ posts and this is the first real, beneficial advice offered on this thread.
> 
> TooTallUK gets half credit; he offered a bit of corrective commentary. Lowering your seat for climbing is just a bad idea. Fatiguing your legs and slowing down is NOT the best way to clear any technical obstacle(s).
> 
> ...


What size are you what bike and what technique do you use?


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> Power comes from the ham strings like you would coming out of a squat. Power lifters dont stand on the balls of the feet also so maybe some stability and power increase there.


True enough about the squats. But when was the last time you did 10,000 squats? Maybe it's just me, but never has the limiting factor been power. In fact, after 50+ years of riding bikes I can't think of one time that my legs gave out, or were sore the next day. For me it is always the oxygen that runs out. I'll eventually defer to my calves because they don't seem to need oxygen to function. My ultimate solution for riding really steep trails is to stop and rest.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

First of all, Clyde’s will never climb like lighter riders. I had larger riders out climb me which pisses me off to no end, but they can’t hang with the smaller fit riders. One reason I went to 29ers is the longer CS/WB. Less endos and wandering. I feel one needs.two traits to climb techy trails. Skillz and a strong core. But even a strong core can only compensate so much for all the body tissue that is unnecessary for cycling performance that a larger rider has. I agree with LeDuke, slide forward, chest down and use your core to help the glutes and legs. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> While on the slope i lowered the saddle which pushed my body forward (your on a slope) relative to my rear axle and my front tire popping went away.


Exactly, it moved your weight forward relative to both axles in the same way a steeper seat angle would. Longer stays only move the weight relative to one axle.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Being big doesn't change the way you climb. Simple as that.
For seated climbing, DO NOT DROP YOUR SEAT.
Slide forward on your saddle and keep your chest low. Do not pull on the bars if you can help it.
Now if your on a bike that is not setup properly or is too small for you then that changes things. Seat height, STA and chainstay length play a roll in how steep a grade you can climb before you loop out.
Gearing is important and you should run the easiest gear you can without losing traction. Grinding too big of a gear will just wear you out faster. The I will get stronger with a big gear is BS. You will be fastest when you are comfortable and can balance lung vs leg load.

I'm 6'4" and 190lb. Big but not clydesdale. I do climb 20-25 grades everyday though.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> Exactly, it moved your weight forward relative to both axles in the same way a steeper seat angle would. Longer stays only move the weight relative to one axle.


 Missing my point. Draw a triangle between axles and rider cg. Then tip it backward. At what piint does cg fall behind the rear axle. Remember bikes have fixed rear centers so the tip of triangle is quite offset to rear. Now you can move the top of triangle forward. Which modern geo does. But you also raise the cg to fit the legs. My bike can only lower the seat. So lower the top of the triangle and tou find it will move forward of the rear acle. Of course power applied is what finally causes the wheelie. And big guys need more power.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

alexbn921 said:


> Being big doesn't change the way you climb. Simple as that.
> For seated climbing, DO NOT DROP YOUR SEAT.
> Slide forward on your saddle and keep your chest low. Do not pull on the bars if you can help it.
> Now if your on a bike that is not setup properly or is too small for you then that changes things. Seat height, STA and chainstay length play a roll in how steep a grade you can climb before you loop out.
> ...


I agree w most of what you say. I try to run easiest gear possible. Yes our heart is the engine which allows our body to generate watts and that engine can only produce so many watts. Conserving energy is important to a safe fun ride. Take a rest here and there to relax. Enjoy life and be safer

Try this. Go grab two bags of water softener salt and strap one to your front chest and one to your back. Now you are my body weight essentially and go run a climb. Not practical but just try carring across the store. Maybe this technique does work for certain people in certain circumstances. Lets not knock it if it works.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> Draw a triangle between axles and rider cg. ... But you also raise the cg to fit the legs.


If your saddle is set up properly, it will generally be a certain distance from the BB based on leg length whether the seat tube is slack or steep. Of course the steeper seat tube has a higher Cg, that's a good thing! Imagine this experiment: you have a broom handle and a 10-15 lbs weight on one end. Holding it in the air at the opposite end of the weight at a fixed height from the floor, tell me which angle the broom handle is easiest to maintain that angle... It should be obvious it's 90° (the position with the highest Cg). 0° would be the hardest since the force of gravity would be applying the greatest torque at this angle. It's easiest to see why the rest of the mtb world has found the answer to your question years ago.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> Exactly, it moved your weight forward relative to both axles in the same way a steeper seat angle would. Longer stays only move the weight relative to one axle.


Yes. As the sta is on an angle rearward. Lowering the seat height moves you forward. As im a clyde, my upper body moves/tilts horizontal. This pushes my backside rearward. Seat is also travelling forward as it lowers. Magnifying the change. I remain more or less in the same centered attack position. Just the mid foot placement on my flat compromises my ability to react to the trail. Power application changes to larger ham string muscles

if your a tall clyde try it!


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Last post by me on this. 

My bike is a specialized fuse, if anyone wants to check the geo. It fits me as a clyde well after stack height adjustments. 
I like the standing touch piints for the riding im doing. 65mm higher stack i guess. 35mm front fork 27.5" set to 150mm travel

I ride as agressive as i feel necessary for an older guy. 

I am happy w the geo. Id take a bit more chain stay and a touch more reach w a switch to 29+ to create a larger bike overall but that doesnt exist. So for now. This is what i have. 

Have a great 2019 riding and be safe!


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> I agree w most of what you say. I try to run easiest gear possible. Yes our heart is the engine which allows our body to generate watts and that engine can only produce so many watts. Conserving energy is important to a safe fun ride. Take a rest here and there to relax. Enjoy life and be safer
> 
> Try this. Go grab two bags of water softener salt and strap one to your front chest and one to your back. Now you are my body weight essentially and go run a climb. Not practical but just try carring across the store. Maybe this technique does work for certain people in certain circumstances. Lets not knock it if it works.


Nothing wrong with stopping and resting. You will get stronger and fitter the longer you ride and soon enough you will be able to make it to the top.

I highly recommend that you get a bike fit. If you are struggling with climbing, getting professional help setting up you bike should make a big difference.

Weight has no effect on climbing technique. None. Only the amount amount of power you need to make in order to overcome the grade you are climbing.

A steep STA will move your weight forward and up increasing the grade you can climb while seated. A longer front center does this as well be moving more eight forward.

When you lower your saddle your compromise your pedaling. The main leg muscles are not used effectively as they can not reach proper extension.

You have two main systems that power you, Anaerobic and Aerobic. Learning to properly utilize both systems is the key.

I do hate when I'm racing a 140lb guy and he starts hammering the climbs. Not a lot I can do to over come the weight disadvantage.

I have been 240lb so it's not like I don't know where your coming from.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm an inch taller, similar weight. I could probably ride the XXL Fuse and it not be too far off a decent fit.
You putting so much extra height on the front end will compromise the climbing ability of the bike, perhaps more than anything else. That is more a part of the vague front end when uphill than seat position. To keep the front end down, you shift forward on the seat and drop your chest. That doesn't move your butt backwards - you've just moved it forwards by sliding. Between that move forward and you dropping your chest, you have shifted most of your transferable weight forward. 
Draw triangles all you want. Levers rotate, but gravity works straight down. Getting your weight forward and lower keeps the front wheel down. You want your legs in their optimal spinning position when you need to get up a hill, so you want the saddle in the pedaling position.
Over decades of riding, pit crew for competitive teams and getting qualified as an instructor with two governing bodies on two continents, I've never heard of or seen 'drop your seat' as a climbing technique. 
If you're convinced your way works, keep on trucking (slowly).


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

whoa long read...my 2cents

Spin more and run a 26T oval with that Eagle, I recommend Garbaruk https://www.garbaruk.com/chainrings/melon.html (I do this), yes you loose some top end but its workable.

Get properly fitted into your bike so you can climb without front end coming up. Might just need your seat forward a couple mm, makes huge difference.

Lowering your seat will bring your knees too high and eventually cause you pain or even long term issues. Highly advise not too do this for long extended climbs.

Recruit your glutes. Your a big boy an those are the biggest muscles you have. Simply bending over more rather than the Mary Poppins position will start this process as well as focusing on engaging these underutilized power house of muscle groups Min-Max.

When under utilizing your glutes and in a Mary Poppins riding position your asking alot from your Hamstrings as well as LOWER BACK, which ends up causing - wait for it....
Lower back pain.

Yep. Been there my brother. Start with that 26T oval and learn to spin a high cadence, you'll be passing your bro's and climbing **** you never thought you could, all with no knee or back pain.

good dirt!


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

TraxFactory said:


> Spin more and run a 26T oval with that Eagle


There is no amount of spinning that will offset my pathetic aerobic threshold. But the ovals are great for climbing, especially if you tend to mash. I have one on a bike with a 11x32 cassette and it feels just another bike with a round chain ring and 11x42.


----------



## ReXTless (Feb 23, 2007)

Fuse6F said:


> Last post by me on this.
> 
> My bike is a specialized fuse, if anyone wants to check the geo. It fits me as a clyde well after stack height adjustments.
> I like the standing touch piints for the riding im doing. 65mm higher stack i guess. 35mm front fork 27.5" set to 150mm travel
> ...


Honestly, it sounds like your bike is too small and also has set up issues. Adding 65mm of stack is an absolutely massive change. A change that moves the bike way outside of its intended geometry and you out of a normal body position. That extra stack is what's causing you to loop out.

I'd consider working on hip/back flexibility to allow you to ride the bike without all the extra stack. And, also consider a bike with a larger frame.

My riding partner is 6' 7". He absolutely crushes climbs. It's a huge pain for him to find a bike that fits. He has very limited options. But, once he has a bike that fits, he rides it the same as the rest of us "short" people.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

ReXTless said:


> And, also consider a bike with a larger frame.
> 
> My riding partner is 6' 7". He absolutely crushes climbs. It's a huge pain for him to find a bike that fits. He has very limited options. But, once he has a bike that fits, he rides it the same as the rest of us "short" people.


So what bike does he ride?


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Thanks everyone for the comments. Alot of good stuff to go over.

I read this article recently and it prompted me to review this post.

It caught my eye that the evo had such long chain stays 443mm. But also that the writer made a comment about seat position and higher being detrimental to climbing as it moves you too far back.

https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/Specialized-Stumpjumper-EVO-Comp-vs-Stumpjumper-Expert,2621

"Speaking of seat angles, depending on your saddle height, either bike may or may not prove to have a steep enough seat tube angle. This is the problem with "virtual" seat angles as it's variable based on height. For our tester's 34" inseam and 6'2" height, it wasn't a problem, and he never felt in a position too far back, but it's not hard to see a taller rider may find themselves slamming the saddle forward on the rails to keep the effective seat angle to a reasonable number."

i interpret the above to state that taller riders move back on the bike due to higher seat positions required for their greater inseam lengths. This affects their climbing ability negatively. Moving your body position forward by shifting the seat helps to compensate. But lowering the seat does the same thing. Which was why shorter inseamed riders werent affected as much.

Update
I just bought a 2018 stumpy xxl w 437mm chainstays and a more forward seat tube angle. Ive added an oval chainring and installed 175mm cranks, installed the thinnest flats i could find to compensate and an offset shock bushing. Yet i still expect to land anchor way more than on my hardtail. So perhaps a bit more racheting is in my future.

Cheers!


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

He's merely noting the potential fit problem that results from a significant discrepancy between virtual STA and actual STA. Leggy riders are more at risk because we're more likely to run our saddle well above the top of the head tube (where virtual STA is measured) which may slack you out more than slamming your saddle can fix.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Shorter riders might have a lower seat, but relative to their legs they still have an optimal pedaling position. If a tall rider drops the seat to the same position of a shorter rider, then they can't pedal properly.
The higher the seatpost, the further back the rider weight is. We all know that. You have to buy a bike that works better for you - probably one with longer stays, steeper seatpost, or a combination of the two. Or perhaps a longer reach bike so more weight is further forward.
Not all bikes are equal.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

TooTallUK said:


> Shorter riders might have a lower seat, but relative to their legs they still have an optimal pedaling position. If a tall rider drops the seat to the same position of a shorter rider, then they can't pedal properly.
> The higher the seatpost, the further back the rider weight is. We all know that. You have to buy a bike that works better for you - probably one with longer stays, steeper seatpost, or a combination of the two. Or perhaps a longer reach bike so more weight is further forward.
> Not all bikes are equal.


Agree. When COG is high enough and / or far enough back over the rear axle, the front wheel will come up, so getting the COG forward in relation to the rear axle will help that.

Being in Texas, I can stand for steep climbs because they won't last long. However on long grinds up in the mountains, I became aware that I was using quite a bit of energy leaning my body horizontal to keep the front wheel down, and a different bike setup would have been beneficial.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

JACKL said:


> Agree. When COG is high enough and / or far enough back over the rear axle, the front wheel will come up, so getting the COG forward in relation to the rear axle will help that.
> 
> Being in Texas, I can stand for steep climbs because they won't last long. However on long grinds up in the mountains, I became aware that I was using quite a bit of energy leaning my body horizontal to keep the front wheel down, and a different bike setup would have been beneficial.


Those steep seat posts don't work for me. I'm usually sitting off the back of the saddle on the flats, even after sliding the saddle as far back on the rails as possible. Maybe if I raised the saddle another inch or two and used track drops (and my saddle is already higher than the bars). Think a lot depends on your body proportions and what position you are used to and comfortable with.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

TooTallUK said:


> Shorter riders might have a lower seat, but relative to their legs they still have an optimal pedaling position. If a tall rider drops the seat to the same position of a shorter rider, then they can't pedal properly.
> The higher the seatpost, the further back the rider weight is. We all know that.


If going higher is negative for climbing then going lower is a positive.

Challenge: Try the same climb next time three ways. Seat set for street height flat terrain, your normal trail height and then a half inch or so lower.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fuse6F said:


> If going higher is negative for climbing then going lower is a positive.


That's not what he's saying. He's saying being taller is a negative for climbing (due to being more rearward, not higher), lowering your seat just means you're losing efficiency. If going lower was a positive I could save money on a dropper and just leave my seat slammed all the time.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

sapva said:


> Those steep seat posts don't work for me. I'm usually sitting off the back of the saddle on the flats, even after sliding the saddle as far back on the rails as possible. Maybe if I raised the saddle another inch or two and used track drops (and my saddle is already higher than the bars). Think a lot depends on your body proportions and what position you are used to and comfortable with.


For the steep seat tubes to work you need a bike with a longer reach and you have to raise your saddle a bit (to maintain the same pedal to seat distance). The steep STA also makes more sense on certain bikes than others: On an XC hardtail the stem is probably going to be really low and you don't have to worry about rear sag. On a 160mm enduro bike the stem/bars are probably going to be higher and as the rear sags on climbs the seat tube gets much slacker and the bars higher. My Hightower LT has a 73.7° effective STA and my hardtail has nearly the same at 74° effective STA but because of the actual STA (and my 36" inseam) the HTLT seat is much further back (on flat ground and more so on climbs). I have the HTLT seat slammed forward and wish the STA was steeper. On the hardtail my saddle is clamped near the middle of the rails and the STA is perfect. So most people probably don't need a really steep STA but on some bikes it's a massive improvement.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

sapva said:


> Those steep seat posts don't work for me. I'm usually sitting off the back of the saddle on the flats, even after sliding the saddle as far back on the rails as possible. Maybe if I raised the saddle another inch or two and used track drops (and my saddle is already higher than the bars). Think a lot depends on your body proportions and what position you are used to and comfortable with.


Sounds like the reach / TT on your frame is too short. I'm somewhat in the same situation. I have a 3/4" setback post and the seat slammed all the way back on the rails, and a 70mm stem up front. This gives me a comfortable riding position overall, but my considerable weight is too far back to remain seated on steep climbs.

Some of the newer geo bikes like Pole Evolinks are going with long reach, steep STAs, and long chainstays, the idea being that you can comfortably sit and grind up a steep climb. Makes for a long wheelbase which has it's drawbacks, but I would like to give one a try.

Like TooTall said, dropping the post helps with keeping the wheel down, but you loose pedaling efficiency. And that is at a time when you need it most.

With all this being said, I've seen big mountain riders on bikes that were "too small" ride it all, up and down. I should have watched what they were doing more closely, but IMO being physically fit and having good skills seems to help with adapting to a less-than-ideal bike.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

JACKL said:


> Sounds like the reach / TT on your frame is too short. I'm somewhat in the same situation. I have a 3/4" setback post and the seat slammed all the way back on the rails, and a 70mm stem up front. This gives me a comfortable riding position overall, but my considerable weight is too far back to remain seated on steep climbs.
> 
> Some of the newer geo bikes like Pole Evolinks are going with long reach, steep STAs, and long chainstays, the idea being that you can comfortably sit and grind up a steep climb. Makes for a long wheelbase which has it's drawbacks, but I would like to give one a try.
> 
> ...


There are some inherent flaws with fitting the newer frames. I love the short chain stays, and the reach is plenty long. But unlike a road bike, you can't lower the bars to maintain the right angle between the three points of contact, and having the seat post not inline with the bb means that the effective seat tube angle is continuously variable, so too steep or too slack unless you just happen to luck out with the one height that matches your desired seat tube angle. I think the steep seat tube thing has been taken way too far in some cases. Had a frame like that and had to swap out for an earlier model to get from unridable to just slightly less than ideal.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

sapva said:


> There are some inherent flaws with fitting the newer frames. I love the short chain stays, and the reach is plenty long. But unlike a road bike, you can't lower the bars to maintain the right angle between the three points of contact


That sounds like a personal thing. None of the new progressive bikes with steep STA's are meant to be setup with bars that low. That's not a flaw, it's a benefit for the riding style they're designed for.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> That sounds like a personal thing. None of the new progressive bikes with steep STA's are meant to be setup with bars that low. That's not a flaw, it's a benefit for the riding style they're designed for.


Benefit for a small portion of the ride, unless all you do is shuttle.

Otherwise, tall stack and high hand position are most certainly a hindrance to effective climbing and power production. As is long travel and high sag; the way they attempt to fix this is through steep STAs, which put the saddle in the same position as a "traditional" STA on a hardtail or short travel, low sag FS.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Pole machine:
455mm cs, STA of 79
high stack, cause you sit higher
cs length = longer for downhill speed and also for high cg position of rider. IMO.

63.9 HA
wheelbase. 1360

This bike was built to go FAST!

A point that isn't necessarily obvious, is that due to the difference in negative reach 662-535 = 127mm vs the fuse 679-476 = 203 those chain stays are offset an additional length behind the seated rider by 203-127 = 76mm (before accounting for seat setback due to inseam height on the fuse at 73 sta)

adding up, the rear axle is 76 + 25 = 101mm further behind the rider!!! wow!!!

There is no debate over which bike climbs better (Machine).

my Fuse hardtail
ettl 679, stack 661, cs 430, sta 73 (through the bb). 
im way back over the rear axle due to inseam height 37" (without shoes).

what should i be riding.... xxxl fuse would be nice
I run a 70mm stem so i could be rocking a 720mm ettl 
i run a 38mm riser and uncut steerer so i could use a 700mm stack
I like my riding position's seat height and setback (trail bike), so chain stays at 460 would be nice for climbing
overall my wheelbase would jump from 1211 to 1280. not that bad really. 
67.5 head angle is fine and 150mm fork (what i have now)
Beef up the frame a bit so it doesnt ride like a wet noodle
Finally, I'd then drop 29+ tires on it. (got the cs length right...)


If anyone see's this bike out there, let me know!!!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Benefit for a small portion of the ride, unless all you do is shuttle.


Are you saying having the bars above the head tube is a hindrance?



> Otherwise, tall stack and high hand position are most certainly a hindrance to effective climbing and power production. As is long travel and high sag; the way they attempt to fix this is through steep STAs, which put the saddle in the same position as a "traditional" STA on a hardtail or short travel, low sag FS.


Outside of XC racing, I'd say having a high hand position with an appropriately steep STA is most certainly a benefit. It's possible for the bars to be so high you're washing out in corners but beyond that the power production is negligible and the handling benefits are huge.

This is one of those internet arguments that I've never seen come into play in the real world. I've never seen anyone hitting the local freeride features or clearing the jumplines on public gravity trails with their stem slammed XC race style. I know it's possible of course. I find it unsurprising that 100% of the people I've met who can ride anything more difficult than the local XC style terrain don't ride XC bikes or setup their bikes like an XC race bike. I totally get it, if someone wants to win their local time trail they should be on an XC race bike with their stem slammed. Outside of that most people are not better off with 72° STA.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

xc race riders are 5'8" or shorter, in order to ride a 29er, they need negative stems as they cant make a small enough frame and still fit the top tube length required.

not a great deal of seat to bar height diff here. fairly rearset seat position.

View attachment 1239565


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> Are you saying having the bars above the head tube is a hindrance?
> 
> Outside of XC racing, I'd say having a high hand position with an appropriately steep STA is most certainly a benefit. It's possible for the bars to be so high you're washing out in corners but beyond that the power production is negligible and the handling benefits are huge.
> 
> This is one of those internet arguments that I've never seen come into play in the real world. I've never seen anyone hitting the local freeride features or clearing the jumplines on public gravity trails with their stem slammed XC race style. I know it's possible of course. I find it unsurprising that 100% of the people I've met who can ride anything more difficult than the local XC style terrain don't ride XC bikes or setup their bikes like an XC race bike. I totally get it, if someone wants to win their local time trail they should be on an XC race bike with their stem slammed. Outside of that most people are not better off with 72° STA.


My point is that a 74 degree STA angle, on a HT or 100mm FS and 20% sag, puts your ass in very close to the same position as a 160mm bike with a 76 degree STA and 35% sag. If anything, the XC bike is probably still steeper.

Given that this thread is about climbing, I'm not sure how relevant hitting jump lines on gravity trails is to the conversation. Re:climbing, hip angle most certainly matters and the difference between a couple inches of bar height is not negligible. But, as it pertains to bike handling, lowering the center of gravity and being able to really drive the front end into the ground is most certainly a benefit.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> xc race riders are 5'8" or shorter, in order to ride a 29er, they need negative stems as they cant make a small enough frame and still fit the top tube length required.
> 
> not a great deal of seat to bar height diff here. fairly rearset seat position.


First, you should start with an image that actually has the wheels level.

Then, you shouldn't make generalizations that "XC racers are 5'8" or shorter". Jaroslav Kulhavy, Olympic Gold and Silver medalist, is 6'2".


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

my bad

still a negative stem.... hmm...

View attachment 1239566


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> my bad
> 
> still a negative stem.... hmm...
> 
> View attachment 1239566


I don't understand what you are trying to get at here.

Are you trying to prove my point? That hip angle, bar height and ability to climb well are related?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> My point is that a 74 degree STA angle, on a HT or 100mm FS and 20% sag, puts your ass in very close to the same position as a 160mm bike with a 76 degree STA and 35% sag. If anything, the XC bike is probably still steeper.


That's what I said.



> The steep STA also makes more sense on certain bikes than others: On an XC hardtail the stem is probably going to be really low and you don't have to worry about rear sag. On a 160mm enduro bike the stem/bars are probably going to be higher and as the rear sags on climbs the seat tube gets much slacker and the bars higher.


Sapva countered saying the fit was flawed because you can't lower the bars enough. I said that's not a flaw, it's by design. You said it's a hindrance. I said it's not (refering to having your bars lower than what's possible on modern bikes). You repeated what I said earlier and now we've come full circle.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> That's what I said.
> 
> Sapva countered saying the fit was flawed because you can't lower the bars enough. I said that's not a flaw, it's by design. You said it's a hindrance. I said it's not (refering to having your bars lower than what's possible on modern bikes). You repeated what I said earlier and now we've come full circle.


Well, a flaw, regardless of how it got there, is still a flaw, whether it was by design or unintentional. Now, depending on perspective, that could be a major or relatively inconsequential flaw.

Point being, higher** handlebars aren't helping anyone climb better; quite the opposite.

**Unless that person's bars are too low.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Well, a flaw, regardless of how it got there, is still a flaw, whether it was by design or unintentional. Now, depending on perspective, that could be a major or relatively inconsequential flaw.


Great point. Thankfully in this case it's not a flaw.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Im quite surprised to see the bike fit jaroslav is on. I know nothing about his career or how he rides. I think nino's bike is fairly normal. He does very well on the steep descents. I suspect he would like lower bars if his bike design allowed it. Not more negative stem but the actual frame design. I dont think the suspension action allows any lower front end with 29er wheels which was my point about his bike.

F1 cars dynamics have very little in common with the family SUV. And the SUV and a Rock crawler. So we need to distance the XC race thing from where this post started about my experience where I learned that lowering my seat a bit helped prevent looping out and its all related to being 6'6" tall and sitting way back on the bike.

The sta isnt the problem, its where your weight sits between the wheels and how high up that weight is. The flaw to me is a rear center design being the same across all model sizes . At my size and fit, i feel the back of the bike should move rearward.

Handlebar position. 
So far, i have learned that if my bars are too high, then you cant pull up on them effectively to accelerate and this is magnified on a standing climb. But my health requires a higher bar to save my back.

I am curious... if anyone would be willing to post a picture of their bike against the garage door. I just might do this later and set the air pressures to simulate sag when riding. Id like to see how far off my bike is to others in setup.

thanks everyone.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

97 XL super V 







07 XL Blur XC







17 XXL Tallboy 3







Blur and tallboy overlay








Not level
18 XL Ripmo


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> That sounds like a personal thing.


Of course bike fit is a personal thing.


----------



## sapva (Feb 20, 2017)

alexbn921 said:


> 17 XXL Tallboy 3
> View attachment 1239607


Tallboy is a good compromise for an offset bb, 73 degrees. Over 75 gets ridiculous for anyone that needs a little more setback on the saddle.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

sapva said:


> Tallboy is a good compromise for an offset bb, 73 degrees. Over 75 gets ridiculous for anyone that needs a little more setback on the saddle.


Thanks for the pictures. Nice bikes. Wow thats alot of rear seat over the axle!


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Mine isnt much better i guess. 
Not on the hardtail at least.

interesting to note the bbh before sag. Likely same with me on the bike. Just need a negative stem a 120lb weight loss and i can ride like nino!


----------

