[Closed] Fat Carbon - I Can't See it

So what's to like about the CF frames?

They weigh a pound less, which is more like 30% if that makes it better 😕

Not sure this is unique to fat bikes...

Without wishing to go into some huge religious-level discussion.

Carbon can be laid up in a multitude of different ways, so stiff around BB with no lateral flex but with vertical compliance built in to the rear stays. High-end road bikes are some of the best examples of this really where you're more connected to a hard slab of concrete so feel the difference. Basically if it's done right you get a more comfortable ride and more stiffness.
Stiff frames with direct power transfer are *good* in fatbikes - I went from a somewhat floppy pugsley frame to a stupidly stiff carbon beargrease, I know how much better it felt - and if you're not getting a harsher ride at the same time then why wouldn't you do this ?

But as with any material, you get good examples and utter crap ones.

So what's to like about the CF frames?

My impression (not having ridden one) is they give a 'stiffer' ride too which I don't like the sound of.

Well-designed carbon frames are stiffer in areas where there's a benefit such as around the headtube / downtube / bottom bracket, and more compliant in other areas of the frame to improve ride quality.

But as with any material, you get good examples and utter crap ones.

... this is also very true 😉

My impression (not having ridden one) is they give a 'stiffer' ride too

Carbon gives a stiffer, but better damped ride - so usually more comfy.

Speaking in general (road & mtb) here, not specifically fat.

Beargrease frame is 1275g.

Mukluk aluminium is 2040g

So nearly 800g saving for Carbon over Aluminium - closer to two pounds than one.

How about fitting narrower tyres? Rotating weight worse than frame weight n'all that.

That's what carbon rims are for, scruff - also easier to get tubeless with

honourablegeorge - Member

Beargrease frame is 1275g.

Mukluk aluminium is 2040g

So nearly 800g saving for Carbon over Aluminium - closer to two pounds than one.

I was reading a Bike Radar review of the Beargrease which said their medium sized full bike (no pedals) was 28.75lb

My Fat Boy (alu with CF fork, and pedals) is 30lb dead - nothing special on build, just tubeless, and bigger tyres too

With £1500 [i]difference[/i] in price I can't see that being justified, 'stiffer' or more 'comfi' too

To be honest, I think a lot of it is about people liking spending money on their hobby. If they like the look of it and have got the money - fair enough imo!
I spent £1450 on my 853 hardtail frame - when there are perfectly good taiwanese 853 frames available for £400. It's not about the performance advantage.

If you look at the beargrease prices last year though, it made a lot more sense. Beargrease frameset could be had for 1500 and mukluk was 600. This years prices on salsa, since they lost ison as a disty, are nuts - and this is why I haven't replaced my stolen beargrease with another one.

Now while you can't see stiffer or more 'comfi'(sic) being justified there's others who can. You asked what the differences were with carbon, not for a justification of a cost increase between materials.

Fair enough I suppose

But while I can see the advantages of CF on a road bike with 120 psi connected to tarmac, a fat bike with huge squidgy ~10 psi tyres I'm not so sure of (again, not having ridden one)

But as you say you've not ridden one....

I mean, on paper, having never ridden one, you'd expect the specialized roubaix to ride identically to the secteur. After all, they've both got carbon forks and both use the zertz inserts (which specialized bang on about with comfort), and have the same geometry - but they're totally different in terms of ride feel

the huge cost of CF

Depends if you buy direct from the factory though, give the relatively low impact life a fatty generally has (not much AM done on them) it might be worth the risk

Carbon can be laid up in a multitude of different ways, so stiff around BB with no lateral flex but with vertical compliance built in to the rear stays. High-end road bikes are some of the best examples of this really where you're more connected to a hard slab of concrete so feel the difference. Basically if it's done right you get a more comfortable ride and more stiffness.

same as steel frames..............like carbon all steel frames and tubing are not equal I know

My impression (not having ridden one) is they give a 'stiffer' ride too which I don't like the sound of

Tyre squidge feels different to frame stiffness, I'd guess my fatty frame is probably quite a bit stiffer than my other bikes. Anything stiffer/lighter/stronger is almost always going to be better, and probably more expensive.

It's nearly 3lb lighter than a fatty!

I was reading a Bike Radar review of the Beargrease which said their medium sized full bike (no pedals) was 28.75lb

My Fat Boy (alu with CF fork, and pedals) is 30lb dead - nothing special on build, just tubeless, and bigger tyres too

With £1500 difference in price I can't see that being justified, 'stiffer' or more 'comfi' too

Well there's always a niche-tax, comparing a relatively niche boutique brand against one of the biggest bike companies on the planet there'll always be a price differential even if they made identically spec'd bikes. On price the base level Mukluk doesn't make sense against a base level fatboy, let alone a carbon beargrease.

TBH I think a big part of the appeal is that even now so many fatbikes are made of gaspipe, so that's maybe promoted a swing to the other extreme with people wanting to weightweenie. And there's probably a bit of a correlation between people who say things like "steel is real" and "aluminium bikes are stiff and dead", and people who like fatbikes.

Rocketdog- you'd me amazed how often fatties make it up onto the Cairngorms. They're breeding and spreading out, just like the beavers are in the Tay catchment...

The same Cost, weight, ride quality arguments apply to the use of Carbon in just about any type of bike, a fat bike will be no different and will derive the same relative benefits as a XC HT, DH, Road bike, made from carbon rather than Aluminium etc...

I will say this though; IMO Fat bikes are really only viable now due to all the little accumulated developments from the last ~20 odd years of general bicycle development,

If you had tried to construct the equivalent of a modern Fatbike in the Mid 90's it would either have weighed much more or cost significantly more...

As much as it's a "Back to basics" type niche, modern, cost efficient frame, rim, tyre construction is what makes fat bikes an attractive proposition hence they have become more popular in recent years.

The fact that you can get a ~30lb Fat bike for £1K or under now is quite something IMO...

As with anything making it out of Carbon probably starts you down the road of "diminishing returns" but I still think Ti offers relatively [i]worse[/i] cost Vs functional benefits, if such things actually bother you...

Rocketdog- you'd me amazed how often fatties make it up onto the Cairngorms. They're breeding and spreading out, just like the beavers are in the Tay catchment...

cookeaa - Member
The same Cost, weight, ride quality arguments apply to the use of Carbon in just about any type of bike, a fat bike will be no different and will derive the same relative benefits as a XC HT, DH, Road bike, made from carbon rather than Aluminium etc...

I will say this though; IMO Fat bikes are really only viable now due to all the little accumulated developments from the last ~20 odd years of general bicycle development,

If you had tried to construct the equivalent of a modern Fatbike in the Mid 90's it would either have weighed much more or cost significantly more...

As much as it's a "Back to basics" type niche, modern, cost efficient frame, rim, tyre construction is what makes fat bikes an attractive proposition hence they have become more popular in recent years.

The fact that you can get a ~30lb Fat bike for £1K or under now is quite something IMO...

As with anything making it out of Carbon probably starts you down the road of "diminishing returns" but I still think Ti offers relatively worse cost Vs functional benefits, if such things actually bother you...

This makes very good sense

And although I could never justify the extra for CF, I could for this -

21.5 lb's all-in 🙂

[img] [/img]

[quote=rOcKeTdOg ]not really the "all mountain" I was thinking of, bet a fatty on the cairngorms now would be ace
It would be if it had a sail attached!

Oh yea 100mph later isn't it? Rather you than me!

We're expecting up to 140mph on the summit

Unscientifically I know two on one fatties. One has holes drilled in the rims, schwalbe freerider tubes and a carbon fork, the other is standard. The lightened one is noticeably less of a beast to lift the front of when wheeling around inside. It doesn't feel much heavier than a general alu hardtail with an average sus fork. It also rides trails really nicely without feeling compromised in any way.

I'm not clear why a lightened fat bike would be any less suitable?

Luckily, I still have this from earlier this year 😉 [url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/14835057791_93bc9114b2_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/14835057791_93bc9114b2_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/oAVxQt ]Cairngorm[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/22384952@N02/ ]ScotRoutes[/url], on Flickr

What is the Ti bike above please?

More than 21.5 lbs I reckon 🙂

i think it really is 21.5

Would be surprised if it was that claimed weight myself. What brand is it tho?

Standard fat: [url= http://www.twinsix.com/gear/bikes/the-standard-fat-bike ]http://www.twinsix.com/gear/bikes/the-standard-fat-bike[/url]

I want one :/

^ in stock too - fire away 🙂

That is lovely.

Best looking fat bike I've seen so far..cheers for the link.

New car or fat bike, new car or fat bike, new car or fatbike.

Cars, now there's money down a black hole...

gardron - Member

If you look at the beargrease prices last year though, it made a lot more sense. Beargrease frameset could be had for 1500 and mukluk was 600. This years prices on salsa, since they lost ison as a disty, are nuts - and this is why I haven't replaced my stolen beargrease with another one.

Its for the lean athletes who are looking for that extra edge in a race.

Or fellow middle aged men who need to feel self-love.

A bit like the £250 handbag versus the £1,500 handbag.

Mrs Futon wants a car though :/

futon river crossing - Member

New car or fat bike, new car or fat bike, new car or fatbike.

Silverback Scoop is back in stock, still looks like fantastic value at £750- I'd have expected them to slam the price up when they restocked. Not carbon, but it is lime coloured and that's probably better

The new carbon fatty might be worth a punt

Not carbon, but it is lime coloured and that's [s]probably better[/s] like totaly Enduro man.

🙂