Fat Bikes Fatbikes: a real 4 season option?

[Ron]

so while sitting around I thought i would start looking into a fatbike for all of the new trail areas around here now. In researching however, i am thinking a well-designed fatbike with a Bluto and a second set of 27.5 plus wheels 3.0-3.2 could be a really nice setup for dry weather riding and then use the stock 27.5 3.8-4.5 setup for winter..

the Borealis Crestone elite or Trek Farley EX 9.8 are 2 good examples. the big question is a FS fat bike (Farley, for instance) a good idea? is a bluto and a hardtail in a 3.0-3.4 a better idea in more flowy single track? or even just ride the stock setup of a 3.8 on dirt trails? weights are now at or below traditional setups. The Farley 9.9 weighs 22# for a medium. is there too much uncontrolled rebound on a 3.0-3.4? Do you need a Suspension fork?

https://www.fatbike.com/product/crestone-elite/

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/...bikes/farley-ex/farley-ex-9-8/p/1135600-2017/

 

[Josh Matta]

no matter how light it gets the tires are still heavy......even the plus bikes.....with that said plus tires do really well on hardpack, rocks,roots, and basically anything that a knob does not have to penetrate to have grip on. For the best riders plus tires will slide around quite a bit in sand(but in some case the extra float is nice), loam, and mud.

IMO a Fat bike with a bluto and a FS with 2.6-3.0 tires is the perfect quiver for someone riding hardpacked trails for a dedicated recreational riders. I really wish I had a plus bike for Stowe Trail(hardpack very ridden) but have ridden one on my trail, and the local loamy trails and they slide around quite a bit on the loam.

 

[Josh Matta]

BTW its worth noting that the Trek Full suspension has more modern GEO and the Crestone has older geo.

 

[Ron]

i was hoping you would chime in! Yeah, i won't be able to ride a mtn bike until August but im very curious.about the EX. I would rather get a EX9.8 with a HED "half " (27.5) wheel set and setup at 3.8. my bet is that would come in under 30. a HED or other 27.5 45mm setup for a 3.0+/- should get me down to 27-ish

Borealis just modified that frame with the thought that the 70 HT angle would be more agile. 69* is the standard out there otherwise.

 

[Josh Matta]

yeah the thing is fat tires really do not make the bike handle any differently from a frame geometery stand point....

well I will entirely agree that for cornering flat corner and going uphill a steeper head angle will be quicker all things being equally.....but if you look at the total package shorter Chainstays as well as longer front end(the trek's Full suspension) will be almost as quick on flatter stuff while really letting you lean over the bike on DHs.

If I was looking at Fat bike this would be basically my only choice due to the best geometery for how I like to ride. Heck I probably want a 120mm Bluto over the 100.....

http://www.konaworld.com/wozo.cfm

but i am pretty biased as a Kona Honzo Owner.

another thing to note on all fat bikes and Plus bikes especially is on flatter slightly uphill, or downhill with a bunch of small hits they will roll noticeably quicker than a traditional 2.3 inch tire........but you pay for it smoother surfaces where they roll much slower.

 

[Tom K.]

My preference, given adequate budget:

1. All around FS trail bike.

2. Fully rigid fat bike for actual winter riding.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Fat bikes for winter riding? What about skiing? I am a fat bike conscientious objector.

 

[Ron]

Yeah, the farley, is ~.75" shorter stays and a 69* HT. clearly a better Geo on paper. The Farley 9.9 (rigid) also comes with Eagle 12. Add that to a Tire clearance that permits a 27.5 x 4.5 (class leader) which i would prefer for the groomed trails And, the HED wheelset is really sweet too. the issue of course is cost overall You can go Borealis with a bluto and a RS Stealth dropper for about a grand under the Farley (assuming 20% off the Farley). the Farley 9.8 does drop the price to ~3700 (assuming 20% off) and may be a great option. it drops the tranny to xo/x1 but keeps the Race face cranks (i would want o swap out the 30t for a 26t).

You can buy a set of HED's setup for 27.5 + and really have a pretty killer setup. Borealis is also offering a free extra wheelset right now to boot. But there's no way I am buying a bike I cannot ride.

 

[Tom K.]

Fat bikes for winter riding? What about skiing? I am a fat bike conscientious objector.

+1. Came close, but backed away.

 

[mikel]

Hey Ron, take a look at Foes

http://www.timberlinecycles.com/store/p27/Foes_Mutz.html

 

[Ron]

Fat bikes for winter riding? What about skiing? I am a fat bike conscientious objector.

+1. Came close, but backed away.

you are missing the value here. you can buy a "fatbike" that can double as your plus trail bike with no penalties. the Farley for instance is pretty much a Stache. there's little difference. I am not so sure I need a FS plus bike. I doubt i will ride the bike a ton in the winter but for our flowy XC oriented trails around here, the plus bike is very appealing. i'm still in the early stages of learning.

 

[Tom K.]

you are missing the value here. you can buy a "fatbike" that can double as your plus trail bike with no penalties. the Farley for instance is pretty much a Stache. there's little difference. I am not so sure I need a FS plus bike. I doubt i will ride the bike a ton in the winter but for our flowy XC oriented trails around here, the plus bike is very appealing. i'm still in the early stages of learning.

Agreed. One of the reasons that I backed away was that I waited a bit too long, and Trek was out of Farley 9.8s.

Since this would be my first "dip of the toe" into fat bike waters, going to the 9.9 level seemed like a stretch.

 

[Ron]

@Tom K. lol, yep, and add the 9.9 to the sold out list. My LBS says the Treks will be out in August and i am hoping for a few tweaks on component offerings. The ultimate may be a Farley setup rigid for winter and run the 27.5,x 3.8's, and a Pike solo 120 and 27.5 + hoops for trail. Not that any of that is cheap. I could sell my trance Advanced carbon which I have setup at 27.75 pounds right now which is super sweet. It can fit 2.5's but I would still want a fat bike for winter. If I could go the farley route, I would be able to go with one bike and just swap out the fork and wheelset.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Are fat bikes more difficult to pedal than more traditional mt bikes? Or in other words, is it more of a workout to ride a fat bike on a given XC trail than lets say a 27.5 with trad tires?

Nota bene: I've not ridden a fat bike.

Added later: It seems like a fat bike for all seasons is equivalent to a ski for all conditions.

 

[AmyPJ]

i was hoping you would chime in! Yeah, i won't be able to ride a mtn bike until August but im very curious.about the EX. I would rather get a EX9.8 with a HED "half " (27.5) wheel set and setup at 3.8. my bet is that would come in under 30. a HED or other 27.5 45mm setup for a 3.0+/- should get me down to 27-ish

Borealis just modified that frame with the thought that the 70 HT angle would be more agile. 69* is the standard out there otherwise.

My man friend is contemplating which to get: EX 9.8 27.5 with plus size, or EX 9.8 29er with 2.4. What are the advantages of the plus size, particularly for someone who weighs in at 200 lbs? Gathering opinions, as he's gotten a few conflicting ones.

Are fat bikes more difficult to pedal than more traditional mt bikes? Or in other words, is it more of a workout to ride a fat bike on a given XC trail than lets say a 27.5 with trad tires?

Nota bene: I've not ridden a fat bike.

Added later: It seems like a fat bike for all seasons is equivalent to a ski for all conditions.

Man friend rode a fat bike yesterday on a ride with me that is not technical per se, but is a steady climb and he was MISERABLE. Heavy, no suspension, rolling resistance made for a pretty crappy experience for him.

 

[Ron]

Are fat bikes more difficult to pedal than more traditional mt bikes? Or in other words, is it more of a workout to ride a fat bike on a given XC trail than lets say a 27.5 with trad tires?

Nota bene: I've not ridden a fat bike.

that's like asking are all powder ski's as easy to ski powder in (regardless of the depth and moisture of the snow) ....

I have not rode one but In some ways they are easier, in others could be more difficult but a lot will depend on the gearing, wheels size, tire choice inflation and type of terrain. A wider tire will roll better and provide more grip on dirt trails. this is why plus tires 2.8-3.2 are gaining a lot of favor.- here's what @Tom K. and I are looking at. Converting the bike for better trail use


@AmyPJ -- which fat bike setup how? a lot of the typical fatbikes weigh 34-36 pounds! The ones we are discussing here weigh 22-24#


REVIEWS
Borealis Crestone Elite
https://fat-bike.com/2016/05/the-borealis-crestone-review/
http://reviews.mtbr.com/borealis-crestone-fat-bike-review
https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-reviews/on-review-borealis-crestone-xx1-fat-bike/
LONG TERM TEST-

Farley http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gea...at-bike/product/review-trek-farley-9-8-50070/

 

[AmyPJ]

that's like asking are all powder ski's as easy to ski powder in (regardless of the depth and moisture of the snow) ....

I have not rode one but In some ways they are easier, in others could be more difficult but a lot will depend on the gearing, wheels size, tire choice inflation and type of terrain. A wider tire will roll better and provide more grip on dirt trails. this is why plus tires 2.8-3.2 are gaining a lot of favor.


@AmyPJ -- which fat bike setup how? a lot of the typical fatbikes weigh 34-36 pounds! The ones we are discussing here weigh 22-24#

It was an older Farley, weighed a ton.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Are fat bikes more difficult to pedal than more traditional mt bikes? Or in other words, is it more of a workout to ride a fat bike on a given XC trail than lets say a 27.5 with trad tires?

Nota bene: I've not ridden a fat bike.

Added later: It seems like a fat bike for all seasons is equivalent to a ski for all conditions.

that's like asking are all powder ski's as easy to ski powder in (regardless of the depth and moisture of the snow) ....

I have not rode one but In some ways they are easier, in others could be more difficult but a lot will depend on the gearing, wheels size, tire choice inflation and type of terrain. A wider tire will roll better and provide more grip on dirt trails. this is why plus tires 2.8-3.2 are gaining a lot of favor.


@AmyPJ -- which fat bike setup how? a lot of the typical fatbikes weigh 34-36 pounds! The ones we are discussing here weigh 22-24#

I disagree.

My question was asked in the context of a fat bike being contemplated as a 4 season option. Clearly they are better in soft and slippery conditions like snow, but my understanding was that they are harder to pedal in general so would be less than optimal on, say, a hard packed root and rock strewn trail.

In skiing terms, I expect any powder specific ski to work better in powder than a carving specific ski. But would I choose a powder ski to race SL just because it was better in 12" of fresh?

 

[Ron]

I disagree.

My question was asked in the context of a fat bike being contemplated as a 4 season option. Clearly they are better in soft and slippery conditions like snow, but my understanding was that they are harder to pedal in general so would be less than optimal on, say, a hard packed root and rock strewn trail.

In skiing terms, I expect any powder specific ski to work better in powder than a carving specific ski. But would I choose a powder ski to race SL just because it was better in 12" of fresh?

a 27.5 is not going to be generally found on a XC race bike equating a race sl ski (a typical XC race bike is a 29'r with 2.0-2.25 moderate tread, 100-120 fork and very limited shock travel if any) . I have a blast on my AX's in up to 8" of really light powder. whereas I don't think a pair of Praxis protests (123 underfoot) would be nearly as much fun.

but in many cases, a 3.8 tire on a 27.5 wheel will in fact roller faster, demonstrably smoother and with less resistance than a 2.25 tire. so its not that simple of a question. a 26" 5" tire will not be as quick in general. A27.5 with a 3.0 will in almost all circumstances outperform the 2.25 (regardless of tread and inflation) for XC use but a 29'r (in general) will roll even faster but might not be as nimble on switchbacks ans more turny trails. it may not be as fast in the Flats but will grip better and handle typical trail conditions better; especially in softer conditions.

One real issue now is casing strength and tread design.


READ THIS : https://www.bikerumor.com/2016/05/27/how-much-rolling-resistance-do-fat-bike-tires-really-generate/ glaring issue is tires tested on smooth surfaces vs tires tested on dirt with rocks......

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Any time I've been on a group ride with a fat biker they were S - L - O - W. They even sound slow. A tire that makes that much noise can't be helping you to go fast.