[Closed] Fatbike with modern trail geometry

puffin is closest one I can think of

Edit: Might need some bright stickers...

Nicolai argon Fat....
Or a Mi-Tech if your prepared to order from them.

I don't know of any, but also, I'm not sure it's really that comparable- they're pretty different bikes so it doesn't necessarily follow that the same geometry works. My 2 day to day bikes are a long slack 150mm 29er #endurosled, and a much smaller and shorter fatbike but the fatbike doesn't feel like it needs to be longer and slacker. Everything on paper tells me the fatbike's short and steep and probably too small for me, but it doesn't ride like it.

If I was riding the same stuff (tweed valley enduro offpiste etc) on a normal bike with an 1140mm wheelbase and 68 degree head angle I'd not be happy but it works really well as a package on the Dune. I suppose at least partly becasue it doesn't sag but I've a feeling there's more going on than that. Lots of rotating mass? Low roll centre? But I am not a geometrologist, maybe we could get Chris Porter to make something up to explain it.

Nibbling after the fat/thin thread, roverpig?

Latest puffin's been tweaked to fit 29+ as well as 4.7/4.8s. You'd have to rebuild on different hubs, but you could reuse some of what you've got on the Solaris.

Nibbling after the fat/thin thread, roverpig?

No, no, not interested at all, honest guv 🙂

The Puffin has the shortest chainstays of any fatbike I've seen, but still a 70 degree head angle. Maybe that doesn't matter, but it looks steep on paper. Plus it's white, which is just really light grey !

I don't know of any, but also, I'm not sure it's really that comparable

Well it only took three posts to attack my premise 🙂 but I'll let you off as you make some interesting points and I'd be the first to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to fatbikes.

If I were interested, which I'm not, oh no siree, it would be based on the following logic:

My chubby Solaris (currently running 2.8 Nobby Nics) is fun and (based on no experience at all) I'd wager that it's probably a better all-round trail bike than any fatbike (with Trailblazers for the summer). But that's it's problem really. It is basically a decent trailbike, which is fine but I've already got a good trailbike (Smuggler). The Solaris is a bit different, but I'm not convinced it's really different enough to justify its place. It's a slightly better option than the Smuggler when the trails are a mess (like now, with a good mix of snow, ice, mud and bog) but mainly because it means the Smuggler can stay tucked up nice and dry. It doesn't really cope that much better with crap (or non-existent) trails. A bit, but not a lot. But a fatbike might !

Except that fatbikes are ponderous, heavy, have chainstays so long that they are stuck to the ground and head angles so steep that you wouldn't want to point them down anything remotely steep. We all know that, right 😀

Well it only took three posts to attack my premise

It was mentioned on the other thread, but Fatty Trail?

I suspect it's probably the longest/slackest you're going to find without going down the semi-custom route, or at least spending 5x to 10x as much. Based on my Original Fatty the large isn't cramped even with a short stem, it almost always feels 'about right' for #enduro type stuff.

I don't know of any, but also, I'm not sure it's really that comparable- they're pretty different bikes so it doesn't necessarily follow that the same geometry works.

People said the same about wheels bigger than 26" and a split between XC and everything other than XC. Then stuff like the Enduro 29er and then 650b/650b+ happened.

I doubt a fat bike is going to win the EWS, but that doesn't mean they're limited to the current crop of 'XC' fat bikes, is there anything in production apart from the O-O designed around 120mm forks?

haven't done much fattyriding yet but I nwonder if things like the (real IMO) tendency of big tyres to self-steer might get interesting if you made a very slack-fronted version

@RP
Calibre Dune available mail order 😉

Plus it's white, which is just really light grey

Funny you should say that, the new one is actually light grey!

[img] [/img]

http://webshop.singularcycles.com/en/Products/Singular-Puffin.html

I wasn't convinced by the idea of fat, which is why I waited til I found one 2nd hand, so I could ship it on for not much loss if I didn't get on with it.

But it's quick, grippy and fun, climbs really well, and I've pointed it down some chest-on-the-saddle steppy downhills and come out smiling. Sam's pretty happy to talk geometry if you've got questions about why the angles are how they are.

Like I said.....
Nicolai Argon Fat

67.5° headangle
610 mm top tube (med frame)
440 mm chainstays

Comes in any colour you want.

Just be sat down when you look at the cost.

Mondraker Panzer.
Not 100% in line with your list of must have's but its pretty close and is Forward Geometry so definitely fulfills the 'modern trail geometry' criteria.

http://www.silverfish-uk.com/ProductDetail/0/18112/Panzer-RR-Bike-2016

Thanks for all the suggestions folks.

Calibre Dune available mail order

Not the large ones yet though, thank heavens. Also, chainstays are long (if that matters).

Nicolai Argon Fat

I bet it's brilliant, but I'd need to be a lot more convinced a fatbike was going to work before splashing that sort of cash.

Mondraker Panzer.

Again, a bit spendy for an n+1 and could I really live with a bike called a Panzer?

Fatty Trail

There is a lot about that I like, but I haven't managed to dig up much in the way of a review yet and am I right in thinking that 4" would be the limit for that?

Beargrease ticks most of those boxes though the head angle is a touch steeper at 68.5. And some of the 2016 variants really tick the "bright colours" box.
[img] [/img]
Bright enough for you?

[edit]Just seen your last comment bemoaning the spendiness of some of the other options suggested. Probably best you don't go looking at the price of Beargrease Carbon X01's [/edit]

Tyres at least 4"
Head angle no more than 68 degrees
Chainstays no longer than 440mm
Decent reach (i.e. longer than 445mm in large)
Nice bright colour(s)

If you can live with very dark white, and another degree on the head angle, then the Farley 5 ticks the other boxes:

Tyres 4.8" stock - upto 5" will fit (also 27.5 x 4 for when they become fashionable)
Head angle 69 degrees (angleset if you want slacker?)
Chainstays 440mm (adjustable)
Reach 441/454mm in 19.5/21.5" frames
Nice bright colour(s). Ahh, got me there...

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.trekbikes.com/gb/en_GB/bikes/mountain-bikes/trail-mountain-bikes/farley/farley-5/p/1063000-2016 ]Specs (scroll down)[/url]

https://www.pivotcycles.com/bike/les-fat/

Does it for me. 69 degrees, I know, but feels as slack as a thing.

Surly Wednesday.

[url= http://surlybikes.com/bikes/wednesday/geometry ]Looky[/url]

Head angle is 68 with a 100mm bluto on it.

There is a lot about that I like, but I haven't managed to dig up much in the way of a review yet and am I right in thinking that 4" would be the limit for that?

I'll stick a wheel in the back tonight and take a photo.

It's listed as 4", but it does take a 2x chainset so chainline shouldn't be a problem, chainstays might be though. But whilst I'd hate to disagree with the irrefutable logic of fat = good, moar fat = betterer, I suspect that 4" tyres are wide enough, and don't need such a wide chainline.

People rode the idtarod on 3.7's endomorphs before the BFL came along (and before that 3" grazoldi and spesh big hit tyres, and before that in the 90's on2x normal tyres).

Tyres at least 4"
Head angle no more than 68 degrees
Chainstays no longer than 440mm
Decent reach (i.e. longer than 445mm in large)

The fatty trail is measured with a 120mm fork. Large=440mm reach
A surly Wednesday with a short rigid fork. Large=453mm reach.

But run with the same fork they are near identical geo wise.

The XL Singular is very similar reach to the Large Wednesday and measured with a rigid fork, but has much more stack.

If you look at trek, same frame but different fork = different reach.
Rigid Farley 5 reach XLarge=454
100mm Bluto Farley 9 reach XLarge=444

Of course if you really want it to be long and slack there is only one solution, go LOOOONGG.

2XL Surly ICT.
Static HA 66.99!
[url= https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1605/24150001933_bc48b299b9_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1605/24150001933_bc48b299b9_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

I bought a Fatty Trail last year and absolutely loved it, then Cannondale announced the Fatcaad1 and as a Canno' fan i ended up ordering one.

I have done a few laps of Dalby red on both now and a couple of rides in the dales to compare both. I think the On One has a bit more aggressive feel about it, more bullet proof? but the Fatcaad feels livelier somehow.

I tried one of the wheels with a 4.8 JJ off the Canno' into the rear of the Fatty Trail but not enough clearance, the Bluto will easily take it though.

Fatcaad has a steeper head angle but the lefty has a big rake. Both bikes at Dalby, mate wanted to try the On One and was really impressed.

[img] [/img]

thisisnotaspoon - Member

People said the same about wheels bigger than 26" and a split between XC and everything other than XC. Then stuff like the Enduro 29er and then 650b/650b+ happened.

I doubt a fat bike is going to win the EWS, but that doesn't mean they're limited to the current crop of 'XC' fat bikes

Yeah, but that's my point- I'm out riding my "xc" fat bike on ews trails, and not that much slower than on the proper bike, and it doesn't feel at all like an XC bike- it's a far more stable and confident descender than the numbers all. I'm not going to pretend I know why but it's really surprised me, enough that I've put aside ideas that what I know works for one works for another.

I just put an angle headset in the enduro bike, but I've no urge to do the same for the dune and it gets ridden on much the same stuff. I think I fatbike wrongly tbh 😆

roverpig - Member

Not the large ones yet though, thank heavens. Also, chainstays are long (if that matters).

I think long stays are in just now, but it can only be a matter of time til they're out again, or shaking it all about.

Surly Wednesday.

But it's the only Fatbike I've ridden on a half decent trail, other than others i've only swung a leg over.

Rode one at Ashton Court in the Oktoberfest for a lap. It was much more fun, happy to be thrown around and launched off stuff than the Scandal 29 I was racing on which is my daily bike and the only mtb I've rdden for the last three years. I felt like I was able to stay off the brakes for almost the whole lap...

Also Ashton court isn't remotely technical at all. So not an extreme test. But I thought the Wednesday was great.

Yeah, but that's my point- I'm out riding my "xc" fat bike on ews trails, and not that much slower than on the proper bike, and it doesn't feel at all like an XC bike- it's a far more stable and confident descender than the numbers all. I'm not going to pretend I know why but it's really surprised me, enough that I've put aside ideas that what I know works for one works for another.

Fair point, and the dune is moderately slack already.

It'll be interesting to see whether fat bikes are here to stay and move into other niches (like trail/enduro) or if they'll just slowly disappear off the radar and return to being an oddity. There's certainly not been the massive influx of models we saw 18 months ago, I kinda expected some 29er front triangles with modified rear ends from the big brands (take a stumpjumper aloy, swap the BB to 100mm, and fit some new chain/seat stays) but it seems we might have hit 'peak fat bike'.

I think long stays are in just now

Darn it, so they are, I must pay more attention.

So, chainstay length doesn't matter, head angle doesn't matter, you can ride a fatbike that is two sizes too small for you and that doesn't matter either. We're still agreed on the importance of getting the right colour, right?

Surly Wednesday

Thanks both, I'd not seen that before. Presumably not the lightest option, but does seem to fit the bill.

If you can live with very dark white, and another degree on the head angle, then the Farley 5 ticks the other boxes:

And the Farley 8 even comes in green. It does look a bit like a more expensive version of the On-one, but worth further investigation.

I bought a Fatty Trail last year and absolutely loved it

That's good to hear. There does seem to be a dearth of reviews for the fatty trail, which is a bit surprising for an on one. There was a lot of activity in forums last September when it was launched, but very few ride reports since. Maybe everyone is just having too much fun riding them to post.

Just seen your last comment bemoaning the spendiness of some of the other options suggested. Probably best you don't go looking at the price of Beargrease Carbon X01's

Too late. It's lovely, but ouch ! To be fair I like a spendy bike as much as the next man. Just maybe not on a bike that you think may well be a mistake before you even pull the trigger.

I did a comparison of a few bikes and really you need to be very careful just comparing numbers without looking at what fork they have.

Thanks. Good point, well made.

FWIW, my 5 year old 9ZERO7 has a 68 degree HA. Newer versions are up to 69 or 69.5.

And the Farley 8 even comes in green....

Be careful - the older Farley 6 and 8 have different frames to the newer 5 and 9, etc. (AFAIK)

scotroutes - Member

FWIW, my 5 year old 9ZERO7 has a 68 degree HA. Newer versions are up to 69 or 69.5.

Interesting that. Any idea why?

Nope. I'd have thought that with fatbikes being adopted for more "general" duties HA would have decreased over the years. Maybe?

Just test ride a few and don't get hung up on geometry. My Beargrease is rapid and fun to ride but for sheer, hooligan, big mountain stuff, the Ice Cream Truck wins every time despite being several pounds heavier!

however, I now have a Fat Caad Lefty to test. Really excited to see what it brings to the party. It looks lush! 😀

I still want to play on a Wednesday and a Singular though!

OK, I've done some more thinking and reading (thanks for all the pointers) and am happy with the geometry. A couple of other questions have arisen though:

Suspension or not? My original thought was that big squishy tyres make suspension less necessary, but a few of the reviews of the Bluto have made me think. A rigid bike with big tyres is still a rigid bike, you just have to be really careful with pressures to stop it turning into a bouncy mess. So, stick some damped suspension on and run the tyres a bit firmer. Job done. No more getting bounced all over the shop, more traction, fewer punctures etc. What's not to love?

Four inch or five inch? Four for general trail duties, five for snow right?

Surly Wednesday (or Calibre Dune depending on budget).

Try it rigid and add a bluto if you feel the need.

Surly Wednesday (or Calibre Dune depending on budget).

Is that based on the tyre clearance? It does seem that bikes that come with Bluto forks tend to be restricted to 4" tyres (being designed for trail use).

On paper the Dune is the obvious choice out of those two. Half the price, lighter and much more fun colour, but there is a lot to like about the Wednesday. Surly kind of kicked off the whole fatbike thing and I quite like that. Chainstays can be dropped right down to 435 with the smaller tyres. Nice. Even the seat tube is nice and steep, which I like. But it is twice the price, heavier and comes with Nate tyres that nobody seems to like (so more cost there to change).

It's only a thought-experiment at the moment and may never progress any further, but it's fun to dream about new bikes.

Based on my reading of what you are looking for I'd say.

But then I like nates!

Based on my reading of what you are looking for I'd say.

What, you mean you actually read all this rubbish ?!!

Seriously, thanks. I know you've been down a similar route and have given it some thought.

But then I like nates!

That;s good to hear. All I read so far is about how draggy they are. But then I'm coming to the conclusion that drag and grip are very much related.

Draggy yes. In fact the ride home (often 4-6 miles of road depending on the route) with a headwind the other day was border line horrible.
BUT, the off road buts had been truly brilliant and more than made up for it. The grip up one particular short, steep and very rocky climb was great. No wandering or being bucked off line. Just traction.

But everyone is different. I would suggest to hire one for a weekend if you can.

It won me over. But then mine is an old fashioned heavy one 😆

Nobody likes Nates?! Apart from being a bit dragging I've heard nowt but praise for their winter gloop awesomeness.

Don't get hung up thinking low pressures are a bad thing and suspension let's you avoid it. I run mine at 5/6psi and they feel no worse than my oof did nearer 8/9 (as the rims lost the bead if I went lower). 10psi in a 4"+ tyre feels like 40psi in a 2" tyre to me.

If I was after a trail fatty I'd be tempted by buying a Wednesday frameset for £450 and a Fatty trail in the sale as a donor. Apart from the rims/tyres I'm not sure much of the full build Wednesday spec is much to get excited about.

Draggy yes. In fact the ride home (often 4-6 miles of road depending on the route) with a headwind the other day was border line horrible.

S'wat pumps are for

@ RD
Who stops? 😉

My dad would call it character building. He is 77 and still MTBing so who am I to argue 😆

You want trail geo and ride fast? why bother with 4 or 5" fabikes?
Go get a 29+ bike like a Krampus or Trek Stache, Travers, Jones...
I own 4 regular fatbikes, been riding them 8 years now and seeing the 29+ come online and now riding 3 options (KramPug, Krampus, ECR) it offers the best option for speed and grip, can do 75% of riding where a Fatbike can away from the coast (if set up tubeless to allow low pressures without pinchflats) not as much public attention for some folks maybe but deft a beter option for most folks 😉

roverpig - Member

Suspension or not? My original thought was that big squishy tyres make suspension less necessary, but a few of the reviews of the Bluto have made me think.

I haven't ridden a bluto yet but this is a personal call I think; from where I am, it's a sliding slope that's not about upgrading the bike but making it less like it is, and more like my other bikes. If you take it to its logical conclusion you end up not buying a fatbike, and riding your normal bike.

Not everyone'll feel like this but you seem a bit like you're coming at it from the same place as me? After all, the best trail bike is absolutely not a fat bike, so if you want a trailbike fatbike, the point shouldn't be to make the best trailbike; it should be to make a fatbike that's hilarious to ride on trails.

So that's why mine is 4.8, rigid, and brilliantly bad at the job I ask it to do. It's the butter knife I take to a gunfight.

You want trail geo and ride fast? why bother with 4 or 5" fabikes?
Go get a 29+ bike like a Krampus or Trek Stache, Travers, Jones...

I don't think I mentioned going fast (at least I shouldn't have). I've no doubt that a 29+ (like the B+ I have already) makes for a better trail bike (faster, more versatile etc). But I've already got a good trail bike.

Not everyone'll feel like this but you seem a bit like you're coming at it from the same place as me? After all, the best trail bike is absolutely not a fat bike, so if you want a trailbike fatbike, the point shouldn't be to make the best trailbike; it should be to make a fatbike that's hilarious to ride on trails.

Couldn't have put it better myself. In fact I didn't 🙂

I don't think I want another trail bike, I want something that will offer me something different. If that means it's much worse than my Smuggler in some situations that's fine by me, as long as it's much better in others.

So, why the talk of trail geometry? Well, I know a fatbike will open up some trails that I can't ride on the Smuggler (snow, sand, bogs etc) and maybe that is as far as it goes. But I wonder if a fatbike with the right geometry would also open up some steep scary descents that I don't have the nerve to ride on my trailbike. I don't need it to do them fast, but if it let me crawl down them in comfort that would be great. Maybe that's asking too much though.

^ pretty much think the 'something different' was part of the appeal to me.

I could always fit some 29+ wheels in mine too. But can't see myself wanting to. It is a nice option to have though. Although mine is more old fashioned / xc / original / adventure geometry.*

As for the trail bike thing. As my other recent thread on here showed I'm actually looking to dial down the xc nature of my HT to further the gap. Partly due to the fact I'm using the fatbike on more trails locally than I thought I would.

*or whatever tag you'd call it.

I found Nates to be the draggiest fat tyres I've tried, very grippy, but, if you hit some deep gloop, I found they had a tendency to slip sideways, which could be disconcerting! Bud will roll faster, grip better, and gold it's line and have more cush.

It hasn't rained round here for a week, so I put a 4.8 Jumbo Jim on my Jones, WOW, feelslike a totally different bike, feels like it's accelerating twice as fast and almost disconcertingly nimble 😉 - didn't need to clean the bike when I got home 😀

Northwind +1 again. Quite happy that the Wazoo can't take a bluto, and when I saw a FS fatty at Woburn last week I just thought it had completely missed the point.I've got an all conquering trail slayer, I don't want a 4" tyred version of the same bike.

roverpig the three I tried - Spesh Fatboy Cube Nutrail and Scott Big Jon - all felt like trail bikes. I don't know if one can read too much into the geometry and dimensions because so much is dictated by the size of the tyres but I instantly felt at home on them. An element of steel floatiness combined with stiff and efficient aluminium. Nothing like the slushboxes I was expecting. First turn of the pedals and all three of them were off like greyhounds.

All I read so far is about how draggy they are. But then I'm coming to the conclusion that drag and grip are very much related

crashtestmonkey - Member

when I saw a FS fatty at Woburn last week I just thought it had completely missed the point.

To be fair, I'd love a go on one of those 😆

I wonder whether my desire for "trail geometry" is based on a misunderstanding.

I tend to think (as a lot of people do, I suspect) that a slacker head angle makes it easier to get down steep stuff, but I suspect this is not true. A slacker head angle is mainly, I think, about stability at speed. So, if you are happy to crawl down the steep stuff it's irrelevant. It's also about the bike being less sensitive to getting knocked off-line, but a huge tyre is going to do that anyway.

Yeah I wouldn't read too much into it tbh. For me the fact the geometry doesn't change because there's no suspension was a hidden bonus

http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-reviews/scott-big-jon-fat-bike-long-term-review/

Oh I'd happily have a bash on one but there really is no place for one in my extended collection!

and if you are thinking of a surly wednesday be warned there are no framesets in the country and no ETA for them either....I know cos i'm after one and retailers have twice happily taken my money for 'in stock' framesets only then to tell me they are not yet in stock and they don't know when they will be!

If money was no object then I would import one of these, 420mm stays: http://mattercycles.com/products/benefat

I like to think my Bucksaw is pretty trail though, 65.7 static head angle with a 140mm Fox B+ fork.

timandrews13 - Member

and if you are thinking of a surly wednesday be warned there are no framesets in the country and no ETA for them either....I know cos i'm after one and retailers have twice happily taken my money for 'in stock' framesets only then to tell me they are not yet in stock and they don't know when they will be!

I think they do know...
http://www.ison-distribution.com/english/product.php?part=FMSUWE1B
which is why I went for an ICT from the US, the fact it was half the UK price helped 😆

I like to think my Bucksaw is pretty trail though

Is that thing as fun as it looks?

I think they do know...

http://www.ison-distribution.com/english/product.php?part=FMSUWE1B
which is why I went for an ICT from the US, the fact it was half the UK price helped

Thanks Stato....retailers that sell surly bikes will happily take your money for these framesets now - even if the distributor is saying August for stock arriving!! blimey.

How did you get a frame from the US - did you pay import duty and VAT?

@ RD
Who stops?
My dad would call it character building. He is 77 and still MTBing so who am I to argue

It's what we do after dropping the pressures to around 3-4psi for soft sand and dune riding. Couple of mins with the mini track pump up to about 8psi for tarmac/prom cruising

bSuspension or not?

molgrips - Member
I like to think my Bucksaw is pretty trail though
Is that thing as fun as it looks?

Ah you saw it on the Facebook page, here it is:
[url= http://s22.postimg.org/m8fbdama9/20160227_155845.jp g" target="_blank">http://s22.postimg.org/m8fbdama9/20160227_155845.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://postimage.org/ ]img host[/url]
It's a quiver killer for sure, turned out just as I imagined. The Vanhelga tyres were the icing on the cake, really fast for such a grippy tyre.

@Scruffy is that a fox fork I see? 😀
and Stato you have to tell us how you got a frame from the US! As far as I know they don't ship to the uk due to distribution agreements or something?

officerfriendly - Member
@Scruffy is that a fox fork I see?

It's the B+ one, has clearance for a 26 x 4" tyre on 70mm rims max, good 5mm+ at the sides, and loads up top.

 

Ah you saw it on the Facebook page

Actually, I thought to myself one day how brilliant FS fatbikes must be, so I googled for it and found that.

I really want one!

How did you get a frame from the US - did you pay import duty and VAT?

Fully expected/prepared to pay duty on arrival home (as everyone was telling me to take an old bike out to 'con' customs) but we had an internal connection prior to collecting bags and bike-box, and there was no customs gate for internal (UK) arrivals at our destination airport, so no-one to declare to.

and as long as I can afford a sus fork, there is no way id not run one. I used my old mukluk with its rigid a fair bit and while it was capable it was not fun. Failing to be able to turn or brake as your tyre is not on the ground soon becomes tiresome.

My ICT this weekend, loaded up after a bivy out. Took it down a fab singletrack trail in Northumberland from Bolts Law (pic) to Edmunbyers (part of an MBR Blanchland killer loop) and it devoured stuff, so much fun, well.. apart from the front tyre getting stuck in 3" wide ruts and nearly ejecting me over the bars. No way id have got down at speed with a rigid.

[url= https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1679/25351829556_c4122d8b09_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1679/25351829556_c4122d8b09_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ECfKFA ]Waskerly Weekend[/url]

Ah Stato,

Must be great to have a fat bike to go a 'bivvying' with. Alas all i have is a large pile of components i bought to fit to the Surly Wednesday (inclusing a bluto fork and dropper post)....maybe i could load them all up into a wheelbarrow and push them somewhere...

In that case, Fatty Trail. As I said exactly the same geo on the Large I compared. I had a Trail at one point (had to return due to a fault) but it was actually quite nice and also light, only odd thing was the use of a road bike headset. Should tide you over until the Wednesdays are in and only £150, tbh prob not worth waiting for a Wednesday unless you need the horiz dropouts (and im a huge surly fan, this is my 4th!).

Does the shortage of Wednesdays only refer to frames, or are the full builds out of stock everywhere too?

[quote=roverpig ]Does the shortage of Wednesdays only refer to frames, or are the full builds out of stock everywhere too?

Also 31/8

http://www.ison-distribution.com/english/product.php?part=5SUWED4B

Unless, of course, you can find one in stock somewhere.

OK, so Large and XS are due back in stock next month, but the others are not due until August. That's worth knowing. Thanks.

Pivot LesFat.
Now that ticks an awful lot of boxes.
Don't think I've heard a real world review though.

@STATO: Love that picture and it's good to hear the case for the Bluto too. I tend to agree with Northwind that a fatbike should be different to a trailbike, but I'm less convinced by the argument that it has to be rubbish as being rubbish is what makes it fun. No, I know that nobody is exactly making that argument, but sometimes it seems that way.

I went down this track myself a few years back when I rode a fixed gear bike (on road) for a year or so. Yes, there was all the pure simplicity stuff that you hear about, but mostly it just made me appreciate freewheels and derailleurs. I'm not even sure about my hardtail if I'm honest. Again, I like the relative simplicity and the looks, but often I just wish it had some suspension.

I must admit I dismissed the ICT when you first posted it, but the more I think about fatbikes the more I tend to think "if you want to go fat then go fat" so a 5" capable bike has some appeal.

@rocketman: thanks for the link to the Scott, which made very interesting reading. I'd never even considered calf-bang !

Pivot LesFat.
Now that ticks an awful lot of boxes.
Don't think I've heard a real world review though.

Unfortunately, at that price, you won't be reading one from me any time soon either. It does look great though.

[quote=roverpig ]I must admit I dismissed the ICT when you first posted it, but the more I think about fatbikes the more I tend to think "if you want to go fat then go fat" so a 5" capable bike has some appeal.I think this makes a lot of sense if you already have (or plan to have) a Plus bike (29+ or B+). The Surly 4" tyres only measure 3.8" so you're not arguably not stepping up much between Plus and Fat unless you go to 5".

roverpig - Member

I'm less convinced by the argument that it has to be rubbish as being rubbish is what makes it fun.

I sometimes phrase it like that, I say "brilliantly rubbish" a lot but it's not true really. It's inappropriateness I like.

I think this makes a lot of sense if you already have (or plan to have) a Plus bike (29+ or B+). The Surly 4" tyres only measure 3.8" so you're not arguably not stepping up much between Plus and Fat unless you go to 5".

Yes, that's pretty much it really. I'm already running 2.8" tyres on my Solaris. Is it worth getting rid of a bike that I've enjoyed and getting a whole new bike just to get 1" wider tyres ? I'm thinking that, if I go for the change, I might as well go the whole hog and run 4.8" tyres. But that brings a new set of problems, such as whether my (already creaking) knees will thank me for the larger Q factor.

I suspect that what I really need is just a good dose of Spring, then I'll forget all about fat bikes until next year 🙂

I sometimes phrase it like that, I say "brilliantly rubbish" a lot but it's not true really. It's inappropriateness I like.

That's a good way to put it. It's not rubbish; it's brilliant at some things, but it's fun to ride in other places too.

[quote=roverpig ]Yes, that's pretty much it really. I'm already running 2.8" tyres on my Solaris. Is it worth getting rid of a bike that I've enjoyed and getting a whole new bike just to get 1" wider tyres ? I'm thinking that, if I go for the change, I might as well go the whole hog and run 4.8" tyres. Woah there!! I meant "[i]in addition to[/i]" a Plus bike, not "[i]instead of[/i]"!!! 😆

FWIW, I've never had a problem with Q factor on my Fatbike. In fact, I'm just about to start looking at wider pedals (or axles) for the Plusbike as I'm getting some heelstrike (partly because I pedal like a duck)

There is a world of difference between a 3" tyre and a 3.8" tyre.

Just as there is a world of difference between a 2.4" and a 3" tyre.

Canyon Dude.
Comes with 4inch tyres, but can shift the rear axle to fit in 5inch ones.
Carbon loveliness, quite light, good kit, reasonably priced and definitely more trail than Antarctic expedition

RP- does this bring you back to the Wednesday then? (Quote from Surly site)

'We wanted Wednesday to give you a lot of options in the tire clearance category. In the full-forward, short chainstay position you can run 26 x 3.8? tires on 80mm rims and in the full-rearward, longer chainstay position you get the option of 26 x 4.6? tires on an 80mm rim'

I kinda expected some 29er front triangles with modified rear ends from the big brands (take a stumpjumper aloy, swap the BB to 100mm, and fit some new chain/seat stays)

What do you think a specialized fatboy is? 😉 I'm cirrently running mine with the stock 80mm travel bluto, and it does feel quite 'XC' compared to my 150mm forked chameleon, however swinging a leg over one with an aftermarket 120mm travel one fitted changed that completely, so an air shaft swap is in order in the not too distant future...

Woah there!! I meant "in addition to" a Plus bike, not "instead of"!!!

That's the problem, I guess and why this might not happen. It would have to replace the chubby Solaris. Each to their own, but I don't want to end up with lots of bikes that are just slightly different to each other. Mainly because I tend to ruin rides by wondering whether I'm on the right bike 😳 I've got four (road, folder, full-suss trail MTB plus the chubby Solaris), as long as I ignore the Five which is missing a set of brakes, so doesn't count ! So, it's one on and one (or preferably two) out.

There is a world of difference between a 3" tyre and a 3.8" tyre.

It's a good point and 4" may be the sweet-spot. But it might be useful to have the option to go wider.

Canyon Dude.

I'm surprised that doesn't get mentioned more often. Option to run 4" (with shorter chainstays) or 5" tyres. Light weight, great spec and value. My only concern is that I occasionally cast an envious eye at those bikepacking threads. It's not something I have time for just now, but it's probably an itch that will need to be scratched one day. While most fatbikes seem to be dripping with braze-ons for carrying everything the Dude just has one bottle cage! Not a deal-breaker as I dare say there are ingenious ways of attaching luggage to it for the odd trip (and it will probably never be a regular thing), but it's something else to check out.

RP- does this bring you back to the Wednesday then?

It's certainly still in the mix. The 4.6" is funny though as there aren't really 4.6" tyres. What it seems to mean is any 4" tyre with plenty of clearance, but not true 5" tyres. Of course, you do get the narrower Q factor of the 100mm threaded BB rather than the wider press-fit jobs on the 5" bikes.

If your building a Fatbike, you will be needing some wheels...

Here's my review of a Chinese Carbon set from ICAN which I bought for my new bike. Likeght, well made and an easy tubeless set up.

Yeah, I think 4" is the sweet spot for a rear tyre, for non snow fatbikes. Nate for winter, Huskerdu, JJ for summer. I would still go 4.8" on the front though, if a rigid fork.