[abbike18]

How does the Nomad climb with such a slack seat tube angle? I can't find another 6" bike with such a slack seat tube angle, so I am concerned it may feel awkward on steep seated climbs. Can anyone who has a bunch of trail riding experience on this bike comment on how it is on steep, in the saddle climbing?

Thanks!

 

[MrPedals]

What bike are you used to riding? I have been riding Nomads since 2006 and I can safely say that you can climb up just about anything. I run a 50mm stem, and I feel like that makes a big difference in the way a bike handles, so keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that the Nomad was essentially built for the guys at SC bikes that rode VPfree's with a shorter stroke shock on XC rides. So if you are riding a regular XC bike then any version of the Nomad will feel oaf-ish. The Nomad's key to climb-ability is the fact that it has a longer than average chainstays. Current specs from SC website are Wheelbase,45" and Chainstays 17.4" for a Large frame. Compare that to Specialized Enduro 46.6" Wheelbase and 16.5" chainstays, you can see that the cockpit on the SC will be shorter but the bike will be less "snappy" in the corners. This will also make the Nomad more stable at high speed and on steep climbs.
Here's what I think:

Gen1 Nomad with straight 1 1/8 headtube was awesome, the cockpit was slightly cramped, but not too bad, the bike wanted to wander a bit when it got steep, but it was very managable. I could climb up stuff that was hard to walk down due to it's steepness.

Gen1.5 Nomad was a little bit worse. It felt like they just slapped a 1.5 headtube on it, changed the seat angle slightly and called it a day. It essentially shortened the top tube enough that steep climbs were a bit more of a struggle. I could still climb up just about everything in my area, but it wasn't as effortless as my original Nomad.

Gen2 Nomad is slightly longer toptube to compensate for the 1.5 headtube, and again they changed the seat angle slightly. I can safely say that it is a very welcome change. The bike does everything effortless again, and climbing is better than the original, as well as cornering and overall stiffness, and it's lighter too.

 

[sanjuro]

Also, a TALAS fork will drop the front end, steepening the seat angle, my guess 2-3 degrees.

 

[woodsguy]

Lowering the fork 20mm steepens the bike 1 degree.

 

[I.van]

Seat Tube angle is going to be a personal preference, like most bike measurements, as it's impact will depend on your saddle height and leg dimensions, but.....

I had a "AM" bike with a 71 STA and didn't like the feeling of being so far behind the BB. So I lowered the fork and moved my seat forward a bit to improve it to an effective 72.5 STA, which felt much better. I still think the Ideal angle, fro me anyway, is around 73.

 

[oldfart]

I have a Nomad C and it climbs just fine. I rode a couple very steep climbs last night. Something like 30 -40 % grades in places according to my Garmin. I know people that are not able to ride them in any gear or any bike. The limiting factor is wheel weight. The bike would climb better with lighter wheels and tires. But that's not what my bike is about. I may change the rims to the new Stan's Arch once available to drop about 100 grams off each wheel which would be damn significant. But we'll see.

People talk about seat angle as if it isn't possible to move the seat back and forth on the rails. Most people set the saddle so the knee is more or less over the pedal spindle at the farthest forward position. Rocky Mountain has their "straight up" geometry with a super steep 75 degree (I think) seat angle. Throw on a set back seat post and push the saddle all the way back and the effective seat angle is much less. Take a 73 angled frame and a zero offset post and push the saddle all the forward and then what is the "effective" seat angle? And as IVan says, personal preference and dimensions also play a roll.

 

[I.van]

I have a Nomad C and it climbs just fine. I rode a couple very steep climbs last night. Something like 30 -40 % grades in places according to my Garmin. I know people that are not able to ride them in any gear or any bike. The limiting factor is wheel weight. The bike would climb better with lighter wheels and tires. But that's not what my bike is about. I may change the rims to the new Stan's Arch once available to drop about 100 grams off each wheel which would be damn significant. But we'll see.

People talk about seat angle as if it isn't possible to move the seat back and forth on the rails. Most people set the saddle so the knee is more or less over the pedal spindle at the farthest forward position. Rocky Mountain has their "straight up" geometry with a super steep 75 degree (I think) seat angle. Throw on a set back seat post and push the saddle all the way back and the effective seat angle is much less. Take a 73 angled frame and a zero offset post and push the saddle all the forward and then what is the "effective" seat angle? And as IVan says, personal preference and dimensions also play a roll.

I agree to an extent.

There's only so much you can move a seat fore/aft before you risk breaking the seat during riding, and the taller you are, the bigger adjustment you going to need to make to achieve an angle change. I would prefer a too steep SA rather than a too slack SA, because as you've mentioned, you can just use a setback seat post to effectively slacken the angle.

Just thinking about it some more, and realized that moving your spd cleats will also have an impact on your climbing position.