Fifty Plus (50+) - Short Chain Stays climb faster? If so, then why?

OK, I read and I experience short chain stay / shorter wheel base bikes climb more easily, or at least feel that way. My experience on my shortish '87 Specialized Allez and my longish sport tourer seem to confirm this.

Can someone technical explain why, all other parts of the bike being equal, this is so. (And, no, I don't feel any chainstay flex under load on the sport tourer.)

Conversely, my long wheel based bike loves and inspires confidence on downhill sweepers-- much like a pair of giant slalom skis. This part I understand.

The principal variable is the lateral stiffness of the frame. When you press down on a pedal, you want all of the force you apply to go toward locomotion. Bikes with shorter chain stays are generally designed to have more rigid main triangles than those with longer stays, and for a given thickness, diameter, and composition of tubing, they will always have stiffer rear triangles. I notice the same difference between my 1960 and 1980 vintage road bikes, and it has nothing to do with the minimal difference between MnMb (Reynolds 531) and CrMb (Columbus) steels.

Would chainstay flex not be an issue on the flats also, it seems people are only noticing it on the climbs.

Cargo bikes can be difficult to climb with also, i suspect it has more todo with where the rider's mass is in relation to the contact pact of the rear tire.

Edit: From Seven bicycles blog

If, in the case of a mountain bike, the hypothetical rider wants a better climbing bike, and the customer believes that’s accomplished through shorter chain stays, well then, we’re limiting our design options. Yes, one of the elements to review is certainly chain stay length—and it is only one element. To clarify, here are a few of the ways Seven approaches the “better climbing” design parameter:

Improve rear wheel traction. Many people think that “better climbing” and “improved traction” are one in the same. However, we could have the best traction ever, and the bike could still climb poorly. The traction design challenge and the better climbing design challenge are not one in the same—they simply require concurrent design thinking.
Optimize balance between the wheels. Weight distribution between the wheels shifts when climbing, descending, or navigating single-track. In which circumstances is handling more important to the rider? How do we optimize for all types of terrain?
Optimize rider center of gravity. This is an element of “Balance between wheels”, although it’s not interchangeable. Gravity center and wheel relationship are three dimensional.
Drive train stiffness. In general, the stiffer the drive train, the better the climbing capability of the bike. However, drive train stiffness in isolation can actually hinder climbing. I’ll explain why in another post.
Vertical compliance. This is a very important element for optimizing a frame’s climbing ability—and often overlooked in frame design. It’s analogous to how a good suspension bike can climb better than a hard tail—the suspension can help keep the rear wheel in contact with the ground.
Component choice: tire choice—width, tread profile, brand, tire pressure. Wheel specification: wheel stiffness and rim width are a couple examples.
Terrain and environment: typical climbing conditions; types of climbs—short and steep or fire road? Dirt type: clay or loose gravel?
Other design objectives: at what else does the rider want the bike to excel? In what ways will these expectations impact the bike’s climbing capabilities?
Chain stay length. There it is. Bet you were waiting for it. The idea that shorter is inherently better can get us in trouble. I’ve seen many a mountain bike where the rear wheel was tucked too far forward so that the rider has to be so far forward on the bars, while climbing, that the bike becomes difficult to handle. The outcome is a situation where poor handling outweighs the improved traction, and the bike climbs poorly.
These nine examples are just part of how Seven applies all aspects of bike design to improve climbing. It may also be apparent that focusing too much on chain stay length as the climbing solution, can easily end up hindering the overall design of the bike.

I think climbing or out of saddle sprinting magnifies one's awareness of flex. It's likely there to a lesser extent even on the flats. It's just that the threshold of what we observe isn't reached for most of us while cruising along on the flats.

The vertical compliance thing along with the shorter chain stay makes sense. That's why we see the Cervelo R3 with those thin seat stays. That bike climbs well and is compliant, meaning the rear wheel stays in contact with the ground.

Personally, I am skeptical about this. Agreed, if you can put out Pro power levels then flex might be an issue. But for us humans, unlikely. To my mind, climbing is mere physics. You have weight, you want to raise it. That takes power. To do it faster, less weight and/or more power. But I do tend to oversimplify.

OK, I read and I experience short chain stay / shorter wheel base bikes climb more easily, or at least feel that way. My experience on my shortish '87 Specialized Allez and my longish sport tourer seem to confirm this.

Can someone technical explain why, all other parts of the bike being equal, this is so. (And, no, I don't feel any chainstay flex under load on the sport tourer.)

Conversely, my long wheel based bike loves and inspires confidence on downhill sweepers-- much like a pair of giant slalom skis. This part I understand.

I think that it really depends on how much difference your talking about, if one bike has 175mm chain stays and another has 170mm chain stays, there really isn't going to be a huge difference, if that's the only difference. You have to note the source of such information, if it's a racing magazine where they talk about how one bike is so much slower then another bike because it's 5g heavier, then that's probably only going to mean a lot under race conditions where the difference over 100 miles between first and forth place is a second or two.

Often though if the chain stays are different, the overall geometry is different and some of those differences could be what your seeing. Frame design stiffness can also mean a lot, but not be outwardly visible. A bike designed to be fast is going to be stiffer, have a more aggressive geometry and likely be less comfortable, then a bike designed for long days in the saddle.

The only difference is perceptual, mostly from popular cycling literature. There is a difference for weight, but even that is minimal. For example using the old http://www.noping.net/images/ko_name_small.gif (http://www.noping.net/english/eindex.html) website, for a 170 lb rider the difference for a 15 and 20 pound bike on a 7% slope is about .1 mph. I believe that tire resistance is similar in magniture. Frame geometry would be unmeasureable.

Notice how all the mag reviews nearly always claim that this bike climbs well, or great, but never ever manage to give a number like at 250 watts this bike is 10 seconds faster on my favorite 25 mile climb. And that difference is weight and rolling resistance, never frame geometry.

Personally, I am skeptical about this. Agreed, if you can put out Pro power levels then flex might be an issue. But for us humans, unlikely. To my mind, climbing is mere physics. You have weight, you want to raise it. That takes power. To do it faster, less weight and/or more power. But I do tend to oversimplify.

I've never subscribed to the flex robbing power thing and I've heard it debated for decades.
Here is a thread about it. http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?257679-Are-stiffer-frames-actually-faster-Discuss&highlight=is+a+stiff+bike+really+faster%3F

I've done some of my best climbing on a wet noodle of a frame.

Someone told me long chainstays have a longer vector for gravity to pull on, or something like that. I don't know if chainstay length is a real factor, either.

Oh, the guy with the 170mm stays, that's a tiny bike!!

Several road bikes and the worst climber is the OCR. The one I did a mountain with.

But Have a Giant TCR-C and this bike took a lot of settling down. One thing I found from the first ride though is that when gravity goes the wrong way- It works better than any of my other bikes. Never looked at the various segments of the frame to find out why- but of the 4 road bikes I have- This has the stiffest frame. It does literraly climb hills. Less fatigue than the others and can pull a higher gear for longer. Just a pity that I don't trust it at high downhill speed----- A hangover from before I managed to get it riding comfortably.

Just a pity that I don't trust it at high downhill speed----- A hangover from before I managed to get it riding comfortably.

I agree with Stapfam....what seems to go up easiest doesn't always seem to go downwards as easily as what went up less easily.

Experimented today. Went out on a moderate hill. Put the 43cm chainstay steel sport tourer into middle ring/smallest cog and moved the fd over until the chain just cleared it. Then pushed really hard up the hill. Every pedal stroke brought audible chain rub until I eased off, then began again as I pushed hard again. On the flat at the hill's top I got blessed silence in the same combination. Went back with the 40.5 steel chainstay bike and could get no rub at all...and, it was faster getting up the hill. Head-stuff? Maybe.

OK, that said.........the relaxed Romulus is a wonderful all day cruiser, great descender...a lot of relaxed fun. I recall Grant Peterson defending his "long-low" design by saying lateral frame flex didn't signify significant energy loss because the energy was "stored" in the frame and was returned when the frame flexed back. Not quite sure what that means in everyday riding.

There is no one bike that optimizes all functions of riding. For riding in a tight group or feeling the last echoes of quickness in my aging riding, I'd pick the stiff upright bike. For anything over 50 miles, the Romulus will get me home with my teeth fillings still intact.

I've never subscribed to the flex robbing power thing and I've heard it debated for decades.
Here is a thread about it. http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?257679-Are-stiffer-frames-actually-faster-Discuss&highlight=is+a+stiff+bike+really+faster%3F

I've done some of my best climbing on a wet noodle of a frame.

Someone told me long chainstays have a longer vector for gravity to pull on, or something like that. I don't know if chainstay length is a real factor, either.

Oh, the guy with the 170mm stays, that's a tiny bike!!

I don't understand flex as an issue either. If there is flex then we can use a spring analogy. During compression energy is _not transmitted to the wheel_. Compression ends and the energy is released on rebound _to the wheel_. If there is a loss of energy it would be in the form of heat. I don't live in NYC any more so I don't have a hot bike. (Sorry for the dumb joke but I am old and weak.)

Just think about it-If that rear triangle is flexing- the rear wheel is not keeping a reguar movement on it as it goes up and down and forwards and backwards. It is trying to accelerate and being decelerated with the movement it is taking whilst in contact with the road. May only be a little bit of movement- but it will be there.

The less flex that can be put within the rear triangle- the less flex and less loss of power at the wheel. That Tight rear triangle may be down to shorter stays or stiffer tubes but the tighter it is- the less flex there will be. And I have found that I can induce something like flex with an irregular pedal movement that makes the rear wheel accelerate/decelerate as I get more ragged on the pedal stroke.

Then of course there is the other voice that will say that a bit of flex will keep the wheel in better contact with the road. That has not been my experience but that has mainly been on MTB's and that is not what we are discussing here.

All I know is that the stiffer my frames are- the better they climb.

So decide what theory you want to follow.

Can someone technical explain why, all other parts of the bike being equal, this is so. (And, no, I don't feel any chain stay flex under load on the sport tourer.)The premise of your question is incorrect or poorly stated.

Ordinarily chain stay length is relative to at least two other variables of any given frame. One of those being overall bike wheelbase, (as a function of top-tube length) and the other being over all bicycle size (as a function of seat tube length.)

One might be able to state that bigger bicycles may flex more than smaller ones. Whether or not this is perceptible, or even true, depend on many more variables.

Just think about it-If that rear triangle is flexing- the rear wheel is not keeping a reguar movement on it as it goes up and down and forwards and backwards. It is trying to accelerate and being decelerated with the movement it is taking whilst in contact with the road. May only be a little bit of movement- but it will be there.

The less flex that can be put within the rear triangle- the less flex and less loss of power at the wheel. That Tight rear triangle may be down to shorter stays or stiffer tubes but the tighter it is- the less flex there will be. And I have found that I can induce something like flex with an irregular pedal movement that makes the rear wheel accelerate/decelerate as I get more ragged on the pedal stroke.

Then of course there is the other voice that will say that a bit of flex will keep the wheel in better contact with the road. That has not been my experience but that has mainly been on MTB's and that is not what we are discussing here.

All I know is that the stiffer my frames are- the better they climb.

So decide what theory you want to follow.

The whole argument comes down to a single question, how much difference are we talking here, if it's 5mm then it's not likely to have a detectable difference, it its 50mm, then it might, providing all other conditions are completely equal. I've had days where I could sprint up a huge hill as if it were a speed bump, a day or two later and it seems like there should be clouds over the top and that it's nearly vertical, it's the same hill and the same bike and the same rider in the same condition, the difference is that one day the wind is blowing East and the other it's blowing West. Tires and tire pressure can also have a huge influence on climbing performance as can time of day and rider energy level and tiredness. Climbing is the only place where bike weight really can make a difference. A racing bike with short stays that weighs 18lbs is going to climb better then a 30lb touring bike, mind you, you can't put 50lbs of camping gear on the racing bike and go for a 3 month tour of the Andes either....

My Litespeed Tuscany has such short chainstays that my tire nearly rubs the front derailleaur bracket. My Lemond Poprad has longer stays, but not really long like on some touring bikes. The Litespeed climbs much better but I think more than anything it is because it is lighter, with lighter wheels and tires.
I think the chainstay length will have more effect on the ride in general than on the climbing.
Does anyone have a light bike with long chainstays?

I have three road bikes and they all feel different on a climb. However, I bet there is very little real difference in time between them. I do think that a particular bike can be more efficient and that is mainly due to how it handles or what it weighs when climbing. My bike with the shorter chainstays and wheelbase feels better out of the saddle while the Roubaix feels better seated on a climb. That follows my impression that the Roubaix is a good climber until the grade gets steep enough that I want to get out of the saddle more. Then the shorter bike feels like the better climber.

All I know is that the stiffer my frames are- the better they climb.Most likely placebo effect or the bikes fit differently allowing you to apply more power. For any reasonable length climbs at 300W or so the amount of frame flex is negligible. Of course, if you had recorded multiple climbs at the same power level with different climbing speeds you'd have a more convincing argument.

I have two bikes that look sorta alike but in reality have almost nothing in common. Bike 1 is a Ti Lemond road bike w/ 290 tpi Vittoria tires. Bike B is a Ti Dean cross bike with Maxxis cross tires. They handle completely differently. Counter steer on the Lemond and you feel like you are diving into the turn. The Lemond has a short wheelbase with the rear tire nearly touching the seat tube. Counter steer on the Dean and it kinda leans over and turns: no thrill (or terror). The Dean has a longer (but not long) wheelbase. I can't overstate how differently the two bikes handle. I still can't tell any difference in climbing (besides the saddle)! My belief is that when climbing in a simple environment (constant coefficient of friction, no bumps,,, etc.) the wheelbase doesn't matter. Stiffness doesn't matter. Weight matters.

The Lemond had funkish tubing shapes and I don't know if it is double butted. (I never thought about it before, but I am double butted!!!) The Dean is built with straight tubes. I surely don't have any idea if one bike is any stiffer than the other and if they are different I wouldn't know where.

Anybody remember the Clark-Kent bike? It had a curved seat tube to allow the rear wheel to be pulled way forward. A guy in our club had one and it looked cool, but I don't know if it helped him climb. He said he liked it, and that's what mattered.
I know there are TT and track bikes like that, but this was a steel roadie.

To tell the truth I have no clue if short chain stays with what seems to be a short Wheel Base makes for a better climber or not. All I know is that it seems like the pros who are supposed to have the technology of this kind of thing down pat seem to prefer short bikes for climbing. If it didn’t matter why do so many have them? My Lapierre has a shorter chainstay than my Jamis and it climbs better so I have decided all things being equal if I have a bike for climbing it should have short chainstays. I don’t much worry about why it seems to work only that it does for people that know more about it than I do. I have no problem following a successful trend. I had no problem switching to oversized Tennis racquets or oversized Drivers when they came out either. If they make me think I play better and in turn I end up playing better I’ll go for it. But that is just me.

What the pros do has little bearing on what we do. Are you going to run a 6 inch bar drop, shave your legs. and starve down to 4% body fat?
Secondly, they don't choose the geometry, the bikes are provided by the manufacturer/sponsor.
Also, pro racers are willing to sacrifice comfort, or anything, for speed.
All racing bikes are going to have short stays.

... All I know is that it seems like the pros who are supposed to have the technology of this kind of thing down pat seem to prefer short bikes for climbing. ...

When the pros use a bike for climbing they'll likely use it for descending those same hills. A shorter wheelbase will be less stable and therefore better handling in switchbacks. Maybe thats why they use them.

When the pros use a bike for climbing they'll likely use it for descending those same hills. A shorter wheelbase will be less stable and therefore better handling in switchbacks. Maybe thats why they use them.

I think they use whatever the sponsor provides.

I think they use whatever the sponsor provides.

And sponsors like Trek, Giant and Specialized research winning formulas. They wouldn’t likely give them a bike that was harder to climb with. But that isn’t the point. The point is how can we who aren’t experts tell the experts they are wrong? We can have our opinions but Lance Armstrong has input into the bikes he races and if a long wheel base bike would work better he would request one. ( I would think.) So do all of the other racers. Yes it is taking things to the extreme but they are the one doing the research that passes down to us the recreational cyclists. So if I had to take the advice of one person over another it would be the one that has a monetary reason to design the best equipment for the job.
What I am saying is from a non professional standpoint it doesn’t make a lot of sense for someone like me to try to re-invent the wheel when people that knows what they are doing have already invented it. So when I go online to look at frames and I click on performance and racing frames I see bikes with short chain stays. When I see a bike with comfort or touring assigned to it I see longer chain stays. If I am planning on building a bike for climbing I tend to gravitate towards the performance and racing frames, it seems only natural.
So I will reiterate, I may not have a clue as to the difference but I will accept the conclusions of those that make a living with the differences.

I think they use whatever the sponsor provides.

I read an article several years ago in Bicycling mag referring to team Seco Cannondale bikes. Stated that the off the shelf bikes were as close as it gets to a pro TDF rider bike. Except that no off the shelf bike would never be an exact model as the TDF bikes cause "each rider" chose it's angles, geo (BB height, stay length etc) specifically to their preference.

Along with stating that what the public thought were steel Pinarello bikes for example), some were ti and maybe other materials depending on what the rider requested. Some bikes were jsut rebadged to reflect the sponsors. If thing haven't changed since then?

Check out this paragraph form this article;)

Bbox-Bouygues Telecom is using Time’s RXR Ulteam, which is based on the RXR Chrono time trial bike. Team riders each get their own custom geometry. The TransLink seat tube provides seat height adjustability while two attachment positions allow the front derailleur to be optimally placed.

http://www.bikeworldnews.com/index.php/2009/06/29/bikes-tour-de-france/

Yes, I know back in the steel frame days the frames could be brazed up any way a rider wanted and re-badged frames were common. The Motorola Huffy frames were built by Ben Serotta, for example.
These days the production frames are all so good and it's easy to build a bike at the weight limit, even a production bike, so the bike is less of a factor now than ever. What I mean is, Contador would have won the TDF last year regardless of which bike he was on, and I do think if his chainstays were a little longer that wouldn't have made any difference, either.

Beanz, the Time thing is surprising, if it is actually different geometry for each rider. That would be quite unusual, I think, and quite costly, and even pointless.

Bob, of course the manufacturers are trying to build race ready machines, and like I said earlier, all race frames are going to have short stays. Owning a touring bike, a sport touring bike, a road race type bike, and a crit bike I still say the biggest factor when climbing is weight, provided the same fit and comfort are given.

Bob, of course the manufacturers are trying to build race ready machines, and like I said earlier, all race frames are going to have short stays. Owning a touring bike, a sport touring bike, a road race type bike, and a crit bike I still say the biggest factor when climbing is weight, provided the same fit and comfort are given.

So what are you saying? If chainstay length doesn't matter, why would all race frames have short stays? If anything is a given about every manufacturer's race bikes, it is that they are all as light as the racing rules allow, so if they are going to try to differentiate their bikes, they have to work with other variables.

How much you want to bet that Specialized is not working on making molds to build bikes which take into account Contador's favorite dimensions and angles?

Yes, I know back in the steel frame days the frames could be brazed up any way a rider wanted and re-badged frames were common. The Motorola Huffy frames were built by Ben Serotta, for example.
These days the production frames are all so good and it's easy to build a bike at the weight limit, even a production bike, so the bike is less of a factor now than ever. What I mean is, Contador would have won the TDF last year regardless of which bike he was on, and I do think if his chainstays were a little longer that wouldn't have made any difference, either.

Beanz, the Time thing is surprising, if it is actually different geometry for each rider. That would be quite unusual, I think, and quite costly, and even pointless.

Bob, of course the manufacturers are trying to build race ready machines, and like I said earlier, all race frames are going to have short stays. Owning a touring bike, a sport touring bike, a road race type bike, and a crit bike I still say the biggest factor when climbing is weight, provided the same fit and comfort are given.

I am not questioning your experience. I have more than one bike as well, one more relaxed and one more performance and one more upright.
The thing is we only have the cycling pendants and professional builders to look to for information. It is from them we tend to hear that short Chain Stays climb better so it would be up to someone else to prove them wrong. The only way you could do it scientifically is to put the same pro rider on two identical bikes with different chain stays.
Until there is some definitive test done when I click on a race frame I believe I will only find ones with short chain stays. That just seems to be how it is.

Beanz, the Time thing is surprising, if it is actually different geometry for each rider. That would be quite unusual, I think, and quite costly, and even pointless.


I read the first article about 12 years ago. I'm not surprised. I don't remember the year but in one of the TDF's, Jan Ullrich comes back and passes Lance on a climb. A stage where Lance really suffered. anyways, at the top of the climb, Jan gets off his bike and switches to another bike for the downhill. You can tell the two bikes are totally different but yet both are still badged with the same name and Team logo.


3:15 into the video, Jan pulls over and goes from what seems to be a bike with a round downtube to a bike with a bladed downtube. Paul and Phil comment on his bike that was switched for the climb to a special lighter bike. Then back to his regular race bike. Heck these guys can get a bike for every situation if they like.;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLQVNavI8Q

I read the first article about 12 years ago. I'm not surprised. I don't remember the year but in one of the TDF's, Jan Ullrich comes back and passes Lance on a climb. A stage where Lance really suffered. anyways, at the top of the climb, Jan gets off his bike and switches to another bike for the downhill. You can tell the two bikes are totally different but yet both are still badged with the same name and Team logo.


3:15 into the video, Jan pulls over and goes from what seems to be a bike with a round downtube to a bike with a bladed downtube. Paul and Phil comment on his bike that was switched for the climb to a special lighter bike. Then back to his regular race bike. Heck these guys can get a bike for every situation if they like.;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLQVNavI8Q

It makes you smile when you realize they don’t even have to change a flat tire if the team car is close. They can simply switch to a different bike set up exactly like the first bike.
We had a team car for our club on the Tour De Palm Springs and laughed when one of the riders wanted to know where the car was when we had one of our two flats? I did have an extra set of wheels in the car but it wasn’t the car that was following us. So we changed our own flats. :lol:

I never said chainstay length didn't matter. I just don't think it is a big factor in climbing, especially at our level. Of course it changes handling somewhat, as does wheelbase, rake and trail, bottom bracket height, etc.
I referred to the 4 road bikes I now own as 4 different examples of stay length. These frames were all built with different purposes in mind and the stay length is just a part of the design.
My other point was that the frames are so good now that it would seem pointless to make a one-off custom for most riders. I don't know if Specialized is making custom frames for Contador, but it seems that any gains to be made by doing so would be minimal, if any.
Yes, I know that in the past bikes were switched for descents and climbs and for different conditions, I just don't think it happens nearly as much anymore.

Bob, I would be curious to know where you heard that short stays climb better and any supporting data to go with it.

Yes, I know back in the steel frame days the frames could be brazed up any way a rider wanted and re-badged frames were common. The Motorola Huffy frames were built by Ben Serotta, for example.
These days the production frames are all so good and it's easy to build a bike at the weight limit, even a production bike, so the bike is less of a factor now than ever. What I mean is, Contador would have won the TDF last year regardless of which bike he was on, and I do think if his chainstays were a little longer that wouldn't have made any difference, either.

Beanz, the Time thing is surprising, if it is actually different geometry for each rider. That would be quite unusual, I think, and quite costly, and even pointless.

Bob, of course the manufacturers are trying to build race ready machines, and like I said earlier, all race frames are going to have short stays. Owning a touring bike, a sport touring bike, a road race type bike, and a crit bike I still say the biggest factor when climbing is weight, provided the same fit and comfort are given.

If your going to be building a bike for a race like the TdF where millions of people will see the bike and getting a winner can result in thousands more unit sales, then you will hand make every part if you need to. You don't care if that bike costs $250K to make, because a first or second place finish on that bike is the cheapest market directed advertising you can get. Fitting the geometry to the rider is probably quite common at the top end of the racing circuit, however sometimes a measurement in top end racing gets a commonality and becomes generally accepted, it then trickles down to even the bikes we buy. Of course some things become tradition, or have a practical reason attached to them. For example a touring bike has longer stays because it puts the rack back further and reduces the chances of heel strike. A road race bike doesn't have a rack, so it doesn't need long stays, so they can make them shorter.

Now here is a question, that I don't know if anyone can answer, how long has this saying been around and has engineering and materials since negated the advantage, but it's tradition now to design racing bikes with short stays.

If the rear axle is the pivot point, and let's say for the sake of argument the bottom bracket is the center of gravity. If you mash down on the pedals hard enough, the bike will wheelie. If the chainstays are short the front end will lift up easier under power, if the chainstays are very long, for the same amount of power, the front tire will stay planted on the ground. It's leverage.

Does a bike with short chainstays climb faster? Of course not. Does the front wheel feel light and lift and make the rider think his bike "wants" to climb? Yes.

$250,000?! Wogster, I don't think the small makers would drop that much on a single frame that might get destroyed on one ride.
I realize that custom frames were the norm years ago, but now I suspect they are the exception.
Figure 180 or more guys in the peloton, several bikes each rider, and you are talking hundreds of bikes.

CarynLea, interesting perspective. Marketing, eh?

bigjohn, if you had stuck with the focus of what these variations mean to average riders or even enthusiast riders, I would be very much in agreement with you. But respectfully, I think you are in way over your head in your assumptions about what matters and what makers do for the very top elite riders in the sport. Nobody is suggesting that every rider on every team gets custom made bikes. But the two or three top guys on the most ambitious and most successful teams? You bet your life they will drop some serious coin making sure the bikes they ride are built to exacting specifications to suit that rider. There is also a good chance that if you happen to ride a bike the same size as one of those guys, you are riding a bike optimized to his dimensions and preferences.

$250,000?! Wogster, I don't think the small makers would drop that much on a single frame that might get destroyed on one ride.
I realize that custom frames were the norm years ago, but now I suspect they are the exception.
Figure 180 or more guys in the peloton, several bikes each rider, and you are talking hundreds of bikes.

CarynLea, interesting perspective. Marketing, eh?

Yes you are talking hundreds of bikes, at least 2 per rider. If you really think that a racing team goes down the the local dealer and buys a production bike for a race like the TdF, then your smokin' some really bad weed and you need to find a better supplier then the local high school kid. :D

You can build a custom frame for under $1,000 fairly easily, what makes it expensive is the analysis that goes into the design of that frame. You take a pro-level rider you photograph him riding with high speed video cameras, maybe you stick him in a wind tunnel to see where there are aerodynamic deficiencies in the bicycle. You might build 10 frames before you get one where the dimensions are as good as your going to get. You may custom build nearly every part of that bicycle. There are two possible benefits, first is that a win of a major race like the TdF can generate many millions of dollars in sales. If your a racing poseur or even a serious rider, do you really want the bike that came in fourth? Second is that what you learn building and racing custom bikes can translate into better production bikes down the road.

Veering away from conflict of opinion here.........it seems we perseverate on such things as lugs vs. fillet brazed, or fork rake, or whatever, BUT our most crucial tool is in fact our personal bodies. The bike don't go by itself no matter how perfect the geometry. We should focus at least equally on diet, medical check-ups, rest, etc. or else the critical differences between a 41cm and 43cm chainstay is rather moot. :thumb:

O.K. I understand the concept of R&D and that it's expensive. I remember when they banned "works" bikes from motocross. They were supposed to cost over 100K each, lots of people working on them.
I'll buy that a few guys get that kind of treatment on a few of the teams in bicycle racing, but I would love it if someone would find a list or something saying how many of the guys ride production or pre-production frames.
The original question was about the length of chainstays. Does anyone have any study or data on how this length affects climbing?

In regard to the last post by '47, in bicycle racing, the body is the engine, and for us, at least, any good fitting road bike will work. I'm curious if someone could quantify the difference between a production frame and a one-off custom to a top pro. I'm sure there are racers who might have special fit needs, but I'll bet most of them can jump on any top bike and haul ass.

I never said chainstay length didn't matter. I just don't think it is a big factor in climbing, especially at our level. Of course it changes handling somewhat, as does wheelbase, rake and trail, bottom bracket height, etc.
I referred to the 4 road bikes I now own as 4 different examples of stay length. These frames were all built with different purposes in mind and the stay length is just a part of the design.
My other point was that the frames are so good now that it would seem pointless to make a one-off custom for most riders. I don't know if Specialized is making custom frames for Contador, but it seems that any gains to be made by doing so would be minimal, if any.
Yes, I know that in the past bikes were switched for descents and climbs and for different conditions, I just don't think it happens nearly as much anymore.

Bob, I would be curious to know where you heard that short stays climb better and any supporting data to go with it.

John I am sure I am like the OP in reading an article or two in Bicycling or when researching bike frames from vendors and accepting what they say as industry standard. Once someone has said there are advantages to short chainstays and then I see the manufacturers making their high performance bikes with short chainstays I just accepted it as the way things were. Yes I know there are comfort draw backs but I have a bike for comfort I wanted one to climb. When researching what frames to build or buy for climbing I run across sites that say things like: “Short chainstays don't have much sideways flex, so less energy is lost to frame movement while pedaling. Bikes with short chainstays usually climb and accelerate well.”
Look in the first and second paragraph in the following article.
http://www.mec.ca/Main/content_text.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198674153992&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302881789 (http://www.mec.ca/Main/content_text.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198674153992&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302881789)
I have also read road bike reviews like the following one:
http://www.roadbikereview.com/mfr/bh/road-bike/PRD_410370_5668crx.aspx (http://www.roadbikereview.com/mfr/bh/road-bike/PRD_410370_5668crx.aspx)
And then there are advertisements from bike suppliers:
http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/BI290A00-Jamis+Dakota+Sport+Bike+2008.aspx
So it should be easy to see how I could simply put the discussion out of my head an go from what everyone seems to be doing.
Do you have references I should read that contradict what the major manufacturers are doing or what the racers are using? If so I will happily read them even if I might not change my buying habits. I am looking for another performance frame and I imagine it will come with a short chainstay because that is what performance frames seem to have. I still don’t have a clue to why it seems to work.

Bob, thanks for taking the time to post the links.
No, I can't contradict those things and that was never my intent. I'm not going to say you will climb faster on a touring bike than you will on a race bike. I wonder, however, if you took a race bike and lengthened the stays by a couple cm, would any of us be able to tell when climbing?
I still don't subscribe to the flex robbing power theory.

I have some difficulty with the notion that quoting authority could or should yield the answer. This is a physics problem. I don't know the answer but a physics solution is the only approach that I can envision.

I have some difficulty with the notion that quoting authority could or should yield the answer. This is a physics problem. I don't know the answer but a physics solution is the only approach that I can envision.
I would tend to agree with you but I don’t think we are going to get that kind of answer. When I was into car racing and boat racing we could get Horsepower and torque figures to the wheels on cars and horse power to prop on boats. But it seems to be harder to get watts to wheel measurements for our bicycles.
However we can make some observations and base our selections on those observations. The manufacturers that have the technology to determine the advantages to chainstay length, Trek, Specialized, Giant, Lapierre, Felt, Look and others have been providing race bikes to their professional riders that have short chainstays. They have invested a lot of time and money in providing equipment to their riders that will give them every chance of winning climbing races. So I guess you could say you have observed the results of all of their research into the physics of short verses long chainstays. Maybe not short verses shorter but short verses long chainstays. Because with the Sworks team bike weighing in at 12.5 pounds so that they have to add weight to make them legal for racing. A long chainstay wouldn't be a problem with weight. Because even if you added .5 pounds per stay, highly unlikely, you still have to add weight to make the bike legal for racing.
Not proof and not a reason it works but simply an observation based on results of people who should know.

One thing wrong with your observed results theory is that you are assuming that the length of the stays is chosen solely to facilitate climbing. These bikes must also descend, corner, and be reasonably comfortable for the long haul. Some compromise must be considered in all dimensions, angles, etc.

It's not just about chainstay length. A time trial bike has shorter chainstays than the typical road bike yet they don't climb as well. For example, most pros would choose a road bike to race a TT up Alpe d'heuz over a TT bike. Weight is probably a factor as most TT bikes are a bit heavier but rider position is also less optimized for climbing.

One thing wrong with your observed results theory is that you are assuming that the length of the stays is chosen solely to facilitate climbing. These bikes must also descend, corner, and be reasonably comfortable for the long haul. Some compromise must be considered in all dimensions, angles, etc.

Perhaps, but one thing is for sure. If I am going to buy a light weight racing bike from any of the major manufacturers it seems that it will have a short Chainstay. And it seems as if the reason is what they have stated in the posted links I have sent. Don’t mean those links have the answer and that the manufacturers have it figured out but it does mean they believe they do and so they design their bikes to conform to that belief. Like I said they have a choice when they build the frames and they can make a short or long chainstay racing frame that comes in at the racing minimum for legal racing. Yet they choose to offer a shorter chainstay than a touring bike. I have a harder time believing they would invest that kind of money just to be like everyone else. And so far no one has given us any reason to believe a long chainstay would add any climbing ability nor that the stiffness factor is a non starter. Doubts to the truth of the statement have been expressed but no counter proofs have been give to show the longer option would require fewer watts or be as responsive to power input as a short chainstay.
It has become a formula that racing bikes have followed for some time now and that was the point I made earlier. I have read and posted examples of the suggestion that short chainstays climb better. I haven’t seen and advertisements or racing frames countering that statement. The only manufacturer that raises any question to the theory is Seven and they only do it because it is limiting their design options not because it isn’t a factor.
What is the contention here? Is someone saying that a long chainstay bike will climb as easily as a short chainstay and that there is no reason behind Trek and the rest for designing a TDF frame to climb the Alps with a short chainstay?
I freely admit I don’t know the answer but I also have said I see no reason to challenge current frame design as being wrong or irrelevant. Short chainstays may not be the only factor but is anyone willing to say they are not a factor at all? If so like I posted some references earlier, believe them or assume they are hyperbole, could someone point out a contradictory site that suggest chainstay length has no bearing on climbing at all between two equal bikes and riders?
Is there someone here that can say it makes no difference what length the chainstay is a bike of X weight will climb just as well using the same watts so matter how long it is? Perhaps a frame building site or a pro racer that can give us firsthand experience?

Perhaps, but one thing is for sure. If I am going to buy a light weight racing bike from any of the major manufacturers it seems that it will have a short Chainstay. And it seems as if the reason is what they have stated in the posted links I have sent. Don’t mean those links have the answer and that the manufacturers have it figured out but it does mean they believe they do and so they design their bikes to conform to that belief. Like I said they have a choice when they build the frames and they can make a short or long chainstay racing frame that comes in at the racing minimum for legal racing. Yet they choose to offer a shorter chainstay than a touring bike. I have a harder time believing they would invest that kind of money just to be like everyone else. And so far no one has given us any reason to believe a long chainstay would add any climbing ability nor that the stiffness factor is a non starter. Doubts to the truth of the statement have been expressed but no counter proofs have been give to show the longer option would require fewer watts or be as responsive to power input as a short chainstay.
It has become a formula that racing bikes have followed for some time now and that was the point I made earlier. I have read and posted examples of the suggestion that short chainstays climb better. I haven’t seen and advertisements or racing frames countering that statement. The only manufacturer that raises any question to the theory is Seven and they only do it because it is limiting their design options not because it isn’t a factor.
What is the contention here? Is someone saying that a long chainstay bike will climb as easily as a short chainstay and that there is no reason behind Trek and the rest for designing a TDF frame to climb the Alps with a short chainstay?
I freely admit I don’t know the answer but I also have said I see no reason to challenge current frame design as being wrong or irrelevant. Short chainstays may not be the only factor but is anyone willing to say they are not a factor at all? If so like I posted some references earlier, believe them or assume they are hyperbole, could someone point out a contradictory site that suggest chainstay length has no bearing on climbing at all between two equal bikes and riders?
Is there someone here that can say it makes no difference what length the chainstay is a bike of X weight will climb just as well using the same watts so matter how long it is? Perhaps a frame building site or a pro racer that can give us firsthand experience?

There is still the question of how long the idea of shorter stays means better climbing has been around, and whether it's been supplanted by bicycle technology developed since. A picture of the bike Eddy Merckx used for the hour record in 1972 has very short stays, so maybe the idea isn't a recent one. If it isn't a recent one, then another question begs an answer, have advances in materials and engineering negated the advantages of short stays, and now it's simply tradition that racing bikes have short stays. You would think if there was a real climbing advantage to short stays that mountain bikes, which sometimes have goat like climbing requirements would have even shorter stays, especially considering that they have often have smaller wheels and could have even shorter stays.

There is still the question of how long the idea of shorter stays means better climbing has been around, and whether it's been supplanted by bicycle technology developed since. A picture of the bike Eddy Merckx used for the hour record in 1972 has very short stays, so maybe the idea isn't a recent one. If it isn't a recent one, then another question begs an answer, have advances in materials and engineering negated the advantages of short stays, and now it's simply tradition that racing bikes have short stays. You would think if there was a real climbing advantage to short stays that mountain bikes, which sometimes have goat like climbing requirements would have even shorter stays, especially considering that they have often have smaller wheels and could have even shorter stays.

Very true, and when I was researching chainstay length some of the MTB sites have been touting their move towards shorter chainstays even with the limitations placed on them from having a suspension system.
The following is another article by a cycling source talking about chainstays. It also shows it isn’t simply a US bias.
http://www.australiancyclist.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=4537
“ B. Chainstay
From the centre of the rear axle to the centre of the bottom bracket. Longer chainstays add stability and comfort, shorter chainstays manoeuvrability. Short chainstay bikes are great for sprints and climbs. Long chainstay bikes are great downhill.”

Has anyone found such statements to be untrue?

As a relative newbie in the road biking world I've read this thread with a great deal of interest. But, after all the posts I'm left wondering: "So what?" In the mix of all the things that affect climbing I would think the single most important are rider weight and rider fitness. A lighter more fit rider on a "flexible bike", whatever that is, will outclimb a heavier, less fit rider on a "stiff bike", however that is defined.

Another thing I'm left wondering is just how "stiffness" is defined? Now I'm a newbie and only own two road bikes, both Carbon Fibre, but it seems to me neither has enough vertical flex in them to measure outside a laboratory. I also suspect my flex is a lot more than the bike's and a lot more important to the bike's performance.

From this thread and what I've read I suspect an awful lot of the flex fuss is marketing and fad following.