• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Fat Bikes Fatbikes: a real 4 season option?

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,189
Location
Gloucester, MA
Isn't the goal with the wider tires to add compliance, increase traction, not add much weight or rolling resistance, and not loose precision. I suppose each class of bike will have a sweet spot tire size for optimizing those things. FS will be the smallest size, like 2.6" and rigid fat bikes will be the largest, like 3.5-4.0". I ride a 29X2.4" hardtail and I would try a 27.5X 2.8" tire to gain some more compliance if it would fit my bike, which it won't. If I was on a FS bike, I think 2.4" is a pretty good tire to run, Maybe a 2.6" when they come out with them (27.5 plus size)
 
Thread Starter
TS
Ron

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
well here ya' go! Nobby Nic, rocket ron and Minions in 2.6. WTB also has a 2.5.

https://www.dirtmerchantbikes.com/s.../interbike-2016-26-tires-from-maxxis-schwalbe

https://www.schwalbetires.com/the-next-big-thing-275 THESE are 2.8's

I like your thinking and that's why I think I could go 2.8-3.0 on a 27.5+ HT for mostly xc flowy stuff and be very happy while saving weight and adding traction. I'm not opposed to a 29+ but i think for switchbacks and lots of turning through the aspen groves, the 27.5 would be more fun
 
Last edited:

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,474
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.

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.

Leaving aside the merits/demerits of plus for the moment, the FEX is a better bike in 29er shoes. Trek bought into the low, slack trend -- and they know more than me! -- to the point that the bottom bracket is just too low on the plus version for pedaling through rocky/rooty terrain (plus wheels/tires are NOT as tall as 29ers). If plus turns out to be a "gotta have it" thing, at least have the fork extended from 130 to 140 mm, to raise the BB a bit (~$60).

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.

A fat bike is the best way ever devised to get a two hour workout in an hour. And I still kind of want one, because they encourage a different approach to mtb.

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

Amy, IIRC, previous posts indicate you're already running 16 or 17 psi in your 29er tires. At your weight and level of aggression, you're already in plus territory!

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

Having ridden most if not all the tire sizes out there, I'm waiting eagerly for 29 x 2.6s (but I weigh 195 -- 2.4s at near 20 psi are already "there" for most riders, IMO).
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
well here ya' go! Nobby Nic, rocket ron and Minions in 2.6. WTB also has a 2.5.

https://www.dirtmerchantbikes.com/s.../interbike-2016-26-tires-from-maxxis-schwalbe

https://www.schwalbetires.com/the-next-big-thing-275 THESE are 2.8's

I like your thinking and that's why I think I could go 2.8-3.0 on a 27.5+ HT for mostly xc flowy stuff and be very happy while saving weight and adding traction. I'm not opposed to a 29+ but i think for switchbacks and lots of turning through the aspen groves, the 27.5 would be more fun

not sure how larger wheel makes a bike slower around switchback.......

in act as far as I know the only 29+ being sold by a major companies is also one of the best bikes I have ever ridden around a switchback.....
 

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Leaving aside the merits/demerits of plus for the moment, the FEX is a better bike in 29er shoes. Trek bought into the low, slack trend -- and they know more than me! -- to the point that the bottom bracket is just too low on the plus version for pedaling through rocky/rooty terrain (plus wheels/tires are NOT as tall as 29ers). If plus turns out to be a "gotta have it" thing, at least have the fork extended from 130 to 140 mm, to raise the BB a bit (~$60).



A fat bike is the best way ever devised to get a two hour workout in an hour. And I still kind of want one, because they encourage a different approach to mtb.



Amy, IIRC, previous posts indicate you're already running 16 or 17 psi in your 29er tires. At your weight and level of aggression, you're already in plus territory!



Having ridden most if not all the tire sizes out there, I'm waiting eagerly for 29 x 2.6s (but I weigh 195 -- 2.4s at near 20 psi are already "there" for most riders, IMO).
Thanks, Tom! I have noticed more pedal strikes on the new bike and am considering switching to a shorter crank, as the one on the Fuel is the "men's" version, therefore longer by I believe 5mm than my old one.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,474
Thanks, Tom! I have noticed more pedal strikes on the new bike and am considering switching to a shorter crank, as the one on the Fuel is the "men's" version, therefore longer by I believe 5mm than my old one.

So 175 crank? How tall are you, and what size frame do you ride?

You can go the shorter crank route (and it may make sense for more reasons than pedal strikes).

Also, don't be afraid to ride everything but rough downhills with your rear shock in the middle mode. That will hold the bike up a bit higher in its travel, and the fancy Reaktiv valving will let work on bumps when it needs to. Do not fear the firmer modes with Reaktiv valving!
 
Thread Starter
TS
Ron

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
I am interested to see if the Manufacturers raise the BB as I have heard and read conflicting info/reviews. Pedal strike is certainly a complaint.

27.5 plus=9'r? correct! not exactly (very close) and you really have to look at each tire. It is worth mentioning that you can run some 27.5 tires on a 9'r wheel. Not that you would although some pro's have.... but I'm def' not a pro :)

2.6 vs 2.8... yep, interesting but I do wonder if (like in my case) many who will go with a 2.6 over a 2.8 will be due to having older wheelsets that just don't work with 2.8's. no knowledge or opinion. just observation

If you have a few minutes to read.

https://www.bikerumor.com/2016/08/12/tech-story-match-bicycle-tire-width-rim-width-best-results/
 
Last edited:

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
So 175 crank? How tall are you, and what size frame do you ride?

You can go the shorter crank route (and it may make sense for more reasons than pedal strikes).

Also, don't be afraid to ride everything but rough downhills with your rear shock in the middle mode. That will hold the bike up a bit higher in its travel, and the fancy Reaktiv valving will let work on bumps when it needs to. Do not fear the firmer modes with Reaktiv valving!
Yes, 175 crank. I'm 5'5" and am on the 17.5 frame. I actually do ride with my rear shock in the middle pretty much on everything BUT bumpy downhill.
I'm not sure I love that Trek made the "women's" version of the Fuel identical to the men's. Cranks are the same, dropper is 125mm, which it turns out is too long and I had to order a 100mm one and will have to sell the 125. I told the Trek rep, who I saw last week, that I wasn't thrilled with that.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,474
Yes, 175 crank. I'm 5'5" and am on the 17.5 frame. I actually do ride with my rear shock in the middle pretty much on everything BUT bumpy downhill.
I'm not sure I love that Trek made the "women's" version of the Fuel identical to the men's. Cranks are the same, dropper is 125mm, which it turns out is too long and I had to order a 100mm one and will have to sell the 125. I told the Trek rep, who I saw last week, that I wasn't thrilled with that.

Not to flame on your LBS, but they should have set you up with the correct crank and dropper length, either no charge, or a modest charge.

There is NO long-term upside in sending a customer out the door with an ill-fitting bike.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
there is no way you could run a 27.5 tire on a 9er wheel ron.....
 

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Not to flame on your LBS, but they should have set you up with the correct crank and dropper length, either no charge, or a modest charge.

There is NO long-term upside in sending a customer out the door with an ill-fitting bike.
They didn't set me up. Just ordered it for me, as my man friend works there in the winter. Anyway, we're getting it figured out. Still not sure about the crank yet. I might be able to adapt to it.
 

Jersey Skier

aka RatherPlayThanWork or Gary
Skier
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,984
Location
Metuchen, NJ
Dialing in the new Mastodon fork for the rocks of NJ.
IMG_4676.JPG


To be continued.....
 
Thread Starter
TS
Ron

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
Dialing in the new Mastodon fork for the rocks of NJ.
To be continued.....

And deer ticks. :(

Cool! New fork going up against the Bluto. Interested to hear your thoughts. And overall fat bike experience. Are those 26's? What width.
 

Jersey Skier

aka RatherPlayThanWork or Gary
Skier
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,984
Location
Metuchen, NJ
And deer ticks. :(

Cool! New fork going up against the Bluto. Interested to hear your thoughts. And overall fat bike experience. Are those 26's? What width.

Yes, I'm one of those jerks who rides a fat bike year round. Why? FUN.! As a bike shop owner I can ride whatever I want. Fat tires are just fun. I was out on my Carbon Fatboy with 26x4.8 Jumbo Jims today testing out the new Manitou Mastodon Pro. The new fork blows away the Bluto. I've had several Blutos over the past few seasons and while they totally transform a Fatbike into a year round machine, they are kinda flexy and the damping just wasn't up to today's standards. The Manitou solves both those issues.I still need to dial it in a bit more, but there is no question that my Bluto is up for sale.

PS, I don't discriminate against fat, I have a 27x3 Stumpjumper and a 29x3 Krampus too.
 

Crank

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Posts
2,644
I thought one of the reasons for riding a fat bike was no need for shocks? Must be a super plush ride with both, albeit heavy?
 

Jersey Skier

aka RatherPlayThanWork or Gary
Skier
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,984
Location
Metuchen, NJ
I thought one of the reasons for riding a fat bike was no need for shocks? Must be a super plush ride with both, albeit heavy?

Feels like a 4" travel FS bike. Weighs about 24lbs with a dropper post. Lot of carbon.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
I thought one of the reasons for riding a fat bike was no need for shocks? Must be a super plush ride with both, albeit heavy?

tire can only take care of small hits.......
 

Pierre

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
73
Location
NE Ohio
Youz guys probably aren't going to like what I have to say but! I love my fat bike. I wanted a bike for riding in snow, loose sand and over just about anything. Above all I wanted it to be loads of fun. I'm old, I don't have tons of stamina and I started mountain biking at age 57. I held off getting one because I had tried them and found them far too exhausting to have fun. In the end, practicality and engineering won out and I decided to build one.
I started with a titanium bike from Bikes Direct that came with 2X11 gears, Bluto front fork, Sun Ringle MuleFut wheels and Maxxis Minion 26 X 4.8 tires. I added an older KS 900i dropper post I had, replaced the saddle with Sprecialized Henge Pro, went with a tubeless set up, changed to wider bars and shorter stem. I then installed a 52volt crank drive electric system with 700 watt hour lithium manganese battery, eliminated the front derailleur and installed a 42 tooth narrow/wide aluminum chain ring, hall sensors for brakes and gear shifting, decent full light readable computer. Bike is 51 lbs.
I spent considerable time programing and getting the systems to integrate well and work smoothly and stay well within legal limits. One thing I eliminated. My bike does not have a throttle control. I found a throttle control to be dangerous with no real effective way of eliminating that danger. Special attention to programing pedal response eliminated the need to even consider a throttle so my bike is strictly pedal assist. I have programed assist response to let me do as much of the work as I can and the electrics make up what I can't. On a paved bike path I don't get much of any assist at all but you throw in 8-10" of snow or round grain loose sand, mud or big climbs and I get a fair amount of assist.
I have ordered new tires for the bike as the Maxxis Minions are not that great for the type of riding that I mostly do. The Minions are high rolling resistance, loud and fantastic in mud or wet soil, neither of which I care to ride. They are as loud as running off the edge of the road and hitting the rumble strips on hard surface no matter what the pressure is and they don't work well with loose glacial gravels like we have in my area. I'm going to try the Vee Rubber Mission 26 X 4.8's.
I have put some extra's on it that I definitely would not put on a bike without assist. I added lights, mud fenders, a rear rack, a damned bell, a mirror and a cell phone holder. The cell phone integrates with the computer and is charged by the main battery.
My experience so far is certainly more positive than negative. I have gotten in better shape with this bike than my other bikes, I feel better after rides, I can ride much further. With my other bikes I was riding about 70 miles a week; 60mi MPT/road and 10 single track. I am now riding about 120-160 miles a week depending on weather. I ride three days a week with a group of old roadies on MPT/roads and take at least one longer trip by myself. I am riding 10-30 miles a week single track. I will expand more into sand, snow and fire roads as time goes on. I have in 650 miles since the third week in March. I am also looking as some muti-day trips with hundred mile days.
My riding experience is different than what I was expecting. One major difference is that there is no problem getting back up to speed after a slowdown, no problem getting started again on a hill and no need for momentum to make a climb. The result is you slow way down for pedestrians, pull over sooner to let faster riders go by, obey traffic rules more closely and I don't tend to get a run at a climb. That is considerably different than the more speed I was expecting to utilize. I don't get myself hyped over need for momentum, my mental stress level is lower. The more I ride this bike the less I feel like I am cheating. Its amazing what 10 cents worth of electricity in a battery can do to increase the experience.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
yeah your bike is not legal on any single track that motos are not allowed on. I am curious what singletrack you have near by that motorized vehicles are allowed on. What you have is a shitty electric motorcycle. and some of the comments are laughable.

"no problem getting back up to speed after it slow down."

lol no crap its got a motor.

sorry riding longer because you have an electric motocycle is not really an accomplishment.
 

Pierre

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
73
Location
NE Ohio
That's what I loved about yeah Josh before you got banned over at Epic. I knew what you comment would be before you posted lol. Still want to ski with you but sounds like biking is out.
You're right about one thing, it sure would make a shty motorcycle. I have an old Honda 70 with more than 12 times the horse power of my bike and for one hell of a lot less money. A Honda 70 will do 50mph, is a shty motorcycle and treated like a bicycle on the road by drivers. I paid $749.95 for it in 1981. The battery on my bike is the equivalent of 6 oz of gasoline at a recovery rate of 30%. If I had the e-motor to get to 50 mph, I would get about 2 miles out of the battery before I was forced to slow down and ultimately would get about 8-10 total. Batteries are shty power sources. Batteries have low energy density, low extended power density and are fragile. Bottom line is; your motorcycle analogy is hogwash and I am becoming unapologetic for going the electric route. My bike has no motorcycle appeal cuz it has no BRAP.

I have only run into one negative person in actual use. The guy said it was cheating and in-necessary yet did not reject the offer to try it. He said he wished he had not tired it because it was nothing like what he expected. He admitted it was a bike and was too much fun and he felt contaminated and unable to keep his negative opinions. 97%+ of all riders do not realize it is electric assist. I doesn't stand out as being powered. I would have guessed that more people would realize the bike is electric because the bike does not blend in. The bike is big bold and stunning to a lot of people I encounter.

Got to get ready to ride with the roadies. Due to be there at 10 AM. Not enough sleep so I will take the e bike to this mornings gerry ride. Its cold this morning. I want heated handlebar grips and heated saddle. I can invent that if it is not available. :popcorn:
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top