Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

To all you seasoned fat bikers - some input please

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
B

Billum V2.0

· Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Wanting to give a fatbike a go.

Am a long time dedicated road biker (5k + miles annually), own a Trek Superfly aluminum 29er that I maybe put 100 miles on annually. Completely ignorant to the fat bike world, but am intrigued. Other roadies are touting the experience, especially compared to hours and hours and hours on a trainer. In the house. Over our extended Iowa winters.

55 yrs. old, 150 lbs., 34" inseam, long arms.

And so to my questions. Unless completely bitten, a fat bike will be a dedicated winter/snow ride. Have hundreds of miles of dedicated rail to trail paths at my disposal less than a mile from front door, but they haven't resulted in my 29er seeing any additional miles. Have even more miles of groomed x-country ski/snow mobile trails. Elevation gains are measured in inches, so the need for any suspension is nil.

Road bikes/components/tires have been sorted for decades. From the research I've done, your sport seems to change specs with each model year, especially dropout/hub/axle/rim/bottom bracket dimensions. How "fat" a fat tire is appears to change weekly, with re-engineering of stays/forks/hubs/drivetrain alignments close behind. 170 mm, nope - 190 mm, nope - sorry - lets go 197mm. Until Thursday.

I narrowed down my choices to a couple complete bikes. Both 150mm thru axle carbon forks (no "squish" needed or wanted), both 190 mm rears - all aluminum frames. Hubs are comparable (weak link in both from what I can see), X5/X7 drivetrains, better rims on one, better brakes on the other. I've done the upgrade thing many times with road bikes, would like to avoid with exception of cockpit/tires.

Was planning on buying one or the other this week, but with the speed of evolution going on right now in your sport, the lack of any "standard" and 2016 models on the horizon, don't want to end up with another Betamax tape player and become obsolete before the first pedal turn.

If it were your $1,500.00, what would you do?

Thanks
 
#2 ·
Billum V2.0 said:
Wanting to give a fatbike a go.

Am a long time dedicated road biker (5k + miles annually), own a Trek Superfly aluminum 29er that I maybe put 100 miles on annually. Completely ignorant to the fat bike world, but am intrigued. Other roadies are touting the experience, especially compared to hours and hours and hours on a trainer. In the house. Over our extended Iowa winters.

55 yrs. old, 150 lbs., 34" inseam, long arms.

And so to my questions. Unless completely bitten, a fat bike will be a dedicated winter/snow ride. Have hundreds of miles of dedicated rail to trail paths at my disposal less than a mile from front door, but they haven't resulted in my 29er seeing any additional miles. Have even more miles of groomed x-country ski/snow mobile trails. Elevation gains are measured in inches, so the need for any suspension is nil.

Road bikes/components/tires have been sorted for decades. From the research I've done, your sport seems to change specs with each model year, especially dropout/hub/axle/rim/bottom bracket dimensions. How "fat" a fat tire is appears to change weekly, with re-engineering of stays/forks/hubs/drivetrain alignments close behind. 170 mm, nope - 190 mm, nope - sorry - lets go 197mm. Until Thursday.

I narrowed down my choices to a couple complete bikes. Both 150mm thru axle carbon forks (no "squish" needed or wanted), both 190 mm rears - all aluminum frames. Hubs are comparable (weak link in both from what I can see), X5/X7 drivetrains, better rims on one, better brakes on the other. I've done the upgrade thing many times with road bikes, would like to avoid with exception of cockpit/tires.

Was planning on buying one or the other this week, but with the speed of evolution going on right now in your sport, the lack of any "standard" and 2016 models on the horizon, don't want to end up with another Betamax tape player and become obsolete before the first pedal turn.

If it were your $1,500.00, what would you do?

Thanks
Click to expand...
trek farley 5. best bang for your buck.
 
#4 ·
A rant, on a little sidenote: A bike is never obsolete. Especially if you don't want/have to upgrade.

I was listening to an interview on the radio with an ex TDF-roadie (your sport actually). He came on his bike to the studio on which he won the TDF some 20 years ago. The show host was totally in disbelief. The ex TDF-winner said he still could go fast enough on that bike, just as 20 years ago. It got me thinking of how all advances in technique has improve our sport, but that it's still all about the engine eventually!


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met behulp van Tapatalk
 
#6 ·
Billum V2.0 said:
...Was planning on buying one or the other this week, but with the speed of evolution going on right now in your sport, the lack of any "standard" and 2016 models on the horizon, don't want to end up with another Betamax tape player and become obsolete before the first pedal turn.

If it were your $1,500.00, what would you do?...
Click to expand...
Buy a Pugsley.

Surlys remain constant and don't flip fashions for the sake of it, and lots of ordinary bits fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loneviking
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#8 ·
For what you're describing, even a first-generation Pugsley will work fine. 170 spacing, fine. 190 spacing, fine. Find something that fits you and makes you want to get out and ride, and then ride the crap out of it and don't worry about the various standards.

-Walt
 
#9 ·
Billum V2.0 said:
solar;

Thanks for input, let me clarify my long winded question..............

Not looking for specific bike direction, rather, will I be better served by waiting out to make a buy until the industry finds some kind of standardization?
Click to expand...
I understand the desire for standardization, but if you are buying a bike to actually use, buy one and use it and don't worry about new trends.
 
#11 ·
Billum V2.0 said:
solar;

Thanks for input, let me clarify my long winded question..............

Not looking for specific bike direction, rather, will I be better served by waiting out to make a buy until the industry finds some kind of standardization?
Click to expand...
The bike underneath you won't suddenly stop functioning just because something in the industry starts to shift - you know this.
 
Discussion starter · #12 ·
Appreciate the various replies. Mini, another month on the trainer may in fact cut through the cr@p and over thinking.

I've ridden road since the early 80's (toe straps/friction down tube shifters/etc.). Excluding the advent of carbon fames themselves, most all technological advances in the road world could be applied to 10 year old frames.

I'm too ignorant to want or need cutting edge in a fat bike, but want to avoid obsolescence/difficulty finding spares in a year or two.

Thanks.
 
#14 ·
As said, 170 and 190 are here to stay. Some 170s can take 5" tires, but they almost never accommodate more than 1 ring up front with that setup. 190 is more flexible obviously, but you are going to have a much wider bottom bracket most likely, due to the required spread for the front chainrings. Whatever you do, get one that can run tubeless and take 5" tires (which are really 4.5-4.8 or so on wide rims), the cush and traction at low PSI is worth it in the snow. Really, apart from those considerations, everything else is just personal preference and what you are ok with. The important parts are the wheels (hub size and rim), tires, and crankset (width and 1x or 2x, etc).
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#15 ·
Billum V2.0 said:
solar;

Thanks for input, let me clarify my long winded question..............

Not looking for specific bike direction, rather, will I be better served by waiting out to make a buy until the industry finds some kind of standardization?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry too much.

If you're the worrying type, maybe choose your hubs and other 'risky' parts with maintenance and repairability in mind, i.e. hubs that take easily replaceable bearings or are made by companies that already have a diverse line-up or have modular set-ups. I mean, Hope seems to have an end cap for every possible axle set-up.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#16 ·
Billum V2.0 said:
solar;

Thanks for input, let me clarify my long winded question..............

Not looking for specific bike direction, rather, will I be better served by waiting out to make a buy until the industry finds some kind of standardization?
Click to expand...
Wait it out...
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#17 ·
Since he's a long time road biker, the 190 rear end and wider Q factor might bug him. And with no vertical or descents, a slack head angle isn't going to help him either. No height listed, but with a 34" inseam, I'll guess around 6'.

If you're only looking for snow rides, drop down in size. You'd probably be a standard 19" large frame, but in snow, that's asking for trouble. Trouble as in the top tube hitting the boys when you sink into 4" of fresh powder. Check out Fatback, they have an 18" frame that you can fit if I guessed your height right. The geometry is more your speed as well. They only make 190 frames now, but search the web, you'll find a 170 bike without a problem, and it should be in your $1500 price range.
 
#18 ·
Agreed. Forget standards, find a bike that you like the color and fit of, from a shop that you like, and ride the snot out of it.

Still hung up on standards?

Go Surly Pugsley. All the parts on that bike come from preexisting standards. 135 hub, 100 mm DH bottom bracket, 1 1/8" straight steerer/headtube etc. The only non preexisting "standards" thing is the rims and tires, which is why you're buying it in the first place, and I don't see those going anywhere.
 
#20 · (Edited)
I think the 150 front hub standard is set. (thanks Bluto!) Lots of bikes still coming out with 170/7 and 190/7 rear ends. Both have high quality hub manufacturers backing the size. Buy today, enjoy the bike, parts will be available. Stop in at Rasmussens, they have everything you need in stock and ready to test ride.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
About this Discussion
25 Replies
23 Participants
Last post:
cale76
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion