Fat Bikes Fatbikes: a real 4 season option?

[Ron]

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.

the question I would again ask is what bike, what tires etc. I dont think there's much argument that a fat tire (at and above 3.8) certainly takes more energy to get them to roll but they take less energy to roll through and over rocks and undulating terrain. If I am climbing up Emerald, say 2 miles with 1k gain, I can promise you I wont go faster than 6-7mph on any of my mtn bikes.. I need to get on a modern bike to test. my thoughts are a true fat bike setup wont be as fast but is that the only criteria? is a fat bike with a Plus setup a better option? Thats what I am thinking.

 

[Ron]

here's a interesting article regarding plus tires

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/are-275-wheels-and-tyres-better-than-29ers-47047/

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I don't know what bikes they were exactly, but sometimes they have been carbon fiber wonder bikes. Other times, old school steel Surly's. It's not like these guys can't pedal either. I understand that rolling resistance changes with width, but there is a point where it goes the other way. I have only ridden one plus bike (Rocky Mountain Sherpa I think it was called), was not impressed by the level of grip. It actually rolled just fine uphill, but cornering and especially braking grip was lower than desired.

 

[AmyPJ]

here's a interesting article regarding plus tires

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/are-275-wheels-and-tyres-better-than-29ers-47047/

Very interesting for sure. My next question is how do they compare on climbs? Since the riding we do here tends to involve a LOT of climb, climb, climb, followed by descent. Less resistance and weight while climbing is important, and must be balanced with how "fun" a descent is (or how fast.) Since I'm not racing here, is the trade-off worth it?
(My bike can be converted to 27.5+ from it's current 29X2.4.)

 

[Doug Briggs]

From the remarks I've read so far, my take-away is that fat bikes will work but they aren't ideal for all conditions. Kind of like skis and different conditions. There are advantages and disadvantages to fat bikes, just like there are for 26, 27.5, 29 and tire widths.

I'm going to try to get out on a fat bike demo during Breck Bike Week: http://www.gobreck.com/events/breck-bike-week. Then I can rejoin the conversation.

 

[Ron]

I don't know what bikes they were exactly, but sometimes they have been carbon fiber wonder bikes. Other times, old school steel Surly's. It's not like these guys can't pedal either. I understand that rolling resistance changes with width, but there is a point where it goes the other way. I have only ridden one plus bike (Rocky Mountain Sherpa I think it was called), was not impressed by the level of grip. It actually rolled just fine uphill, but cornering and especially braking grip was lower than desired.

You'll get no arguement from me on the overall speed depending on the terrain! I'm not thinking about leaving a 4.0 tire on my bike. But you get my point. its not a clear-cut.

Very interesting for sure. My next question is how do they compare on climbs? Since the riding we do here tends to involve a LOT of climb, climb, climb, followed by descent. Less resistance and weight while climbing is important, and must be balanced with how "fun" a descent is (or how fast.) Since I'm not racing here, is the trade-off worth it?
(My bike can be converted to 27.5+ from it's current 29X2.4.)

i would go 27.5+ but I would see if you can demo first.

 

[Ron]

From the remarks I've read so far, my take-away is that fat bikes will work but they aren't ideal for all conditions. Kind of like skis and different conditions. There are advantages and disadvantages to fat bikes, just like there are for 26, 27.5, 29 and tire widths.

I'm going to try to get out on a fat bike demo during Breck Bike Week: http://www.gobreck.com/events/breck-bike-week. Then I can rejoin the conversation.

Yes and I would go so far as to say in general, I wouldn't advocate using a 4.0 tire on my everyday trail bike. There's a ton of reviews out there on the Farley and the Borealis (and many others) but I can't imagine for colorado riding that the true fat bike (and many times its a 26" and not a 27.5") will be as much fun YMMV. I am saying it's very likely that many riders who are looking to ride in the winter, and not riding overly technical terrain would love a fat bike with the option to change out the fork and wheelset to a plus configuration.

 

[AmyPJ]

You'll get no arguement from me on the overall speed depending on the terrain! I'm not thinking about leaving a 4.0 tire on my bike. But you get my point. its not a clear-cut.




i would go 27.5+ but I would see if you can demo first.

The bigger question: Why? What benefits are there of going 27.5+? That's what I'm trying to figure out here. I'll stick with what I have for this season, because I already have it and can't put more money into bikes, especially since my dropper is too long and I'm having to order a shorter one. Is there an advantage to plus sized tires for someone who is heavier? As in, less likely to pinch flat or fold? (running tubeless, of course.)

 

[Ron]

better grip and rolling on trails

 

[AmyPJ]

better grip and rolling on trails

Climbing comparable? If so, then it's a no-brainer for someone like me.

 

[Ron]

oddly, they didn't cover climbing in that test but there's no reason to believe that based on the advantages shown on the other tests, climbing should be faster or at least smoother (or perceived speed) faster. i am hoping Epic and Josh will chime in but i'll bet you a few beers the 27.5+ will be faster as long as the trails aren't not super hard and smooth (similar to a road surface) where a thinner tire will roll faster. it really comes down to tire deformation and surface contact. (as a tire deforms it maintains contact with the trail surface meaning it is more efficient subject to energy required to move it up the hill)

 

[Ron]

One of the claimed benefits of 27.5+ tires is that they measure out to approximately the same outer diameter as a 29x2.3in tire, meaning it's possible to use existing components, such as 29er suspension forks:


One of the claimed benefits of 27.5+ tires is that they measure out to approximately the same outer diameter as a 29x2.3in tire, meaning it's possible to use existing components, such as 29er suspension forks

“The beauty of 27.5+ is its compatibility. It works in bikes people already have. It also rides really well, it spins up to speed quickly, doesn’t feel lethargic to get moving, yet allows you to run lower pressure and gain uncanny traction. The tread pattern has quite a lot to do with this, but there really is something to the size. Because of its accessibility to bikes already out there and the lack of specific, custom parts necessary, it’s not unreasonable to think this size will become more popular than 29+,” said WTB’s Will Ritchie.


article- also Schwalbe has been preaching this for years http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/trail-tech-exploring-27-5-video-42832/

 

[Ron]

HOWEVER! read this....

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/why-the-275-plus-standard-is-doomed-48551/

 

[AmyPJ]

I can easily borrow the man squeeze's wheels and tires if he goes 27.5+ to try them out. We'll be on the same bike. Conversely, he can test out my 29X2.4s.

 

[Ron]

if i were a betting man (and im not) I would bet that the tire width thing shakes out at about 2,8

 

[AmyPJ]

HOWEVER! read this....

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/why-the-275-plus-standard-is-doomed-48551/

This addresses my "concerns" that a + tire will be more prone to strength issues (yes, it can be.)
So much to ponder!

 

[AmyPJ]

if i were a betting man (and im not) I would bet that the tire width thing shakes out at about 2,8

That last article you posted sure leans that way. Sounds like the weight trade off of keeping the tire strong at anything bigger isn't worth it yet. Who knows what will be engineered in the future.

My new bike corners vastly better than my old one. Both are 29ers. That was my biggest beef with my old bike. It climbed like a billy goat, though.

 

[Ron]

i doubt that 90% of the riders out on the trails have a legitimate concern over this on a 2,8 or 2.6 tire especially if they have the correct wheel width (40-ish). Schwalbe already has reinforced casings on their plus tires already BTW,

yes, my old 9'r climbed really well. The trance is close but not as well. The plus should add that element since the height of the added width makes it very close (not exact)

 

[AmyPJ]

i doubt that 90% of the riders out on the trails have a legitimate concern over this on a 2,8 or 2.6 tire especially if they have the correct wheel width (40-ish). Schwalbe already has reinforced casings on their plus tires already BTW,

At what weight "penalty" I wonder.

 

[Ron]

At what weight "penalty" I wonder.

i'm trying to find the "technology" but it may be a different manufacturer, I could have sworn i just saw a tire with a secondary casing fro better stiffness. I'll keep looking the penalty would be a slight weight gain and a stiffer, less supple feel the gain would be substantial