Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Cannondale Lefty with Project 321 adjustable clamps.
Marzocchi Shiver SC (long discontinued, sometimes on eBay)
Some other double-crown downhill forks (that would mostly be too tall/too much travel for existing fat frames).
Maverick SC32 and DUC32 as mentioned. The DUC won't fit as wide rims as the SC will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Andy FitzGibbon said:
That is a Groove 200 reduced to 130 mm.
You wouldn't want to put that Groove on a "single" bike, it weighs a ton... German-A and Sandman are working together on a suspension fork: an adapted version of the Flame USD model. It weighs the same as an SC32.
Compared to the series model it will have an adapted, wider crown for Surly tires on rims up to 80mm wide, 90mm travel, no travel reduction and tool-less removal of the wheel. They're still debating wether to use a proprietary axle or supply spacers for let's say a Hope 20mm through axle.
I've been testing one for some weeks now and it's incredibly stiff and works like it should, here's a view on a ride in Luxemburg we did last week.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
tscheezy said:
None of those are true fat bikes. They are merely plump.
Not sure what you mean... define "true fat bike" ?

Edit : the bikes in the picture can take up to a 100mm rim in the rear, "truer" fatbikes you'll be hard pressed to find ;-). How fat you want to go with your personal ride is a question of intended use and taste: the above bikes are meant for fast & efficient travel over rough terrain, the 47mm rims, dropper seatpost, big brakes and the sus forks perfectly fit that role. I can easily do 6000ft+ days with it in the mountains and smile all the way up & down. I wouldn't be able to do that with 100mm rims.
If I'd decide to go live above the pole circle, I'd probably invest in a second set of wheels and maybe a stiff fork (and ditch my big ring during the winter months).

If I'd want a bit of both worlds, I'd put in rims between 65 and 80mm (and keep these sus forks). The heart of a "true" fatbike is the frame, and all current ones marketed as such can handle fat rims I think. The spec list depends on what you want to do with it and can be changed/swapped easily. That's like discussing colors, tastes, religion or politics ;-) !
Me, I'm getting rid of all my bikes (anyone interested in a nice Marin Mount Vision and a ti Rohloff bike, both in XL ?) and invest in two more wheelsets: a set of narrow rimmed 29" wheels for communting and those really muddy rides, and a set of 80mm rims for the soft stuff and bike park rides. One bike, which does literally all, you name it: light downhill, enduro, all-mountain, XC, chasing roadies, snow, sand... just by swapping the weels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
caminoloco said:
They're still debating wether to use a proprietary axle or supply spacers for let's say a Hope 20mm through axle.
When I first saw the spec for the fork/hub (105mm spacing, proprietary) I thought, why no 20mm TA, as it already has 110 spacing?
Fatbikes already have enough non-standard standards. If an existing standard works, use it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,488 Posts
BurkeVT said:
Fatbikes already have enough non-standard standards. If an existing standard works, use it!
I agree with that principle.

However I think wide spaced front forks need to have larger diameter axles to be as stiff as the current axles used on 100mm OLD forks. Ideally going for an existing alternative would be good, and it looks like hubs designed for the downhill bikes are where we'll find the larger axles.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top