[Closed] Fatty Trail - discontinued

Explains why you can't get floaters anymore as well.

Was just wondering that myself, down to small grey and medium blue only.

Odd that On-one would knock them on the head when they make up what seems to be about half of all the fat bikes in the uk

Probably because as many people who want fat bikes have now bought one so sales dropped to a point where it wasn't worth booking factory time for another production run?

Maybe they'll do a run of 29+ or 650b+ frames and flood that market as well.

I'm not being negative, it's just that their business model is to stack them high and sell them cheap, they're only making money if they can sell big volumes.

Unless there's a sexy carbon one on its way.

The prices they have come down to now, and have been for some time on their website, can't imagine they make much of a margin on them at all.

Or Ti based on the rest of this weeks PX news.

Were these frames/ bikes any good?

Buy my mint one and find out....

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/604/32170673592_2df1a072b3_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/604/32170673592_2df1a072b3_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/R1P7s5 ]IMG_9496_zpseyxrlk6s[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/146501625@N06/ ]John Stanley[/url], on Flickr

Were these frames/ bikes any good?

I've an original fatty, and a trail waiting for forks to build it up, so I'd say yes.

The geometry's actually far more progressive/up-to-date/long-low/slack than the 45650b!

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/has-the-fatbike-bubble-finally-burst ]Has the Fatbike Bubble Finally Burst?[/url]

New standards must be incoming, I thought fatties were just a joke, but can see now that they really exisited.

Has the Fatbike Bubble Finally Burst?

Sales bubble maybe. I doubt we'll see any less of them on the trails though, people bought them because they filled a niche that suited them (even if that niche is just "make Swinley/Cannock/Innerleithen/Afan interesting again". But once you've bought one, you don't (generally, there are those who go crazy) need two, or an upgrade because it's what's shit about them that equally makes good and them so much fun.

Like the tech bubble a few years (decade?) ago. People have't stopped using mobile phones, Nokia et al. just ran out of new people to sell them to.

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]Has the Fatbike Bubble Finally Burst?
Sales bubble maybe. I doubt we'll see any less of them on the trails though, people bought them because they filled a niche that suited them (even if that niche is just "make Swinley/Cannock/Innerleithen/Afan interesting again". But once you've bought one, you don't (generally, there are those who go crazy) need two, or an upgrade because it's what's shit about them that equally makes good and them so much fun.
Like the tech bubble a few years (decade?) ago. People have't stopped using mobile phones, Nokia et al. just ran out of new people to sell them to.

Pfft, I road a Fatty round Innerleithen red trails. Was flipping awful. Like riding a space hopper on a washing machine full of bricks on spin.

yourguitarhero - Member

Pfft, I road a Fatty round Innerleithen red trails. Was ****ign awful. Like riding a space hopper on a washing machine full of bricks on spin.

Pfft, I road an endruo Gnarpoon round Innerleithen red trails. Was awful. Like riding a barge on a canal full of bricks with a broken rudder.

Matter of opinion. although I'd probably leave out the 'was awful' bit. It was great, it just got a bit samey after a while (and that climb up the push-up track at the beginning was hell).

Like a spacehopper?

I'd say too much psi.

Buy my mint one and find out...

looks grey to me

@ Eddiebaby - That's very nice

[i]"Like riding a space hopper on a washing machine full of bricks on spin"[/i]

On the first date?

I've been really impressed with mine. No heavier than my steel SS hardtail.

I wouldn't ride it in sticky mud but it's fine the rest of the time.

[URL= http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/LukeBurstow/C2xsd7gWEAAm60H_zpsraukeryg.jp g" target="_blank">http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/LukeBurstow/C2xsd7gWEAAm60H_zpsraukeryg.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

For a frame that cost me £80 brand new it's great 🙂

What forks are they?

Post brexit bluto prices have put me off somewhat!

shame, they really are a great bike 🙂

They'll have a new improved model out soon, just like last time.

The geo changes from the original Fattie were a revelation - this will be even moreso!

And the price will come down quickly...

They'll have a new improved model out soon, just like last time.

That' rarely the on-one way though.

On-one : we have this great cheap 650b hardtail

Public and magazines : great, 5 years ago, can we have it with more reach now?

On-One : we have this 650b hardtail with the same geometry in Ti for £999, or 26" carbon versions of the same.

The idea of actually designing new stuff seems alien to them.

Even in the good old days when Brant was there and the only thing they did was the 26" Inbred there was at least iterative development. The next batch was always something a bit different (853, singlespeed, blue, sliding dropout, red, full length cables, tweeked chainstays). Now they just make something, and it sits there for years.

[quote=yourguitarhero ]Pfft, I road a Fatty round Innerleithen red trails. Was flipping awful. Like riding a space hopper on a washing machine full of bricks on spin.You should take one round Glentress instead. I'm the archetypal STW mincer but even I had folk jumping off the trails when they heard me rumbling down behind them!

tinas: [url= http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181818034845 ]http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181818034845[/url]

I wanted something I could share a wheel with the Bluto's on my Bucksaw with.

They seem fine and a good price. I've not died yet, anyway.

Cheers, they look smart, and more importantly cheap!

I'd like bluto's and they were cracking value last year, but £500 is getting into Pike money and fun though the Fatty is, it's meant to be cheap and simple! If I wanted to spend that sort of money I'd do it on a 'proper' bike.

Hopefully it means something 197 t/a, 5"/100mm SIM, etc. is on the way.

I'm surprised the Tomac one didn't just get rebranded, after all you can get viner/holdsworth/px versions of the same frame.

I'm not so sure - the fact they have stopped making the floaters too is strange - I thought they sold well?

Just to add I love mine. My only bike now and don't miss the Granite Chief or the Bird Zero at all.

I know some people like 5" tyres and 100mm rims. But that's niche within a niche. I suspect the Fatty's popularity was at least in part because it wasn't quite so extreme so it worked well on normal trails. Not that 5" doesn't but at the time it was before maxxis, schwalbe etc got involved.

Now they just make something, and it sits there for years.

Would it really kill them to put a tapered or 44mm head tube on the Inbred?

Surprised at that tbh, I thought they'd bin the standard Fatty and make a rigid Trail. The Trail has a stupid rear axle standard but other'n that seemed like one of their best attempts for a while.

yourguitarhero - Member

Pfft, I road a Fatty round Innerleithen red trails. Was flipping awful. Like riding a space hopper on a washing machine full of bricks on spin.

TBH, Innerleithen's surface is like a load of spun bricks. You should have gone and ridden the good trails- my second ever fatbike ride was on inners #enduro and dh trails and it was awesome. Chasing folks from the uplift down the Matador 😆

Has the Fatbike Bubble Finally Burst?

Peeps round here (London) have started using them for cruising around on, so maybe there's life in the old fatty yet..

Thanks for that fork link wwaswas. My Bluto could be for sale soon. ( less than 10hrs riding...).

Was that stealthy enough?

I've just bought one as a bundle for the fork and seatpost if anybody wants a blue, medium frame I'm open to reasonable offers.

The Trail has a stupid rear axle standard

You keep saying that, but it's the same as plenty of other fatbikes? Wednesday, Mucluk, some 9.0.7's etc are all 170mm, bucksaw is 177mm.

Of those you mentioned- Wednesday is bolt-through (choice of 10 or 12), Mukluk is now 197x12, every adult's 9 zero 7 bar the slider is 197x12- (pretty sure the Slider is only 170 for Rohloff compatibility) Bucksaw is 12mm. The Trail is 170QR. Nothing wrong with 170/177, though it seems to be losing the standards war (*), but QR was pretty much dead when they launched the Trail. Maybe they had some cheap hubs or something in that standard?

(* I hope it doesn't lose too fast, the day 197x12 becomes standard, Trek and Shimano will launch 189 and a third)

[i]QR was pretty much dead when they launched the Trail. Maybe they had some cheap hubs or something in that standard[/i]

they had the Fatty frame using that standard and wanted to share wheelsets across frames?

I'm sharing wheels between my Bucksaw and the Trail Fatty at the moment - it's a simple end cap change away and, for me, I can;t see any advantage of a wider hub for a 'trail' bike that won;t be running monster tyres on snow.

they had the Fatty frame using that standard and wanted to share wheelsets across frames?

They didn't though, I've both wheelsets and the el-guapo hub is different.

I think it's as you said though, 100mm BB's and 170mm back ends are more trail friendly. Long term I think the 190mm hubs will be just as unpopular in the scheme of things as 170mm (190 wins Vs 170 in the short term because Spesh, Trek, Cube all adopted it along with 5" tyre clearance). Once the market dies down I think we'll still see 170 and 190mm frames (both bolt through and QR) simply because they work for different people.

I think it's as you said though, 100mm BB's and 170mm back ends are more trail friendly.

I've read this comment a few times but have never heard a convincing argument for why.

I really enjoyed riding my ICT with 4.8" JJs last summer, for example. Is there a 4" tyre that will be better? Most comments from people who have ridden the 4.0 and the 4.8 JJ suggest that they preferred the 4.8, but if there is a better tyre for summer fatbiking I'd be happt to give it a try.

Similarly, in the winter, is there a tyre that will cope better with wet roots, mud etc than the Bud/Lou combo I've got at the moment. Again, if there is I'd be happy to try it.

I've read this comment a few times but have never heard a convincing argument for why.

Because you feet/knees are an inch closer together.

And because for trail riding a rounded tyre does work better once lent over.

I don't think there's anything wrong with 5" tyres, it's just another step down the spectrum form normal (2"), plus(3"), 4" to 5". It's just a question of how fat do you want to go and making a judgement, rather than just fatter = better. Would you ride a 6" fat bike with a 140mm BB and 210mm rear end?

thisisnotaspoon - Member

Because you feet/knees are an inch closer together.

Well, no, not necessarily. In my 197 rear bike I'm using Raceface's 170 rear cranks and they work perfectly with a 4.8 rear- albeit single ring only. I'm pretty sure with a 4.0 rear, double ring would work too.

The mech's more exposed on 197 and naturally it's a little heavier but it brings options, and choice is good.

But this is all getting a bit off the point which is that 170QR is a legacy standard and was the wrong choice for a new frame outside of the bargain basement. Nothing wrong with 170 in itself.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

And because for trail riding a rounded tyre does work better once lent over.

I don't think that's true. Certainly isn't in normal bikes. But besides, a 4.8 and 4.0 in an 80mm rim can have pretty similar profiles. There's no major difference between my 4.0 and 4.88 JJ in shape. Just depends how the tyre is designed.

I can see the market normalising around 150x15 front and 197x12 rears on the basis that frames can be built to accept the biggest available tyres - Snowshoe 2XLs and there's no real need for anything bigger except for extreme winter riding. The likely demand for anything bigger is probably restricted to a few hundred riders only for events like the ITI - so not really worth the investment.

The trouble is that there are so many standards in the market and its such a small market. There's economies of scale to consider and a spread of frames that take the same parts helps with stock management. In an ideal world we'd be able to shoehorn 197x12 rears onto a 83mm BB for a nice low Q factor and still let people run 5"s.

The Inbreds are due a refresh, thats on the table currently and we're looking at the whole Fat Bike offering in a similar light. They've been good to us, and niches is where On-One really does well.

Let's see what comes out in the wash over the next few weeks. We just want to make bike that people want to ride.

[quote=sq225917 ]Let's see what comes out in the wash over the next few weeks.
The paint on the frames?

Because you feet/knees are an inch closer together.

Ah, yes, the q-factor issue. Fair enough. Personally I've had less knee pain (or at least no more) since getting the ICT. But then I do walk like a bow-legged duck, so maybe it's more of an issue for people with more normal legs.

And because for trail riding a rounded tyre does work better once lent over.

Isn't that more a factor of rim width? A 4.8" tyre on a 75mm rim would presumably be at least as round as a 3.8" tyre on the same rim.

But I'm not trying to pick a fight. I agree with you. Ride whatever works for you. But I've seen this comment about 4" tyres being better for trail riding than 5" ones so often that I'm tempted to try it. But then I think about what I like about my 5" fatbike and one thing I'm not thinking is "I wish it were less fat"