I've been reading posts about people wanting a good climbing bike. Others have said that certain bikes are great on descents. So my question is, what makes a bike a good climber, descender, sprinter, etc? Is it being lightweight, aero, carbon fiber?

Are there other "types" of bikes?

It seems to me that they're all the same. I could get a BMC Pro machine and it will be a good bike for all these things, but it seems that people will simply say it's a climbing bike. Why isn't it just as good for descending or sprinting?

I've been reading posts about people wanting a good climbing bike. Others have said that certain bikes are great on descents. So my question is, what makes a bike a good climber, descender, sprinter, etc? Is it being lightweight, aero, carbon fiber?

Are there other "types" of bikes?

It seems to me that they're all the same. I could get a BMC Pro machine and it will be a good bike for all these things, but it seems that people will simply say it's a climbing bike. Why isn't it just as good for descending or sprinting?

In some ways, you are right it's a silly question. A bike can not be a good bike if it is made for climbing but can not decend well. Many really light bikes are not all that stiff which is a major key to decending well, (especially on technical decents.) Fork stiffness is important in decending in which the bike has to withstand high pressures through turns. High speed decents on non techical roads want a stage racing geometry which is very stable at high speeds... whereas a technical decent will most likely be better with tighter geometry (head tube angle and shorter chain stays (Seat tube angle has been debated endlessly without resolution on this forum.)
A sprinting bike will simply be strong enough to resist torque of high accelleration. Position on the bike and bars probably are as key as anything else, but sited are oversized chainstays and BB, and I would contend (like a decending bike) the head tube and top tube stiffness would be critical in staying straight and in control. Again, Forks are very important here. Often the better sprinters are heavier riders and this will increase the need for a strong stiff bike.

Good answer :thumbsup:

The rims are what will make the difference.


I've been reading posts about people wanting a good climbing bike. Others have said that certain bikes are great on descents. So my question is, what makes a bike a good climber, descender, sprinter, etc? Is it being lightweight, aero, carbon fiber?

Are there other "types" of bikes?

It seems to me that they're all the same. I could get a BMC Pro machine and it will be a good bike for all these things, but it seems that people will simply say it's a climbing bike. Why isn't it just as good for descending or sprinting?

The rims? Welllll..... I think frames do make a little difference of course but not everyone can notice it maybe...

I'd recommend getting a bike made from metal or carbon fiber. Also be nice if it had a couple of wheels, handlebars and some of the other usual acoutrements.

...well...ya' know that bike that was custom made by (Moots?) to hold camping fuel? Well a good climber is like that bike in that it simply has an oft' unknown afterburner attachment
That's right...Armstrong really didn't dope at all =]

In some ways, you are right it's a silly question. A bike can not be a good bike if it is made for climbing but can not decend well. Many really light bikes are not all that stiff which is a major key to decending well, (especially on technical decents.) Fork stiffness is important in decending in which the bike has to withstand high pressures through turns. High speed decents on non techical roads want a stage racing geometry which is very stable at high speeds... whereas a technical decent will most likely be better with tighter geometry (head tube angle and shorter chain stays (Seat tube angle has been debated endlessly without resolution on this forum.)
A sprinting bike will simply be strong enough to resist torque of high accelleration. Position on the bike and bars probably are as key as anything else, but sited are oversized chainstays and BB, and I would contend (like a decending bike) the head tube and top tube stiffness would be critical in staying straight and in control. Again, Forks are very important here. Often the better sprinters are heavier riders and this will increase the need for a strong stiff bike.

In these days, it is a silly question. Because if you look at the top of the line bikes that each ProTour team is riding, there may be some slight variations between say, a "sprinter's" bike, and or a GC rider's bike, or maybe even a climbing bike, but in 2006, they can make bikes that are light and super stiff, and that are at the weight limit set by the UCI, and they are good for "all of the above" you might say. Gone are the days of downtube shifters on "climbing" bikes, since most team's bikes come in at, or under the weight limit fully spec'd out anyway, right off of the assembly line. And most, if not all top end bikes, can be under the weight limit easily without sacrificing stiffness, agility or climbing prowess.

So to answer the original question, most high end bikes these days can do it all, and can do it all with ease.

...well...ya' know that bike that was custom made by (Moots?) to hold camping fuel? Well a good climber is like that bike in that it simply has an oft' unknown afterburner attachment
That's right...Armstrong really didn't dope at all =]


you got it all wrong....the BEST..and I mean the top of the line climbing bikes are not only very stiff and light, but they put compressed sealed helium in the ST and DT.......There has been some consideration of putting a chamber in the TT, but no one is sure if the bike might float away. They use this and a new high tech fiber metal composite that's atomic weight is half that of carbon....of course, you can only find this metal on a small island in the samoan chain.....so retail on these frames is of course somewhere around 100k, but if you want the best..well, you know...:thumbsup:

you got it all wrong....the BEST..and I mean the top of the line climbing bikes are not only very stiff and light, but they put compressed sealed helium in the ST and DT.......There has been some consideration of putting a chamber in the TT, but no one is sure if the bike might float away. They use this and a new high tech fiber metal composite that's atomic weight is half that of carbon....of course, you can only find this metal on a small island in the samoan chain.....so retail on these frames is of course somewhere around 100k, but if you want the best..well, you know...:thumbsup:


I just ride as hard as heck as I can up the climbs...

Guess I need those helium bikes eh? No, I prefer turbo/afterburners.. mmmm :D

you got it all wrong....the BEST..and I mean the top of the line climbing bikes are not only very stiff and light, but they put compressed sealed helium in the ST and DT.......There has been some consideration of putting a chamber in the TT, but no one is sure if the bike might float away. They use this and a new high tech fiber metal composite that's atomic weight is half that of carbon....of course, you can only find this metal on a small island in the samoan chain.....so retail on these frames is of course somewhere around 100k, but if you want the best..well, you know...:thumbsup:

The reason they didn't put that bladder in the top tube is that the bike would be too light and the tires would loose traction.

The reason they didn't put that bladder in the top tube is that the bike would be too light and the tires would loose traction.
No! That's just bullcrap! It just won't happen as long as you leave the head tube empty. Fill the head tube w/helium...OK, then you got a problem.

Wait a minute, guys.

I started one of those threads.."best climbing bike?" and what I mean by a 'climbing' bike is one that is better at climbing, one that is "most suited" for cranking up steep long mountain roads as 'easily' as possible.

Yes, any good modern high-end race bike can and does do it all very competantly. I've ridden many of the top brands, and that is true. However, some bikes have as their strongest point, different aspects of riding. None are hugely different in overall performance, none are 'totally outstanding" anywhere..But there is a difference in 'focus' between different bikes. Some are 'optimised' for long flats, some are a little better on tight crit courses, some are slightly better going up the steep climbs..On the other hand, the bikes with the 'all day" comfort and settled handling probably would be good-er on the fast alpine descents than say one of the real steep twitchy crit specials, which would beat your butt silly over a 120 mile stage, but make it possible to 'thread the needle" for the sprint win, or grab a few lengths each corner round a closed course...

Sure, you can easily ride almost any world class racebike on any kinda course, and it will perform well overall (If YOU have the legs). But if you wanted to bother, you could probably find bike that climbs as it's specialtiy and climbs very well indeed..if you were willing to give up some other aspect of performance..Subtile difference, yeah..

Me, I spend more time going uphill than I do going downhill or riding flat. Living in a mountainous area, it is what I have. So, I wanna see what kinda bikes people think climb well and perhaps try a few for myself..Since I spend most of MY time riding up climbs, I want to bother to find the bike that I like best when climbing , and spend all that uphill time on it..

Don Hanson

I will say the Look 585 is very probably the best 'all-round' frame I've ridden so far, and it is especially good on descending fast with confidence. Looked at my computer the other day shortly after summiting, while sitting up pulling on my gloves and zipping up my jacket..45mph and I was fussing with gloves and jammed zipper without even thinking about controlling the bike very much..

OK - Seriously. I don't have any idea. I haven't ridden that many bikes. I'll be 64 in a few weks. Started adult riding in the late 50's/early 60's, and have been riding ever since. I can honestly only comment about the bikes I've owned. Right now I have 2 DeRosas and a Panasonic that I use as a commuter. The p'sonic is actually a nice bike, but it weighs a ton. Not good for climbing. The DeRosa's are wonderful bikes, but I would rate them as "OK" cllimbers. The best climber I had was a custom frame made by Matt Assenmacher. It had a 39" wheelbase, a fully sloping fork crown and was very stiff. So, if I were looking for a climber, I'd look for something that was basically short, light & stiff.

When I read some of the posts on here, you'd think the posters have ridden just about every bike known to mankind. Get this frame, buy that bike, ABC and XYZ are also great bikes. I have to ask myself, how the hell do they know? IMO/IME you never really know unless you have either owned the bike, or have had extensive, (something like a full season), experience riding it.

I had two DeRosas as my primary rides for most of this summer, A King and a Dual. I agree on "OK climber" for the King. It wasn't a great climber, but very comfortable, very stable, very predictable, and drop dead gorgeous! Not many Kings did I come across in my full year of ownship. I liked that one a lot. I sold that one to buy the Look 585.

The Dual is still sort of my climbing bike and my criterium bike. It climbs very well. I would rate it as an excellent climber. However, I crashed it last fall, repaired it myself with some carbon fiber to 're-inforce' a dimple in the downtube and a crack in the fork leg...Rode it carefully for a while and the repair held up just fine, so I raced it a bunch and kept close watch on it..no problems all season, but I noticed a hairline fracture in the paint just recently, just behind the head tube where I'd built it up similar to a trek or an Orbea Orca...anyhow, I don't feel secure on mountain descents at speed now, until I grind it back to bare carbon/alu and see if it really is just a crack in the paint..

Anyway, I am looking for a replacment for the Dual to be my climbing and crit ride. I try to keep three workable bikes at a time, so ..
Don Hanson

Dude, send the bike to Parlee, they can repair it. Much better than doing it yourself
-estone2

types of modern road racing bicycles:

Road Bike
Stupid Expensive Road Bike
TT / Tri Bike
Stupid Expensive TT Bike

In all seriousness I would have to say that maybe one should compare pro bikes. Specifically, look at geometries. Now before anyone brings up the point that pros ride the bikes their given, although this is true, I believe most of the top pros get bikes made to THEIR specifications. If this is indeed the case looking at their event specific bikes and finding similarities will reveal the best bikes for that type of event. OTOH if there aren't similarities then I would take this to mean that there isn't one perfect bike that represents the "best of" for any one type of event.
Oh yes, by the way.....the testosterone implication was purely made up by the French....fact is Landis did have the TT filled with the compressed helium (oh and an afterburner setup) and the French thought this was very unfair and are seeking their revenge....*sigh*..should have seen it coming. Also, Landis' exact bike will go on sale to the public in two months. I believe it's called....ummm.....oh yes, right...the Modified Hindenburg F class Tomcat special edition (MH-FT: SE)