Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys,

I'm gearing up to build a custom Fatty in the near future and as this is an evolving direction in frame design, have a blank slate for consideration.

I've enjoyed doing "research" here in this forum, and now want to ask you what are some key features/characteristics you feel belong on the ultimate fatty.

What are current design features you enjoy?

What do you wish you had?

What component limitations restrict your vision?

I've got a fairly defined direction that I think I'd like to pursue, but am always looking for inspiration and input from those that have spent some time over big tires. So hit me with your creative thoughts...I'll share my direction after a bit as I don't want to influence the flow of info.

cheers,

rody
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
love handles:p love em

If you want to be on the cutting edge of fatness you got to do two things.

1. make a rear suspended frame. nothing fancy just start off with a soft tail.

2. figure out how to make hammerschmidt work with it.

You are competing with the established players in the game for Fat bike dollars. A willing custom frame maker should be able to get these things out to market faster. I am just saying thats what's going to get my Fat bike dollars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
I would think it depends on if it is a dedicated snow bike or snow/sand or what have you. I am in Florida so no snow but lot's of sand. I have zero interest in any form of suspension, the tires are enough for me. I think it is the ultimate KISS bike. I value keeping it bomb proof from a mechanical standpoint and also as light as reasonable. A soft tail would not bother me (done well) but I would not buy a true FS fatbike.

Ability to put racks on it would be high on my list, and ones made for the frame would be nice.

Keep a low stand over.

Cranks are always an issue, not that there are not good ones out there but you certainly cannot run the newer SRAM or XTR's etc... That said I think the Fatback crank is very nice.

I wish a Rohloff was not such a pig... Have one on my DeSavlo and while it is bulletproof it feels like an anchor at times.

Use a head tube that can accept Cane Creek Angle set so you can play with handling for different conditions.

I would love a tire that is constructed like the Surly's (reasonably light) but in my environment I could get away with a true 3" - 3.2" vs. their almost 4". I feel that would give me enough float and save some weight and perhaps make frame design easier.

The Fatback carbon fork looks sweet so that probably does not need improving.

I think a traditional diamond frame would still be best for weight, stiffness and ability to easily put frame bags on it.
 

·
bikeboatbrewski
Joined
·
1,396 Posts
bighit said:
love handles:p love em

If you want to be on the cutting edge of fatness you got to do two things.

1. make a rear suspended frame. nothing fancy just start off with a soft tail.

2. figure out how to make hammerschmidt work with it.
#1 Brooks springer saddle

#2 get local frame builder to weld on ISCG tabs, but then HS needs to make a 100mm BB?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
bighit...thanks for the thoughts. Not looking to compete with established Fat Bike manufacturers, after all, I'm a full on custom one at a time shop, so I only build what the customer who plunks down the deposit wants :)

As I have some latitude with the design on this build, I thought I'd explore some of the distant parameters.

A follow up...what type of conditions do you find that you would like suspension? What do the tires do well at cushioning and poorly at?

rody
 

·
Self-defeatist
Joined
·
965 Posts
I haven't tried either of the sus-fork options, but I took my springer-saddle off in short order. It's now on my gravel grinder. I find that all the tire cushion lets you sit through some really rough stuff as it is. I don't feel the need for suspension, but lots of folks said that back in the nineties, and look at them now.

I wish my Pug was lighter, and had wider tire clearance (like the Mukluk), but I love the horizontal drops for the option of running SS, IGH, or derailers. Sliders would be just as good or better. Slack geo is nice tho lots of people feel the big footprint slows steering enough as it is (not as much of an issue on snow). Also it's nice to be able to weight the front end when navigating downhill turns.

I've always liked your work, be sure to post up the finished product.
 

·
will rant for food
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
jfkbike2 said:
I wish a Rohloff was not such a pig... Have one on my DeSavlo and while it is bulletproof it feels like an anchor at times.
Somewhat on topic since we're talking about custom frames... and if Rody's customer wants an IGH:

jfkbike2, I think you're experiencing more of a weight bias than just plain distaste for weight. I have a NuVinci N360 hub at the rear, which is two pounds heavier than a Rohloff. It's not that I feel slower. I feel as fast as a normal transmission... I can switch bikes with a very fast triathlete friend of mine, and he will school me just as hard on my Pugsley while I ride his 29er.

It's more like I feel that the bike's center of gravity is more rearward, which makes for bunny hops / manhandling that feels a little off.

Point being, I'd love to convert an internal gear hub so that a bottom bracket runs through it, and put some chainring mount threads onto the output spin of said center-mounted "hub", and run a plain old single speed hub for the rear wheel. This would also more easily afford changing rear wheels for road / 29er use.

Obvious downside (or advantage in snow?) is that the chainstays would have to be longer.

If I learn enough about machining, I am going to do it.
 

·
A Surly Maverick
Joined
·
2,702 Posts
I`ve ridden my Pug rigid, with a Maverick SC32 and with a DUC32 (currently).

The tyres do provide some cushioning but I think it also depends on rider weight :)

Being on the Clyde side of life, if I run my tyres too low for cushioning on general riding, handling (and the rims ) suffer !


I (personally) feel that a sus fork really impoved my Pug.

As you will no doubt have seen, I`m now in the process of pursuing a possible modification to a FS frame.

Why you ask ?

Simple, suspension isn't just for comfort, it`s also for better TRACTION.

The back end will work better if it tracks the terrain rather than bouncing all over it .

I ride my Pug everywhere and anywhere I can. It`s my favorite bike; on a beach,in the woods, everywhere.

Fat tyres have opened up soooooo many new routes, just need a frame to catch up with them.

Dr FG :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Drew Diller said:
Point being, I'd love to convert an internal gear hub so that a bottom bracket runs through it, and put some chainring mount threads onto the output spin of said center-mounted "hub", and run a plain old single speed hub for the rear wheel. This would also more easily afford changing rear wheels for road / 29er use.

Obvious downside (or advantage in snow?) is that the chainstays would have to be longer.

If I learn enough about machining, I am going to do it.
Did you see this thread?
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=648936

Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
honestly the notion that "the tires provide the suspension" is so yesterday.

with the maverick forks and the new Larry tires riders are riding faster and harder. Fatbikes are just not Snow touring bikes anymore.

I guess you have to ask yourself are you building a snow touring bike or a mountain bike with 3.7 tires?

i ride my Ti fatback with a Brooks Spring saddle on the east coast rocks and roots without snow 98% of the time. if i sit down like a good boy and spin the cranks i am fine. if i get up and attack the bike hauls butt. like i have said before, i am writing checks up front the rear is having trouble cashing. The fork and tires on the Ti frame allow me to ride way faster than i ever dreamed of on my pug with rigid fork.

Whats the next level? rear suspension. i am not talking about a multi link set up either. a simple 1 inch soft tail would cut out a lot of chatter. the bottom line is as much as i love my Ti fatback i can only ride it for about an hour before my back starts to hurt compared to two hours on a full suspension bike.

you asked.
 

·
is buachail foighneach me
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Didn't read any of the other posts, but if you want to make the most versatile snowbike, you would have:

-Symmetry. The 170mm Fatback standard. It does limit your hub choices for now, but it makes everything else work as well(chainline) and better(wheel strength, ease of building rear triangle) than 17.5mm offset.

-Adjustable chainstays. Paragon or swinging dropouts. Design the frame so that it can be run with chainstays as short as 16.75"(without a front derailluer) or as long as 17.75".

-Bottle mounts. Everywhere.

-Low standover

-Rack mounts high and low on the seatstays.

-Suspension corrected for your average 29er fork and tire.

-In my fantasy dreamland, there would be a way to adjust bottom bracket height, which could combine with the adjustable chainstay length to completely change the handling of the bike to suit the season or the terrain. Maybe set the sliders at an angle, so that as you lengthen the chainstays, the bb gets lower and the head angle more slack? Maybe an ebb as well as sliders?? I dunno if it would work in the real world, but in my fantasy dreamland, it kicks serious farking arse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
bighit said:
honestly the notion that "the tires provide the suspension" is so yesterday.

with the maverick forks and the new Larry tires riders are riding faster and harder. Fatbikes are just not Snow touring bikes anymore.

I guess you have to ask yourself are you building a snow touring bike or a mountain bike with 3.7 tires?

i ride my Ti fatback with a Brooks Spring saddle on the east coast rocks and roots without snow 98% of the time. if i sit down like a good boy and spin the cranks i am fine. if i get up and attack the bike hauls butt. like i have said before, i am writing checks up front the rear is having trouble cashing. The fork and tires on the Ti frame allow me to ride way faster than i ever dreamed of on my pug with rigid fork.

Whats the next level? rear suspension. i am not talking about a multi link set up either. a simple 1 inch soft tail would cut out a lot of chatter. the bottom line is as much as i love my Ti fatback i can only ride it for about an hour before my back starts to hurt compared to two hours on a full suspension bike.

you asked.
Well said. My feelings exactly.

I was thinking tonight of a little sand area I could ride in that I could completely explore in 15 minutes and that this winter it would be fun to see how the fat tires work in the snow..until it thaws a bit then re-freezes and is than as bumpy as a field of baby heads.

If I lived by the ocean where there were big expanses of open access dunes or in Alaska where there is snow on the ground much of the year a rigid bike would be the best, but I don't live there. I live in terrain like you do. I learned mountain biking in the upper Northwest and it's very similar in the Midwest where I am now. Personally I love it.

That is totally it. I want to build a mountain bike with fat tires. Not a snow bike. I too had the thought of having a soft tail 1 to 2" rear travel frame but if you follow bike suspension lineage that was good when you were coming off of a hard tail but compared with modern long travel bikes it might as well be a hard tail. So why do the baby steps all over again. The fat tires are going to help some, as is the 29" dia, but I say go at least 4 inches if not 5 and I think you would really have something. I have an old Specialized FSR that is basically decoration at this point and I was thinking a couple of days ago about what it would take to adapt it to fat tires. (Just to keep it cheap.) 100mm bb shell. Widen and lengthen the chain stays and seat stays (struts). Might not be too hard.

Hope more people start thinking this way.
 

·
is buachail foighneach me
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Rody said:
....
As I have some latitude with the design on this build, I thought I'd explore some of the distant parameters.
.......
rody
Well, if that's the case.... Build the bike around a '4-pack' design, with two, 100mm rims and two endos or larry's at either end. Essentially, 8" wide rims and tires. Let us know how it works on snow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
travel bike
fatbikes are the ultimate in "do anything, anywhere" ville... but GETTING to anywhere still requires something with wings and a cargo size limit.
easily solved witha rear squish design natch, but if we're talking sticking with hardtails... that's where I'd like it to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
byknuts..

You hit on a strong point to the design.

One of the great characteristics of this platform is that it allows for adventure biking in distant lands. The caveat is getting there.

SS couplers will be a part of this build, if not to make it easy to transport, to at least facilitate it.
 

·
How much does it weigh?
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
Ti everything.... filled with Helium, tires that do not slide on anything, 8" travel that pedals like a hardtail.

Oh right, that's impossible.

These type of threads are impossible to answer.... everyone will have a different opinion on something, if not everything.
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top