Tell me about fat bikes

[R3awak3n]

I have always liked them and they seem very fun. Have not bought one because I know I will probably ride it no more than 3 months a year. I just discovered some good trails around me though and they probably could be ridden better with a MTB but I kind of rather get a fat bike and use it for that and just mess around in the snow and my very unkept 6 acre back yard.

I am looking at the kona wo, looks pretty nice. 4.8in tires and not crazy expensive. I don't really want to spend a lot so carbon is out, just maybe a nice aluminum bike with hydros and 4.8in tires.

I know nothing about fat biking though so share some of your knowledge with me :help::hello:

[David Kirk]

I have a fat bike and I love it....but the conditions need to be right for it. As a rule of thumb if the snow will support your weight on foot you can ride on it nicely. If you sink and post-hole with each step it will be too soft. Some assume that you can just ride across the snow in any condition and this is not true. It needs to be packed at least a bit. I find that foot traffic, XC skiing or better yet snowshoeing packs the trail down well and then I can ride across is like it's smooth dirt. But if you wake up in the morning and there's 8" of fresh and you want to ride on top of it that won't happen.

Oddly one of the good things about riding on snow is that it's slow and lots of work and this allows you to stay warm. I ride very comfortably until it's about 20° - I will often ride when it's colder than that but I need to dress very carefully to stay warm and dry.

In the end it's all about the tires. The bigger the tire the more conditions that are open to you. The frame material and overall weight won't matter nearly as much as the tire. I run 4.8" tires tubeless at about 7-8 psi and they are awesome on snow.

I hope that helps.

dave

[p nut]

I replied to the WTB thread, but.... First, fat bikes are fun. Really opens up the riding terrain--snow, sand. Traction up loose stuff is amazing.

Things to be aware of:
* Q Factor. All around around 200mm, give or take a few. Gave me knee issues.
* Self steer. At low PSI (we're talking single-digits, and around 1-2psi in snow), the bike will want to steer itself.
* Heft. The climbs you used to clear on mountain bikes...it will take a little more effort.

I could handle the last two, but the wide q factor was a big issue for me. There are options, such as Rocky Mountain Suzi Q and Otso Voytek which have narrower q factor. I was going to go that route, but I was able to get my Pugsley to the similar q factor using square taper BB and cranks.

Overall, they are awesome. Extends my riding season to basically year round. I've even got a 29 Plus wheels for it, which are fun as well. Very versatile bike. Highly recommend everyone at least try one.

[p nut]

I run 4.8" tires tubeless at about 7-8 psi and they are awesome on snow.

Dave, you need to try around 0-2psi if you want to get on top of that fresh 8" snow. I'm just a state down from you (UT) and have similar type of that dry fluffy snow. I'm running 4" tires and at 0-2psi, I can ride quite a bit further than at 7-8 psi. Huge Yuuuuuuuuge difference.

[Pubus]

Fat bikes are great for snow and sand, but I wouldn't want to use one for trail use since most of them don't have fork suspension. Although they have extremely cushy tires, the lack of suspension and their weight makes it difficult for climbing and anything technical.

I'd recommend one if you live in a town with heavy snowfall, but if you want to use a bike for some trail and single track use you might be better off with a 27.5 or 29er with plus (2.8 to 3") tires since they have some travel in the fork.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Billybob62]

I have always liked them and they seem very fun. Have not bought one because I know I will probably ride it no more than 3 months a year. I just discovered some good trails around me though and they probably could be ridden better with a MTB but I kind of rather get a fat bike and use it for that and just mess around in the snow and my very unkept 6 acre back yard.

I am looking at the kona wo, looks pretty nice. 4.8in tires and not crazy expensive. I don't really want to spend a lot so carbon is out, just maybe a nice aluminum bike with hydros and 4.8in tires.

I know nothing about fat biking though so share some of your knowledge with me :help::hello:

If you have any interest in it, I've got a 4 year old Surly Pugsley that has <30 miles on it. It's fun but I've found that I'd rather just use my MTB if the roads are bad.

[commonguy001]

Over the years I owned a few of them when I was in MN.

Biggest thing IMO is making sure whatever you buy can be set up tubeless. Tubeless on a fat bike makes more of a difference than any other bike I've ridden both tubed and tubeless. If the wheel set isn't tubeless ready I'd pass. I haven't bought one in a while so maybe that's not even a thing anymore but it used to be.

If your area hovers around freezing and you get a lot of ice, fat tires will not keep you upright and studded fat tires are wicked expensive. I dislike riding in super icy conditions so I had maybe 5-6 weeks if I was lucky of primo riding conditions. The rest of the time it was either 15 below zero or so icy that even with studs you had to tip toe down some of the sections.

[R3awak3n]

thats what I have been reading about snow that its not just a walk in the park and that if the snow is not compact makes for some hard ridding and maybe even impossible. Also was reading about studded tires and that they are incredibly expensive but pretty sweet in snow.

I hear you on the suspension and thats what a buddy told me, that I would be better served with a mtb. I could also choose something that is fatish with a front sus fork, like the cona wozo, will do 4.5 tires and have that front suspension fork. I want something to ride the trails, I don't mind it being slowish and to me a fat bike just looks more fun overall over a MTB, I am not trying to start MTBing but more like add something fun to do in the winter and not always ride road of gravel.

[p nut]

Fat bikes are great for snow and sand, but I wouldn't want to use one for trail use since most of them don't have fork suspension. Although they have extremely cushy tires, the lack of suspension and their weight makes it difficult for climbing and anything technical.



First, you can easily put a fork on if you want. Most (or all?) now are suspension corrected. Bluto or Mastadon. Trek also has a Full Suspension fat bike (Farley EX).

Tech terrain, I actually find fat tires make it easier. So much traction. I do think 27.5 Fat works better (for rollover), but overall, more rubber works better for me. Reason I don't ride fat bikes on singletrack a lot is because I can't throw it around. Different kind of riding.

[jtbadge]

Fat bikes are pretty fun. I used to own one and it always put a smile on my face.

That said, unless you're routinely trekking through snow and sand, a 27.5+ hardtail will get you much of the added grip and flotation of a fat bike without the added weight and complication of accommodating 4-5" tires and handling like a total dump truck.

[72gmc]

Fat bikes are pretty fun. I used to own one and it always put a smile on my face.

That said, unless you're routinely trekking through snow and sand, a 27.5+ hardtail will get you much of the added grip and flotation of a fat bike without the added weight and complication of accommodating 4-5" tires and handling like a total dump truck.

I haven't owned a fat bike, but I've tried one. I now own a 27.5+ (Jones SWB complete) and I can't see wanting more tire than that. I live in Seattle, and I probably won't be rolling along snowmobile tracks.

[Jaybee]

First, you can easily put a fork on if you want. Most (or all?) now are suspension corrected. Bluto or Mastadon. Trek also has a Full Suspension fat bike (Farley EX).

Tech terrain, I actually find fat tires make it easier. So much traction. I do think 27.5 Fat works better (for rollover), but overall, more rubber works better for me. Reason I don't ride fat bikes on singletrack a lot is because I can't throw it around. Different kind of riding.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

If you're buying a new fatbike in 2019 and want 4-season use, it should probably have a sus fork. Bluto is more XC oriented, based on the Reba internals. Some think it's flexy, I haven't been able to really notice with mine. The Mastodon is a trail/all-mountain level fork, based off the Magnum/Mattoc internals and is a nice fork period.

Riding dirt on a fatty is all kinds of fun, but is a slightly different experience. I can still rail the same trails I would on an FS, but I'm counting on the amazing traction and rollover to save me. Definitely more hammer than scalpel. You can climb almost anything.

27.5, IMO, is the way to go unless you are truly doing soft snow trailblazing and need a 5"+ tire. 27.5x4" almost always ends up being a 3.5ish tire in reality, and while fun on dirt and snowmobile or snowshoe trails, isn't enough float for unpacked snow. Something like a 4.5" Bontrager Gnarwhal at 1-2 psi will float you over almost anything. That tire can be studded if your conditions are icy, and though it's spendy (all fat tires are spendy), you can get 5+ seasons out of a tire if it's only ridden on snow and ice.

There are a variety of fatbike hub standards available, though the industry seems to be coalescing around 197mm rear, 150mm front. I'd go this way to ensure future compatibility. a 177mm rear or even the Pugsley 135mm F/R will keep your q-factor in check, but you'll probably be limited from running the biggest possible tires for soft situations.

If it were me, starting from scratch, without another dedicated MTB, I'd probably go with a Trek Farley 7. That gets you 27.5 x 4.5 and a mastodon fork. If I still had some cash, I'd get a second 29 wheelset with nice wide rims capable of running 29 x 2.6-3.0 for the summer.

Also, I've never ridden the Wo, but I have ridden the Wozo, and it absolutely rips. Modern LLS hardtail geo based on the Honzo but with massive tire clearance.

[stien]

I'll pile on. I have a Farley 8 with a Bluto.

https://archive.trekbikes.com/ie/en/2015/Trek/farley_8#/ie/en/2015/Trek/farley_8/details

https://s7d4.scene7.com/is/image/TrekBicycleProducts/Asset_222463?wid=1490&hei=1080&fit=fit,1&fmt=png-alpha&qlt=80,1&op_usm=0,0,0,0&iccEmbed=1

I love it for all year use. It's crazy good on my local trails. I really don't feel that there is a downside to riding a fat bike in the summer. At least this geometry is really maneuverable compared to the Surly ICT my brother used to have. The 3.8" tires aren't slow feeling either. I have them set up tubeless.

[R3awak3n]

so is there a fat bike with front sus that will take a 4.8??

or do I even want that or will I be fine with a 4.0? To me a 4.0 seems huge and I think the front sus would be pretty awesome to have.

[Jaybee]

All of the major suspension forks - Bluto, Mastodon, Wren, Lauf will fit 26x5" the Bluto is really close on 27.5 x 4.5", the Mastodon clears every bike tire out there. Wren has too many weird things for me to recommend it, though apparently when it works it's awesome. I've never ridden a Lauf, but there's so much undamped suspension in a tire that big I've never had an interest in adding even more.

4.0 is fine on groomed/packed snow and better in non-snow conditions. 4.8 extends your range in the winter and allows you to break new trail with the right tire pressure and snow conditions. Here in Denver, we don't have a lot of groomed trails, so I always wait a few hours for the XC skiers and snowshoes and guys with 4.8" tires to make a nice track for me, then I ride it with 4" tires.

If you really want to go down this fat rabbit hole (and I think you should!), here's a community you can access: https://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/

[p nut]

so is there a fat bike with front sus that will take a 4.8??

or do I even want that or will I be fine with a 4.0? To me a 4.0 seems huge and I think the front sus would be pretty awesome to have.

I think some have had success running Jumbo Jim 4.8's (26") and other 5" tires in the Mastadon.

I've had both 4 and 5" tires. For me, there really isn't that much more advantage for the 5" tires. Sure, there are probably sections where I walked with 4" but could ride on 5". But those type of conditions are so far and few in between (conditions have to be juuuuust right), I'd rather have a little less mass to turn everywhere else. The main key to riding on snow is PSI (or, lack thereof). I run 0 to 2 psi in anything over maybe 3" of non-compacted snow. Of course that depends on the type of snow as well. Fluffier and dry stuff, I can ride 6" of that stuff and be just fine. But don't be afraid to let out air.

I think you will be fine with 4". Especially if it's 27.5. If I were buying a bike today, it would definitely come with 27.5 wheels.

[JAGI410]

My steel rigid fatbike (Surly Wednesday) weighs less than my carbon full suspension bike (Salsa Horsethief). While they are different bikes entirely the fatbike is more fun overall. Lap times are similar in summer too. Winter the fatbike is obviously faster because the other one can't go in snow and just sits there unused.

I like the Kona Wo...but not as much as the Woo, and certainly less than the Wozo. They have silly names but are all fun bikes. The Wozo has the shortest chainstays of any fatty and it make a killer trail bike.

I've ridden a lot of fatbikes over the past 9 years...and I gotta say my Wednesday is still my overall favorite. If I wanted lighter I'd go Otso Voytek (new models get announced on Monday) or a Salsa Beargrease.

Get one, go tubeless, and giggle everytime you ride it. Hard to go wrong.

[R3awak3n]

I really like the wozo but maybe more than I want to spend.

I think I would probably be ok with smaller tires if that meant the bike is better as a 4 season bike. I think there are a lot of good places up here to use a fatbike for all year long. I am ok with not bombing down rocks and throwing the bike around... Go down slow and steady and have a lot of confidence that the tires give. My buddy is trying to convince me to just get a mid fat instead but I kind think the fat will just be more fun.

My LBS has Konas and Salsas and I will most likely rent one to check it out first and see how I like it and will almost certainly buy it from them if I am into it and I think those are the 2 brands they care so no spesh fat boy, trek farley or surly.

[p nut]

...My buddy is trying to convince me to just get a mid fat instead but I kind think the fat will just be more fun...


Good thing is, fat bikes can also be run mid-fat (Plus). My Pugsley with 29+ wheels.

[David Kirk]

Deep winter in the Bridgers of South West Montana.

dave

[JAGI410]

My LBS has Konas and Salsas and I will most likely rent one to check it out first and see how I like it and will almost certainly buy it from them if I am into it and I think those are the 2 brands they care so no spesh fat boy, trek farley or surly.

If they can get Salsa, then they can get Surly. They come from the same source. The Salsa Mukluk might also be a good choice. Fits the fattest tires, has plenty of mounts for things, and can even go singlespeed if things go wrong in the backcountry. Yet the geometry is agile enough to be a fun bike when unloaded in summer.

[Jaybee]

Mukluk v3 (with the 177 rear) is what I'm on. The swinging drops mean you can get the chain stays pretty short and I've slightly overforked it with a 120mm Bluto so the HA is probably around 67.5 sagged. It's pretty playful with 27.5x3.8 FBR/FBF, and even better on 29+ wheels. My only regrets are the rear end spacing which has meant it's hard to find premade and secondhand aftermarket wheels, and the downtube can't clear the reverse arch on a Mastodon. The second is less of a problem because I think the Bluto is a perfectly fine fork.
The newest version fixes all the problems I have with mine - I'd put it on the short list, because Salsa/Surly really knows what they are doing with fatbikes.

[R3awak3n]

I think I might not be able to go front suspension, been looking and everything front sus seems to be out of my price range. I think a kona wo might be what I can afford which is fine to start I think.

[Jaybee]

I think I might not be able to go front suspension, been looking and everything front sus seems to be out of my price range. I think a kona wo might be what I can afford which is fine to start I think.

The Wo is totally fine. Nice neutral geo, ready for snow and sand crawling. Nothing in the spec demands an immediate update, but I'd put the following on my list of future upgrades to make it a 4-season machine:

1) tubeless (should work with the rims/tires you already have
2) second set of tires (4", jumbo Jims or Nate's are good for dirt) or better yet a 27+ or 29+ wheelset for summer riding
3) dropper post. It's way easier to remount in the snow with the seat down. And of course the normal off-road benefits of a dropper. I've been really happy with the cold weather performance of my PNW components dropper.
4) this Bluto (https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=243147) in the classifieds. I swap rigid/Bluto for snow/dirt. Usually. The Bluto is really nice for postholed snow.