This time a couple of years ago I was a winch and plummet kind of rider but since getting a rigid fat bike – stick with me – I have really got into going uphill.

Something about the fat bike encourages going uphill in big gears and I can climb really fast (swoons). Standing up feels much more comfortable than any other bike I’ve ridden and I’m looking for another bike that is an uphill animal but more conventional e.g. a thin tyred 29r

What characteristics am I looking for?

Is it the size (XL and a road bike-esque riding position)
Is it because the big tyres don’t get choked on obstacles
Is it because it’s rigid (low front end, no bobbing, lots of forward motion)
Is it the geometry (the fat bike is 69/73 degrees head/seat angle, 1200 mm wheelbase (lol) 465 mm chainstays, 454 mm reach)

No particular bikes in mind at this stage I just want to get an idea of what’s important

Ta

Not a lot of help, but I know what you mean. My fatbike (especially in rigid guise) is the most fun bike to climb on. Unfortunately I’ve never found another bike that came close and I’ve tried a few full suss and hardtails (26 and 29). I suspect it’s a combination of the tyres (loads of traction), the geometry and the rigid nature of the bike though.

fitness trumps any bike characteristic..

Not sure, but the bike that will always stick out to me is the Spec 29er Epic carbon. It was the easiest bike to climb on and, for once, I actually enjoyed climbing. I actively looked for climbs, technical or long, to test the bike. I’ve owned a a fat bike and it was a reasonable climber, but not ‘fun’ like the Epic.

On my fatbike I find I’m encouraged and rewarded by seated climbing. So much so it’s become a habit, even though on a road bike I’m a more out off the saddle climber.

In terms of my HTs, I posted this following on the Karate Monkey thread:

I took my ‘posh steel’ (853) HT out yesterday on a route I last did on my KM Ops.

Yes, it was lighter and more agile (the latter aided by being a smaller size too). But I missed the comfort of the KM at times.

There is a fair weight difference too but funnily enough on the steepest climb I did, as its very bumpy, the lighter bike was harder work to keep on line.

Good thread. I don’t know the geo requirements but I can say what I like/don’t like

A front end that doesn’t require stupid amounts of leaning forward to prevent the front wheel lifting. Having to do that is a pain because a) it means the rear wheel becomes unweighted and spins and b) when I’m racing I’m so shattered I can very rarely stand on the pedals.

It’s probably a complicated interplay between length, bar/saddle drop, seat angle and chainstay length coupled with stem length and seatpost set back.

nice stiff frame and big wide bars help me when riding uphill out of the saddle.

narrow dropped bars and narrow road tyres make me wobble all over the place. maybe that is because I am twice the weight of a TDF climber.

I appreciate the benefits of fat bikes tyres for climbing but aren’t the downsides outweighing those benefits (for climbing) ?

I rarely see fat bike riders being very efficient/quick uphill. They seem to really struggle compared to “normal” bikes overall.

For me geo and limited weight are the most important thing and 2.35 tyre width seems the sweet spot with good technique.

the lighter bike was harder work to keep on line

Agreed there’s a weight/stability balance

nice stiff frame and big wide bars

Good point the fattie is supremely stiff

So do we think that stiff (possibly rigid) nimble 29r is going to be a better climbing machine than a low-slung insanely grippy fat bike?

Uphill, I’d expect the overall weight of the bike and rider will determine the time to ascend, for two riders of equal fitness over anything but a very short climb. The steeper the climb, the slower the weightier combo should be.

It probably gets a bit more “it depends” when the terrain means there is a risk of losing traction, in which case the fat tyres should help in combination with a low centre of gravity for the fat wheels.

On the road, I’m definitely quicker uphill on my new road bike than my skinnified Wazoo, but then the Cube is ~2Kg lighter (~9 vs 11) and the difference is not as much as I expected eg. up Chessel Avenue (0.4 miles, 5% average grade) its 2mins2secs vs 2min10secs having done a sharp right to enter Garfield.
And things are a bit more muddied in the above comparison because I’ve gone from ~76Kg to ~78Kg, due to serious food cravings after 20+ mile rides. 😳

Angle of the seat tube and suspension characteristics for me is very important.

My Capra climbs very well yet its a slack “Enduro” type of bike.
So that’s down to its geometry.

My Scott Spark climbs well, but its got adjustable suspension, so you can turn it into a ridged bike or 85mm travel bike.

My Capra climbs very well yet its a slack “Enduro” type of bike.
So that’s down to its geometry.

My Scott Spark climbs well, but its got adjustable suspension, so you can turn it into a ridged bike or 85mm travel bike.
Which one would you say is better i.e which one responds the best to your efforts?

I appreciate the benefits of fat bikes tyres for climbing but aren’t the downsides outweighing those benefits (for climbing) ?

I rarely see fat bike riders being very efficient/quick uphill. They seem to really struggle compared to “normal” bikes overall.

Not sure where you ride, but unless it’s tarmac or very smooth, the fatbike (Puffin) works well and gets better the rubblier, rootier and techier it is. I’ve got PRs up 10 minute hardpack/gravel/roots climbs I’ve ridden on all sorts of bikes up.

I rode 106 miles of Lakes at the weekend, I thought I might suffer with the drag and the weight, but you can just motor up stuff (and get away with more on the way down). It was noticeably heavier than the 29ers of the 2 I was riding with, and had a higher bottom gear, but I definitely had an easier time up the hills.

When you’re going slow, you’re using a lot of energy to balance with, to adjust your weight, find traction, unweight over obstacles that threaten to stall you. If you can halve (? more?) that energy output because your tyres do it for you, you can put more into going forwards and upwards.

And if you’re on really techy stuff, that’s maybe 50 yards of linked thrutchy trials moves, where any one of them might stall you, spin the back out and leave you walking for the rest, the fatbike’s going to boost your chance on each move by a huge amount and your chances of getting to the top without walking.

There will be a tipping point, and I would like to know where that is. So far it’s eluded my attempts to find it! SDW?

Carbon 29er HT, stiff and actually designed with climbing fast in mind.
Only problem is once you ride a properly fast bike all other bikes seem slow.

When you’re going slow, you’re using a lot of energy to balance with, to adjust your weight, find traction, unweight over obstacles that threaten to stall you. If you can halve that energy output because your tyres do it for you, you can put more into going forwards and upwards.

And if you’re on really techy stuff, that’s maybe 50 yards of linked thrutchy trials moves, where any one of them might stall you, spin the back out and leave you walking for the rest, the fatbike’s going to boost your chance on each move by a huge amount and your chances of getting to the top without walking.Totally agree

Do you think it’s mostly the tyres then

The best climbing bike I have by miles is a 130mm FS with 27.5×3 tyres.

But then, it does have an engine, so….

(More seriously…)

I find the fat bike easier to climb than it’s weight and big tyres would suggest, but I don’t know if that’s because I’m happy just sitting and spinning in a more relaxed position than my racier bikes rather than any mechanical advantage it’s giving me

Do you think it’s mostly the tyres then

Huge factor, I reckon, but they help in all sorts of ways. They help with traction in the same way that suspension does – by soaking up bumps and keeping the wheels in contact with the ground, but because the big tyre is undamped suspension, you get that energy back and you can bounce from line to line. Rigid fork gives you the precision to pick up and place the front wheel without having to compress and pick it up through damped fork travel.

Then there’s the contact patch, which gives you the obvious benefit of getting more power to the ground, but also a much bigger area to balance over, those micro-trackstand-and-lunge moves are easier to control and easier to deliver. it all keeps you on the bike and moving up, and using less energy to do it.

Your point 1: Frame size – I dunno. My bike’s too small or me really, I’m 6′ near enough on a medium. I’d like to try a large.

because the big tyre is undamped suspension, you get that energy back and you can bounce from line to line

Hmm hadn’t really though of that but it rings true. My other bikes want to stop when I’m climbing but the fattie has this urge to keep going. I guess the momentum plays a part as well.

Rigid fork gives you the precision to pick up and place the front wheel without having to compress and pick it up through damped fork travel.

It does indeed just point and shoot

I didn’t want the thread to become a fat bike love-in I’m looking for a new bike dammit 🙂

Well for speed a very light single speed with rigid forks and well matched gearing work very well provided the gearing is spot on ie high enough to be hard work but low enough you don’t descend into stupid level grinding.

Ignoring speed the same bike is great – you won’t get KOMs grinding away at 20rpm and nearly dying but you will become stronger as well as have (retrospective) fun.

I think seat angle is a massive influence – I’ve swopped both my full suss & hardtail for heavier, slacker, longer-forked bikes, but clinbing is way easier on both.

long chainstays

steep seat tube angle

perky suspension (anti-squat or platform shock)

I wrote this below before I took a phone call – wot adsh and george sed, essentially!

I didn’t want the thread to become a fat bike love-in I’m looking for a new bike dammit

Ha!

The other bike I have that loves to climb is my late 90s skinny steel rigid SS 26er. Light, springy, it always seems to give back more than I put in. Less point and shoot, more pin it and try to stay on top of the gear! The Dekerf lets me do it, though, and makes it fun.

Don’t know whether this is the compliance thing again, but frame rather than the fat tyres. ?

Having said all that, the latest trends of having a seattube as steep as anything and a slack front end do seem to give you a great climbing bike that’s more than handy downhill too. Not ridden one, but I’d love to swing a leg over.

This:

😆

I think it’s steep angles (both head and seat) that makes the most difference. And less suspension. My rigid bike is 71/74 I think and I love climbing on that. Mostly because I can move about and heave on the bars far more than I ever would on a suspension bike. That’s why I like riding it so mcuh despite having to mince down many climbs.

chapaking>> long chainstays

steep seat tube angle
Interesting, I think one can have too much of that. Fine when there is grip, but on low-grip climbs you need to get most of the weight on the rear wheel to avoid spinning, and the gradient may not be that steep. For me, there is definitely a sweet spot. When I rode 26″ wheel bikes they had a tendency to wheelie but were good for grip, with longer 29″ wheel chainstays I find my weight position is about right – not too much crouching down for the really steep, but if I throw my shoulders back I can find grip on the greasy stuff. (I am a a smidge under 6′ high with relatively short legs.) That is sitting down, standing up (eg singlespeed) is different. I can see that taller riders might appreciate even longer chainstays though.

molgrips – Member
I think it’s steep angles (both head and seat) that makes the most difference.

Don’t think head angle makes much difference to climbing, tbh

If you really want another bike and it can’t be fat, how about a 29+ ? Something rigid, with a nice stiff frame (I reckon stiffness is more important than weight for climbing), nice light wheels and a steepish (74-75 degree) seat angle should do the trick.

Two wheels, pedals and some sort of drive train are probably enough 😉

Don’t think head angle makes much difference to climbing, tbh

Depends on the climb innit.

Riding my Patriot on steep climbs what holds me back is that somehow I just don’t feel like it. Doesn’t make me want to strive to put power down because it’s somehow unsatisfying.

I put this down (on that particular bike) to slack seat angle.

I’d think it’s other aspects of the patriot (weight, seat angle, suspension bob etc) that are causing the issue.

I said seat angle. Unless you mean saddle angle.

But I’m convinced seat angle matters.

For me, its a little to do with how the bike rides on the way to the hill. If a bike encourages me to go flat out on the way to the hill then I might struggle a bit more to get up it as I’m already working hard. If the bike has a more relaxed attitude then I’m more inclined to bimble along at a steady pace and hit the hill feeling much fresher.

Interesting, I think one can have too much of that. Fine when there is grip, but on low-grip climbs you need to get most of the weight on the rear wheel to avoid spinning,

I kind of meant in conjunction with long chainstays.

You don’t have to do any of that shuffling back and forward to maintain traction then.