Cycling UK Forum

foxyrider wrote:

markbas wrote:

foxyrider wrote:i climb best when i'm lighter rather than neccesarily on the lightest bike.

Of course thats a moving goalpost thats equally true if i'm 85kg or 75kg! My carbon 'race' bike is my favoured tool for climbing and it sports a pair of amply stiff 'Brucey hates' no spoke wheels - works equally fine on short sharp or long alpine - providing that i'm fit enough to get the best out of it

gearing choice is important, i've been running 11sp 52/34 x 11-27 and very rarely get into the 27 or even the 25. On other bikes that are not such good climbers i'll be searching for the 28x30 option on the same climbs!

Thanks, being lighter would be lovely (90kg), power to weight ratio probably needs improving. You didn't mention what you're riding

DSCN7207.JPGetape london 1.png

Its this lovely - A Peugeot CRS running Campag Super Record mechanical, weighs 7.4kg including pump and tool bag. The spotty jersey is because i'd just come back from the Otztaler Radmarathon - 5500m climbing over 250km in a day - bit of overkill for the flat Etape London i was riding!

foxyrider wrote:i climb best when i'm lighter rather than neccesarily on the lightest bike.

Of course thats a moving goalpost thats equally true if i'm 85kg or 75kg! My carbon 'race' bike is my favoured tool for climbing and it sports a pair of amply stiff 'Brucey hates' no spoke wheels - works equally fine on short sharp or long alpine - providing that i'm fit enough to get the best out of it

gearing choice is important, i've been running 11sp 52/34 x 11-27 and very rarely get into the 27 or even the 25. On other bikes that are not such good climbers i'll be searching for the 28x30 option on the same climbs!

Brucey wrote:If you are out of the saddle sprinting then stiffness trumps almost everything, including weight a lot of the time.

However if you are sitting in the saddle and twiddling then light weight and efficiency are important. To this end I'd suggest that you try and keep your favoured climbing gears set so that they are not running very small chainrings/sprockets and that the chainline is kept good.

For many years the bikes that climbed best were build with short chainstays made of relatively stiff tubing. In this day and age they can do anything with carbon (good or bad) so you need to test ride to see if you like it or not.

FWIW many modern wheelsets are horrible floppy things without enough spokes in. If you are really laying down the power then you might be better off with something different.

cheers

Jamesh wrote:Supersix hi mod?

Cervelo R2?

Ridley helium?

I'm guessing the budget will dictate the range of frames.

Cheers James

peetee wrote:There is no single answer to your question. Haytor and Monsal would require different bikes if you really wanted to get the best time possible. And without knowing your build, fitness riding style and history the decision making process is even harder.

Two pretty universal benchmarks to aim for are a frame that feels rigid and responsive in the bottom bracket area and the lightest pair of wheels you can afford - but seek advice there as some light wheels are nasty floppy things when ‘giving it some’ out the saddle, and you will be doing a lot of that.

mig wrote:what sort of hill? The best of Oxfordshire and the chilterns, not quite Lake District standards

short, steep? Yes in both cases, a mixture

alpine pass?

flat tyre wrote:If you want a hill climber, I'd strongly recommend building your own, that way you will get the gears and wheels you need, any bike "off the peg" will be a compromise.

peetee wrote:Malcolm Elliot did Monsal Head on a steel framed fixie in 1981 and that record has yet to be beaten - and lots of top riders have tried.
I shall be riding steel as well when I return to it, hopefully by the end of the year.
Prob not the response you were expecting but I couldn’t resist.