XC bike vs trail bike. climbing sucks

CarlS

CarlS

Member
So I have been off my 26" Stumpjumper FSR for about 6 months now due to a blown up shock that was out for repair. During that time, I put together a Niner Jet-9 alloy that I have really been enjoying and is my new primary ride. Last night I put the new shock on the stumpy and went for a ride, and Oh... My... GAWD is it freeking SLOW! :o Like I can't believe how slow it is. I mean I must be climbing 1/2 as fast as I do on the Niner. I didn't really realize how much better the Jet-9 was climbing until I got back on the Stumpy.

So what is it? The overall combination of headtube angle, suspension design, and 2x10 gearing? I believe the Niner actually weighs a little more than the Stumpy. but they both are close around 27-28 lbs. I mean, I think I may just go and sell the stumpy. it really is not worth the trade off. yea, it is a bit more fun on the way back down, and I was thinking of getting a dropper post for it, but now... ugh! bailing our into granny gear and crawling along like a snail really SUCKS!

anyone else gotten back on a slightly older full suspension 3x10 bike and just felt like they were dragging anchor?
 
I don't- both bikes are 26er but I've read about similar experiences.

After the dinero it cost to build both my bikes, I'm sticking with 26ers for a very long time.
 
Pedal bob (suspension type/tuning)? Fit?

Trails bikes don't have to suck at climbing. My Bronson is extremely close in climbing prowess to my short travel 29er. So much so that I left the higher gearing on the trail bike–and can still clean just about anything on it i can with the big wheels. I use the shock ProPedal setting and set the fork at medium (T setting on CTD, etc.).
 
Nah, don't think its pedal bob, Bob who? but maybe. I think it is just a combo of many things. I always felt like it sucked climbing. I just didn't know how bad until I used a better bike for 5-6 months. I think mainly it is a combo of everything. Steeper angle, better suspension design, momentum of the bigger wheels and gearing. I mean the Niner almost feels like a hardtail. I guess cause it only has 80mm rear. The Niner just begs to be hammered on the hills, while the Stumpy makes me want to drop it into granny. They are just such completely different bikes.

oh and I leave the Niner shock & fork open. the Stumpy I play with propedal on the rear quite often

and I'm not sayin ALL trail bikes suck. Just Mine! ;)
 
The only 1st place I have ever had in any race was in the only race I raced on a niner jet9! :-)

I feel the same way going from my Anthem 29er back to my 2009 spec. Xc. There is just no comparison!

The New Warren, Buena Park Bicycles!
 
This is one subject I know very well.

I went from a 1997 Proflex 857 to a 2012 Yeti ASR 5c. Those two bike do not belong in the same universe...............

..................my Proflex climbs better. Just shy of 3 inches of stiff suspension to just take the edge off a big hit. Nearly like riding a hardtail.

Think about it. You suggested that your Niner with 80mm of travel climbs like a hardtail. It would, compared to your Stumpy, with how much travel?

The less travel, the more stiffer the suspension. With stiffer suspension, the better the climb.

All Mountains are designed to handle more diverse terrain over an all day ride. I keep my 5 inches of travel pretty . . . fluffy :D .

XC also has a much tighter steering, so little corrections give big dividends where an ALL Mountain has a much more relaxed steering and I think is twice the effort.

All Mountain places you in a much more upright position, if your XC is set up correctly then no doubt your bars are way below your saddle height. XC bikes are in my opinion solely designed to climb, and for good reason. XC races are won on the climb. Climbing can gain you minutes where descents can gain you seconds. An XC bike is kinda like a leg press machine so you can get the ultimate push on those pedals.

Start combining all that steering with all that plush, the upright position, and you are at a tremendous disadvantage... :D
 
Two things from this thread...

bailing our into granny gear and crawling along like a snail really SUCKS!

and...

XC races are won on the climb.

Man, no wonder I've never won an XC race (never will). Anyhing (and I mean ANYTHING) that makes climbing easier is a good thing in my book. For me, 29 inch wheels were a huge win -- took minutes off my slow climbs. But due to age (Oy! Or just plain old lack of ability...) I will forever be bailing our into granny gear and crawling along like a snail.

:x

- shud
 
Here's pics of the two bikes to add some visual stimulation. and to test to see if I can even post pics... don't get me wrong. I have had many years of fun on the Stumpy, but damn it sure is not an efficient climber

892634_10200560622398031_1011318772_o.jpg


920019_4519456304477_422093064_o.jpg
 
CarlS
You're soooo close!
Click Edit> Place your curser in the text box after "efficient climber", hit enter to start a new line, then go down to where your attachments are and click on, "place in line", on the first pic, hit enter for a new line, then click on the other attachments "place in line"...

That will size the attachments to fit, and take away the word attachment and the dotted line around them.

As well, if you wanted to, you can place some text in the file comment text box like, "This is my Niner" and it will show the text just below the pic....

Either way, those are some sweet steeds!!!
 
The carbon version with a high end spec doesn't fare much better. In comparison, all my 29ers seriously are like cheating, on not only the climbs, but descents too. Even with carbon wheels, more XCish tires, suspension locked out, and a ~25lbs total weight (lighter than any of my 29er FS bikes), it seriously is disadvantaged. I still like it though. I posted up a review for it here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.imtbtrails.com/reviewpost/mountain-bikes/p9-specialized-stumpjumper-fsr-expert-carbon-evo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.imtbtrails.com/reviewpost/mo ... n-evo.html</a>

My 31 lbs Yeti ASR 7 (3x9) climbed pretty quickly, but it wore me out far faster due to its weight. I have a 29er HT for when I want to cheat on the climbs. Quivers are fun. :D

SpecSJEvo3.jpg
 
That's a suh-weet looking ride there brohama!

Thanks for the Product post as well!!!
 
If you're careless enough, sometimes the bike thinks the "climb" is a jump...

[youtube]b-mjV7eI0eY[/youtube]
 
Never had that happen on my XC bike! :D

Half joking, but really, it's more about all those little percentages summed up and your mental state.

Long nerdy version: Suspension tuning often relies on strategies such as setting sag to 25% at 400 Newtons (90 lbs force, assuming you weigh 150 lbs and you have a 60:40 rear to front weight distro). That 25% for a 100mm travel bike is 25mm, vs 40mm for a 160mm travel bike. Assuming you put out the same pedaling force, similarly designed systems likely will bob by a similar % of travel, but that % on a shorter travel bike is less energy wasted on activating the shock, as the energy stored in the spring is returned in the form of monkey motion, or absorbed through damping. Anti-squat isn't really any better, in a mechanic sense, since the counter-force to the bobbing action is taken as a % of your chain tension. If you really want efficiency, minimize absorption (ex. hysteresis/damping in materials like rubber, composites), refine your riding/pedaling form to not have any wasted movements, and/or use a real lock out for your shock (not a switch that merely increases damping). High anti-squat designs can improve your attitude though, especially if you firmly believe that pedal bob is evil and sensing none is good*.

Regarding wheel size, the 29er has significantly more traction than 26". You can run 29er XC tires with no less grip and control than much heavier 26" tires, at lower pressures, less rolling resistance, and less momentum loss from imperfections in your line. A good 29er wheelset also offers so much more improvement as far as upgrade potential goes, compared to how much a high end 26" wheelset does for you over a basic or stock wheelset. Bigger wheeled bikes benefit way more from money being poured into them, especially into the wheels and frame design (geo and stiffness tuning), while smaller wheeled bikes mainly see benefit coming from cutting edge quality tires and suspension.

All the subjective things can add up too. Tires can make or break how you feel about a bike, as much as fit does. Familiarity is also a big factor, as it determines how comfortable you are. Handling and how intuitive it is, can factor in on your confidence. How well the bike suits your terrain is another thing. People often go too big with 26" wheeled options, getting 140+ for XCish trails in SoCal, perhaps due to the challenges of low traction during dry dusty summers, and they feel an urge to put burly components on it to match, while you can get away with a bike 1-step lower in travel than you think you'd need in 29er form. I personally think SoCal is "29er country" in general, but that can be argued. I still find 26" worth keeping in my quiver, but have no desire for 27.5, especially with longer travel 29ers still not fully mature (waiting for Spec's re-design of the SJ FSR 29er, or a new shorter travel version of the Enduro that's between the Camber and SJ).
 
:o Why aint you writing more tech talk articles?!?!
I LOVE reading them! You were getting so many hit on the magazine! :D
 
funny, a relevant read in Dirt Rag I found this morning talking about triple, double, or single front ring choices:

"Fact is, triple chainrings still have their place. It's a dark and damp place that reeks of abandoned dreams and burnt socks, but it's a place nonethelaess. Plenty of people still prefer to climb at a speed that's about half as fast as walking and makes it easy for hikers to pass them safely. In the spring, it's also nice to be able to watch the plants grow around you as you inch upward, revving higher than a chainsaw on grain alcohol." :lol:
 
CarlS said:
funny, a relevant read in Dirt Rag I found this morning talking about triple, double, or single front ring choices:

"Fact is, triple chainrings still have their place. It's a dark and damp place that reeks of abandoned dreams and burnt socks, but it's a place nonethelaess. Plenty of people still prefer to climb at a speed that's about half as fast as walking and makes it easy for hikers to pass them safely. In the spring, it's also nice to be able to watch the plants grow around you as you inch upward, revving higher than a chainsaw on grain alcohol." :lol:
Click to expand...

:shock: Hey! I resemble that remark! Actually it's still a part of my MTB DNA to have a triple on the front...

"...It's a slow process of evolutionary metamorphosis to migrate from triples to anything different, taking billions of years."~ Dr. Watson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top