Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Deciding on a Bike....Beargrease Deore vs. ICT vs. Mukluk Deore vs. Farley 5

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
F

fatbikeNH

· Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Hi,

I'm new to the forums, and new to fat biking. I want to get a fat bike to ride in the winter on a mix of trails. I am not aware of any Trail grooming around here, so mostly ungroomed trails in the winter. I'd like to use the bike for casual trail riding in the summer, too.

As we all know, Fat Bike Inventory right now is brutal, really hard to find stuff. I've searched long and hard and finally found a few bikes in stock, in my size, now I need to decide what to get. Due to a combination of COVID, shipping, and inventory, test-riding is out the window.

I thought I was decided on the Beargrease, even though it's on the top of my spend limit (being new to this I'm unsure how much I'll get out so I don't want to sink a ton of money into whatever toy I get) at $2400. Seems like a slick, lightweight, nice bike. Then I started looking at the Surly ICT as I found one in stock, however, it it significantly (almost 10lbs) heavier than the Beargrease. I then found a Mukluk Deore in stock, and a Farley 5 in stock. The Mukluks and Farley are both cheaper than the bear grease, and also have the wider tires.

While price isn't the primary driver, the difference in tire sizes, and weight, concerns me. Seems to me that there is a ton of discussion around here regarding tire widths, and reducing weight, so I'd like to get that nailed as best as I can off the bat. I don't want to buy a bike with the need to add a second set of wheels/tires right away. I guess it comes down to, will I regret the narrower tires on the Beargrease (despite the lighter weight!) when I'm riding, or will I regret the heavier weight of the Farley 5 or Mukluk Deore, despite the wider tires? For sake of discussion I think I've ruled out the ICT, unless someone wants to convince me otherwise.

Thanks guys! Look forward to some good input!
 
#2 ·
I would avoid anything anything steel for a fatbike.

I have a beargrease with 4 inch tires and it works great in winter and in the summer.

My vote is Farley if you want the wider tire and beargrease if you can do the more narrow tire.

Beargrease is a “race bike” so it is pretty snappy. Farley is more of a cruiser. I’m not racing, but I value the snappy handling when I ride in the summer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#3 ·
Weight does not matter. There is FAR too much emphasis in weight on bikes in general, and it makes even less sense in fat biking. The Surly ICT comes with Bud and Lou, the virtual standard for snow riding. But Bud/Lou collectively add almost a pound and a half compared to other, more summer-able 4.8" tires and over 2.5 pounds when compared to a 4" tire. With that much variance in tire alone, you're doing yourself a disservice if you're concerned about a few pounds of weight, especially if you're comparing a steel bike (or any metal bike for that matter) to a carbon one. It isn't 10 pounds though, it's more like 2-3 for a similar build kit.

My suggestion: stick strictly to your budget. In normal times, a $1000 fat bike from Bikes Direct could be a great buy if you wanted an aluminum bike. Also, compare apples to apples. You can't compare a low end group bike with heavy tires to a racing bike with X01. Lighter ain't better if you spend all that money for the "light" bike and then have to add all the stuff they excluded to save weight. Tires for fat bikes are over $100 each, sometimes much more, so focus on what tires come with the bike unless you have the budget to change them. Decide if you want a 4" class bike or a 5" class bike and compare the available options. Also, some may dissent from this, but avoid 27.5 fat bikes entirely. They are for racing. For recreational use, 26 fat is still king.
 
#4 ·
I don't know if I necessarily agree w staying away from 27.5 (I have them on my fatty and they're great all around;).I'll stipulate I've never had a 26 fat bike to compare...) but I'd also add that availability might be a factor in your search. It was in mine (for the better). While getting better, bikes are still scarce. Places can't seem to stock them long enough...ymmv
 
Discussion starter · #5 ·
twodownzero said:
Weight does not matter. There is FAR too much emphasis in weight on bikes in general, and it makes even less sense in fat biking. The Surly ICT comes with Bud and Lou, the virtual standard for snow riding. But Bud/Lou collectively add almost a pound and a half compared to other, more summer-able 4.8" tires and over 2.5 pounds when compared to a 4" tire. With that much variance in tire alone, you're doing yourself a disservice if you're concerned about a few pounds of weight, especially if you're comparing a steel bike (or any metal bike for that matter) to a carbon one. It isn't 10 pounds though, it's more like 2-3 for a similar build kit.

My suggestion: stick strictly to your budget. In normal times, a $1000 fat bike from Bikes Direct could be a great buy if you wanted an aluminum bike. Also, compare apples to apples. You can't compare a low end group bike with heavy tires to a racing bike with X01. Lighter ain't better if you spend all that money for the "light" bike and then have to add all the stuff they excluded to save weight. Tires for fat bikes are over $100 each, sometimes much more, so focus on what tires come with the bike unless you have the budget to change them. Decide if you want a 4" class bike or a 5" class bike and compare the available options. Also, some may dissent from this, but avoid 27.5 fat bikes entirely. They are for racing. For recreational use, 26 fat is still king.
Click to expand...
Wow. This is all really good information. Thank you. Unfortunately, part of the comparisons are limited to what I can actually purchase and what is in stock. So with the slim pickings out there (and I will most likely have to get one shipped!) I have been limited to what is available. I appreciate the candor on sticking to budget, too. I feel that if I get the Mukluk for $1700, and a year or two I'm absolutely hooked on it and biking a a ton, I can sell it used and really thoroughly research a higher end bike that might check some of the boxes that I find I prefer. If I don't end up riding a ton, I won't carry as much guilt, knowing I spend what it cost to get into the activity, but not a ton more. I might have different thoughts in a similar situation with the beargrease. That said, is the Mukluk even a "summer-able" bike? My kid (7) started having fun on the local trails last summer and is looking forward to it again, obviously nothing serious or really technical, but I'm hoping I would be comfortable enough going along with him in whatever Fatty I get?
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
Pasta4lnch said:
I don't know if I necessarily agree w staying away from 27.5 (I have them on my fatty and they're great all around;).I'll stipulate I've never had a 26 fat bike to compare...) but I'd also add that availability might be a factor in your search. It was in mine (for the better). While getting better, bikes are still scarce. Places can't seem to stock them long enough...ymmv
Click to expand...
Yeah, availability and inventory is turning into a huge issue in my search. I've found exactly 1 Mukluk, ICT, and Beargrease (the Farley 5 I'm waiting to hear back on) in my size, and still confirming that they're willing to ship. So it's not like I'm standing at the dealer kicking the tires on a bunch and picking from the lot!!
 
#8 · (Edited)
The first one doesn't matter so much in my opinion. You don't know what you don't know in what you want in a fat bike. Amongst the ones available, pick the one that trips your trigger looks wise, is in your budget, and has good support from the shop. Riding that first fat will tell you what you want in a second bike. No way around that path of knowledge.

Since my riding isn't cutting edge for performance, any fat bike would work. I bought a Farley 5. The Farley 5 was available to me, was cheap, had looks/style I like, and had several shops in my area that supported it. It is nice that it came with tires I could put studs in.
Image
 
#9 ·
twodownzero said:
Weight does not matter. There is FAR too much emphasis in weight on bikes in general, and it makes even less sense in fat biking. The Surly ICT comes with Bud and Lou, the virtual standard for snow riding. But Bud/Lou collectively add almost a pound and a half compared to other, more summer-able 4.8" tires and over 2.5 pounds when compared to a 4" tire. With that much variance in tire alone, you're doing yourself a disservice if you're concerned about a few pounds of weight, especially if you're comparing a steel bike (or any metal bike for that matter) to a carbon one. It isn't 10 pounds though, it's more like 2-3 for a similar build kit.

My suggestion: stick strictly to your budget. In normal times, a $1000 fat bike from Bikes Direct could be a great buy if you wanted an aluminum bike. Also, compare apples to apples. You can't compare a low end group bike with heavy tires to a racing bike with X01. Lighter ain't better if you spend all that money for the "light" bike and then have to add all the stuff they excluded to save weight. Tires for fat bikes are over $100 each, sometimes much more, so focus on what tires come with the bike unless you have the budget to change them. Decide if you want a 4" class bike or a 5" class bike and compare the available options. Also, some may dissent from this, but avoid 27.5 fat bikes entirely. They are for racing. For recreational use, 26 fat is still king.
Click to expand...
lolwut?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dallas
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#10 ·
Lots to think about here... I've been on a 1st gen ICT for a handful of years now and ridden all of the bikes you mention except for the Farley. If you're riding ungroomed trails, I'd stick with something that can fit a 4.8, so throw out the Beargrease. It's a great bike but the others will do better in ungroomed snow, and they all have better general purpose geometry. I don't think you'd find any of them our of their element for trail duty too. Besides the wide bottom bracket on the early ICT, it's a serviceable bike in the summer. Slap a suspension fork and some 27.5+ or 29+ wheels on the Farley, ICT, or Mukluk and you'll have a pretty decent trail hardtail. The ICT being steel is a consideration, but it's pretty easy to keep it protected since it's ED coated on the inside. Just make sure it gets rinsed off if it gets salty and hit any chips with touch up paint or nail polish and you should be fine. Frame saver every few years doesn't hurt either. Of course that's more maintenance than AL or carbon, so it's good take that into account.
 
#11 ·
I have an ICT (my second one). I wore out the Bud and Lou's that came with it. I am running Studded Dillinger 5's for the winter (ice is the biggest reason, snow is fine on stock).

I plan on running Nates (3.8 inches) inches in the summer because I had a loaner ICT while mine was in the shop and it had Nates, dang it felt so quick and nimble even though it was still an ICT.

Tires make a huge difference.

Your price points, availability, and service IMO are all more important than the bikes weight.
 
#12 ·
Just a thought, but rider weight may also be worth considering when buying a fat bike. Given the same conditions, a 165lb rider will have a much different experience than a 225lb rider on the same bike. IMHO, lighter weight riders can easily run 4" tires in a lot of conditions and they normally enjoy have less rolling mass; while heavier riders will definately benefit from the float provided by wider tires and may not be as negatively impacted by the increased rolling mass. Again, just a thought that may be worth considering.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#13 ·
I'm also new to fat biking and basically had the same dilemma as you're currently having with availability. It just so happened that three weeks ago a retailer located about 90 minutes away from me had a Mukluk Deore 11 in my size (XL), so I grabbed it! While I'm still on the fence as to whether or not it's a bike that I'll want to ride for many years to come, it's most certainly getting me out on a number of different trails to experience what it's capable of doing. So far I'm really loving it! As newbie to fat biking, I think I would definitely look for something within your budget and go from there, for you're not likely to go wrong with any of them, IMHO.
 
#14 ·
fatbikeNH said:
Wow. This is all really good information. Thank you. Unfortunately, part of the comparisons are limited to what I can actually purchase and what is in stock. So with the slim pickings out there (and I will most likely have to get one shipped!) I have been limited to what is available. I appreciate the candor on sticking to budget, too. I feel that if I get the Mukluk for $1700, and a year or two I'm absolutely hooked on it and biking a a ton, I can sell it used and really thoroughly research a higher end bike that might check some of the boxes that I find I prefer. If I don't end up riding a ton, I won't carry as much guilt, knowing I spend what it cost to get into the activity, but not a ton more. I might have different thoughts in a similar situation with the beargrease. That said, is the Mukluk even a "summer-able" bike? My kid (7) started having fun on the local trails last summer and is looking forward to it again, obviously nothing serious or really technical, but I'm hoping I would be comfortable enough going along with him in whatever Fatty I get?
Click to expand...
I don't think you're going to end up wanting the "higher end bike." Snow fat biking isn't like regular mountain biking. You'll be glad to have super low gears and good tires when the conditions are really bad, and you'll be glad you're on a bike instead of on the couch. As much as I'd like to say I ride my fat bike a lot in the summer, I really don't other than when I need a good giggle.

I second the comments about Nates turning a bike with 5" class tires into a little rocket. Jumbo Jims even more so. Any fat bike with a 4" Jumbo Jim on it is summerable for sure.
 
#15 ·
I have both a Beargrease and an ICT. It is considerably more work to ride the ICT. That could be due to the much larger tires of the ICT or the 10 lbs of extra weight or both...I prefer my Beargrease in pretty much all conditions here in Central Wisconsin. I am 170 lbs so this may be different for a heavier rider...
 
#16 ·
yarbrough462 said:
I have both a Beargrease and an ICT. It is considerably more work to ride the ICT. That could be due to the much larger tires of the ICT or the 10 lbs of extra weight or both...I prefer my Beargrease in pretty much all conditions here in Central Wisconsin. I am 170 lbs so this may be different for a heavier rider...
Click to expand...
Ha! Another central WI guy........anywhere near Point?
 
#17 ·
Don't totally believe the weight don't matter on a fat bike. If it matters to you on your regular bikes it will probably matter on your fat bike. For me, I can tell the difference between my 21# bike and my 28# bike. I still often ride the heavier one for some of it's other attributes. And you can take it too far. I had the light one down at 19.4# but that took Juggernaut tires which just were not remotely enjoyable to ride. Now have D5s which are much better.
 
#19 ·
yarbrough462 said:
I'm in Point actually...I got my ICT from PABS and my Beargrease from Hostel Shoppe. It's nice to have two great shops in such a small town.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm very familiar with both of those shops. I've known Rolf (previous Hostel Shoppe owner) for many years, and I know Scott fairly well, too! I'm out in Amherst, so I'm not too far away from Point. It seems there are a few people on here from central WI.
 
#20 ·
jim_pridx said:
Yeah, I'm very familiar with both of those shops. I've known Rolf (previous Hostel Shoppe owner) for many years, and I know Scott fairly well, too! I'm out in Amherst, so I'm not too far away from Point. It seems there are a few people on here from central WI.
Click to expand...
Scott sold me my Beargrease and my wife's Roubaix road bike. I am more of a mountain biker than a fat biker so I haven't come across anyone else from the area until today. At least that I know of...
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
About this Discussion
47 Replies
26 Participants
Last post:
CanuckMountainMan
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