I’ve been really enjoying conquering hills lately on my fixed-gear commuter, and I’ve started entertaining an idea of building a second lightweight fixed-gear bike specifically for climbing big hills. Gearing aside, how should I size the frame for this? My current bike’s stated size is 56cm (redline 9-2-5 with drops and 10cm stem) and it fits well for riding in the drop or on hoods. I like to be out of the saddle a lot when climbing, and I was thinking perhaps a shorter top tube (53-54cm range) and time-trial bars instead of drops? Am I on the right track? Would a smaller frame be better for climbing out of the saddle? Thanks!

I wouldn't want time trial bars at all. I would want something wide and stable that would give good leverage. For me that would be wide (46cm at my height) shallow road drops with aero levers for the hood position. If you are comfortable on your current bike, I see no reason to change the size.

Why change anything? Put a different gear on the other side of the flip flop hub and you're done. I ride my fixed commuter in the mountains and it's a lot of fun. Lately, it's been the only bike I've been riding. Short rides, long rides, flat rides, hilly rides. They're all fun. No need for specialized bikes.

Az

What do you mean by big hills? For the really big hill I took the steel bar off my Pista and put a aluminum road bar with less drop. My hillclimb bikes are the same as my flatland bikes as far as size, stem etc...

Really big hill:

https://www.mountwashingtonautoroad.com/

For climbing you need a light bike with whatever gear ratio will get you there. Aero wheels, aero bars, etc. mean nothing when climbing. You will put a lot of stress on your stem and handlebars when climbing so don't skimp there and you'll most definitely be putting a lot of torque on your cranks, too.

It's important to relax and sit upright when climbing; don't point your toes, breathe deep, exhale deep, don't tense up. Only get out of the saddle occasionally to give your muscles a break. Seated pedalling is more efficient. You don't want a gear ratio that requires you to be out of the saddle in order to turn the cranks.

+1

Unless you're Marco Pantani, there's no reason to get a smaller frame for climbing.

I think he meant time trial bars as in bullhorns for climbing leverage, not aerobars or whatever. I wouldn't do this, bullhorns aren't as stiff as drops unless you do steel or carbon. Stiff bars are a huge advantage in climbing, beefier drops could be a good investment.

If you don't currently have good, comfortable brake hoods on your drops, that's where I'd start. I like the cane creek SCR-5/Tektro R200A (same product), some will like the more pointy classic aero levers, Shimano still makes some. You could futz with your stem length and bar height, but other than that there's not a whole lot of climbing-specific setup to be done if your bike fits you on the flats and you aren't in the TdF.

I wouldn't change the bike at all save for bullhorns. In my experience, the extra leverage over track drops was substantial, however I wasn't using hoods on the track drops. You'll likely need a shorter stem when running bullhorns.

uhhhh yes they are. Maybe the $12 nashbar ones aren't but in general they are as stiff or stiffer then drops.

Newer TT stuff may be better, but I'm not satisfied with the stiffness of any of the Nitto, Syntace, or Profile bullhorns I've ridden. Agreed that nashbar etc... are much worse. From an engineering standpoint given comparable material and manufacturing quality it's just a matter of how long of a 6061 or 7075 tube you have pointing out into space, and for a bullhorn it's always going to be longer than for the hoods of a drop bar. Down in the drops is a different story of course, but unless you get super deep drop horns and a tiny stem the bullhorn position is much more comparable to the hoods.

I was just doing short climb intervals on my fixed on Wed. and was thinking about this.

Climbing is about getting oxygen. When sitting and standing you want your lungs/chest open so you can breath freely and take in all the air you need. I think any bike set up correctly allows this for the seated position.

For standing, the handlebar postion becomes more of a factor. With bullhorns have you slightly lean over the bar. It reminds me of the guy in the Triplets of Bellevue movie.

I think it is more efficient to use your hoods to climb. Your torso is more upright, your chest is more open. I also like having my weight more over the bottom bracket. The bike seems to just climb better.

But like anything else, everyone has their preference. Luckily swpping bars isn't that time consuming.

I would be more worried about getting down that mountain on a fixed!! I would use a flip/flop with a freewheel and front/rear brakes for something that extreme.

Of course it is. If there were any effective value to not having hoods during a mountain climb, than time trial-style bars would have been adopted by the pros long ago.

Thanks for all the replies. I have Tektro/CaneCreek hoods, and they are very comfortable. My only gripe is that my bike is heavy due to all the commuting junk attached to it. I use Ritchey WCS classic drops, which I find very comfortable. They are light (triple-butted), but they also flex a lot. The BB shell & chainstays flex a lot too. Finally, the frame/stem fit is good for high-cadence spinning and being aero, and it feels OK when standing up, but I feel perhaps too stretched out for climbs in the saddle.

OK, who am I kidding! I'm trying to rationalize building another bike...

You can never have enough bikes!

7 bikes is the minimum.

Road, beater road, fixed commuter, fixed with fenders, Full suspension MTB, Hard Tail, Fixed MTB, Track bike. Coffee bike.

i think if handle bar width is accepted norm to increase leverage when climbing. crank length as well. depending on beliefs. ie i just read lemond likes 155 cranks now. who knows if that's true.
then i absolutely feel frame size can affect climbing assuming low cadence approach.
stem length. stem protrusion. as well.
all leverage points. adding up.
to say evidence doesn't exist to support this is naive.

if someone's norm size is 58 cm. jump on a 54 cm bike and attack your local steep hill. trust me you will have to work harder

Hopefully in 18 years the OP has figured a solution. Unfortunately I think all of the people who posted in this thread are long gone.

lol. let's hope we can still contribute. frame sizing topic seems to be picking up again.