[Closed] Fat bike

I picked the Charge over the On-One a couple of months back

A lot of it was down to the odd looks of the On-One frame, and undrilled rims (yes, I know - simple solution to solve)

So I bought the cooker. Love it a lot, though I think the tyres could be a bit more gnarly for the mud than those which are fitted. That said they're OK!

Big downside was the brakes that came with it were crud. Like the front one jammed on & ran through the pad in half a Swinley ride. Easily fixed with £50 Shimano's though (also in white!)

If you're near Portsmouth, you're welcome & have a bash on it if you want

Have a demo on a salsa mukluk next weekend but they are more money.
Think the fun factor is there no matter how much you spend.

Own a Pugsley, ridden the On One, still have the Pug, which ever they are really good fun....

Or Genesis Caribou?

http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/bikes/mountain/fat-bike/caribou

Very nice in the flesh (steel)

Kona wo as well, got a Fatty and love it. Got free rolling chassis and used a lot of extra bus so it's quite nicely specced.

Anyone ever wondered why so many of these are steel? Alu seems like the more logical material, could be much lighter and any difference in stiffness has got to be buried by the fact you've got mattresses for tyres... 9:Zero:7 do their alu one, and the Fatty, but most others seem to be all about the cromo.

On One Fatty if you ride xc trails, trail centers and hills and won't go near beaches.

Any other fat bike for xc trails and beaches

I've both and both (Fatty & Mukluk) are different animals

I love my On-One Fatty! And now they're 2x10, so even better.

Looking at the specs for the two, these stand out as differences:

Fatty vs. Cooker
999 GBP, 1199 GBP (Fatty better)
Al, CrMo (buyer preference)
70 mm solid rims, 80 mm drilled? rims (buyer preference)
Floater Tires(+), Vee Tires (-) (Fatty better)
Avid Brakes, Pro Max Brakes (neither?)
180/160 rotors, 160/160 rotors (Fatty better)
SRAM X5 crank, FSA Comet crank (buyer preference)
No pedals, pedals included (Cooker better)
170 mm rear hub, 135 mm rear hub (buyer preference, 135 is common, can be IGH)

Fatty has 55 mm fork offset; 45 mm is more common. Other forks with 45 mm offset may affect Fatty's handling. I couldn't find the offset for the Cooker, but I'd assume 45ish.

So, the Fatty costs less and has better tires, a bigger front disc, and 170 mm rear hub.

The Cooker costs more but has pedals, wider (drilled?) rims, and a 135 mm hub so could work with a hub gear.

Having ridden lots of fat bikes, the on one is the more mountain bikey fat bike, as in quicker handling more agile etc which is down to geometry and fork offset. To make it handle more like a mukky just put a smaller offset fork on it and it becomes more stable. As john climber says really. 907 are fun little bikes as well.

Remember that the Mukluk had a geometry change to make it more "trail".

Given the drilled rims, the 2x10 gearing and the brakes, I think the Mukluk is currently the most cost-effective option.

And I say that as a 907 owner.