Fat Tire Bikes

[Shaguardriver]

I did a search but I have not seen anything on the Fat tire topic for the last 6 months. If I missed it just direct me...

I am wanting to get a Fat tire bike but I am looking for a bit of guidence. I know of a few shops in my area that will rent or let me take one out for the afternoon. I wold like to hear from a few people that are riding them.

I will start with a bit of who I am as a rider. Number one I am a retro grouch (thumbies and friction shifters rule) I have caved to the front suspension thing about 16 years ago. With that said the fat tire bike thing has my attention due to the no suspension and the cromo frames (put some fancy Lugs on it and I will be in heaven) I am fat and slow as a rider but I love to ride and ride different areas and explore my fair share of forest roads.

Number one who is riding the fat tire bikes and what are the big differances in the bikes in the market? I think I have it narrowed down to the Puglsey and the Muk Luk. I am not opposed to go with a smaller builder and put it together if there is an option out there.

Also sizes I ride a 19 inch frame for my Mtn bike and I have a 34 inseam with ape arms.... What do you think a 18 or 20 inch frame?


Thanks in advance for the help

[iamkickstand]

I did some beach riding this weekend on accident.

I want a fat tire, single speed, beach cruiser type bicycle, does that exist?

[Shaguardriver]

yes....
http://www.instructables.com/id/EXTREME ... E-BICYCLE/

[Steve_Balogh]

I did some beach riding this weekend on accident.

I want a fat tire, single speed, beach cruiser type bicycle, does that exist?

I believe some people have converted these to singlespeeds: http://www.fatsandbike.com/tede.html Good beach cruiser, a bit cheaper than most fatbikes.

To answer the original poster, I've been riding Fatbikes from Alaskan builders for the last 5 years all around our lower peninsula. My 2007 Wildfire has an offset rear-wheel geometry similar to the Pugs. My 2012 Ti Fatback has symmetrical rear geometry that the Mukluk is based off of. Regarding frame size, ask the MFG, my Fatback has a slacker HT angle, with a low curved top-tube. I normally ride an 18, but the Fatback is a 20 and fits me really well. The Wildfire is a 17 as the next size would have been a 19 which would not work having a straight top-tube. Pay attention to the top tube design along with HT angle. Most Fatbikes like the Pugs, Mukluks, and Moonlanders have typical sizes normal to standard MTB's. Most Fatbikes are moving towards symmetrical 170MM rear hubs, however you have more rear hub choices with 135. Symmetry will give you a stronger wheelbuild, however if you do the old Surly Large Marge rims, the offset rear will be plenty strong. Marge Lites, Rolling Darryls, UMA's, are single wall rims with cutouts to save weight. Graceful Fat Shebas are also single wall typically without cutouts.

If you want a really fat-tire bike, the Surly Moonlander has 100MM wide rims and is designed to be able to fit the 4.5" Big Fat Larry tires. They ride really nice, I've ridden one. Quiring, Keller, and SIx-One-Six are local builders making fatties, check them out (Six-One-Six even makes hubs). The Mukluk is an Aluminum frame, so if you want steel, you might try something else.

There's also a few more fat-carbon forks out there now.

Regarding offset vs symmetrical rear designs, I don't really notice it other than I'm using a lighter single wall rim vs the heavier offset bike. Offset rears typically use 135MM wide hubs. Personally I feel that offset designs limit your choices of solid wheel builds. That was my reason for getting the Fatback, building up a lighter weight offset single wall rim scares me as I ride the fatbikes pretty hard. Never head of anyone breaking a light offset wheelbuild, but I fear I'd be truing it too often.

Hope this helps, also checkout the Fatbike forum on MTBR.

[Steve_Balogh]

Deleting the duplicate post

[utabintarbo]

Steve outlined (twice )the biggest difference in the various fat bike designs - the rear hub spacing. There are pros and cons to both, but the trend seems to be going towards 170mm rear hubs. FWIW, I started out on a Pugsley (2010) and last year had a custom made with 170mm rear spacing. I also had a 29er wheelset made to fit the new bike. It has kinda become a do-all platform.

See bottom link in sig for pics.

[SteveF]

Yeah, I wanted one for a long time--I was able to resist the Pugsley because the geometry didn't suit me really well, but the Mukluk is a better fit and even comes with a lot of the parts spec that I would've wanted anyway. (gripshifters for example.) If you have a favorite bike, find out what the geometry is and go by that. (I'm talking about mainly the seat tube--the Pugsley is more slack an I like to be a bit more forward over the bottom bracket so the Mukluk was a better choice for me.) There's the steel (pugsley) vs aluminum (mukluk) thing, but given the heft of some of the parts any weight savings is largely a wash, and ride quality isn't really an issue either with the cush you get from four inch tires!)

The Mukluk is a lot of fun to ride--I really like it!

Re sizing, I'd say size down, especially if you're planning to ride in snow. The increased standover will be welcome and the more upright position via a shorter top tube isn't a bad idea for control and to compensate for all them layers of clothes. Test rides would probably be a good idea if you can't decide by measuring you current bikes and obsessive web surfing.

[Shaguardriver]

Thanks for the added input I will check out the MTBR fat tire section also. As for Geometry I know what I used to like but i am now older and slower and I cary a spare tire these days.... I will have to look if anyone in the West Michigan carries Salsa. I emailed 616 on some pricing I would love to support a local business if it is feasable.

[AllMountin']

If you are looking primarily for an alternative to front suspension, you could try a hybrid. I've seen(but never ridden) an El Mariachi setup with a wide rigid fork and the fat tire in the front only. Seems like an easy enough thing to build.

It would be unique if nothing else.

[utabintarbo]

If you are looking primarily for an alternative to front suspension, you could try a hybrid. I've seen(but never ridden) an El Mariachi setup with a wide rigid fork and the fat tire in the front only. Seems like an easy enough thing to build.

It would be unique if nothing else.

Hardly unique.

[SteveF]

I know a guy (via the interwebz) that rides his Pugsley on rocky, rooty, steep east coast singletrack as a fixed gear. Now that's unique.

[Steve_Balogh]

I know a guy (via the interwebz) that rides his Pugsley on rocky, rooty, steep east coast singletrack as a fixed gear. Now that's unique.

At some point I'll finish the video, Kevin Laroe raced his singlespeed Pugsley with dual Nates at Adrian, and finished sixth, one spot ahead of me. Bummer he got lost on the course, he might have finished higher. For those that don't know, Nates are about the heaviest fat tire and the most aggressive tread, and singlespeed

I see the Sandman thread's got to the point their "rep" is getting his posts axed on MTBR. Those are really nice bikes made in Belgium, but what they are doing is running fat tires on trials rims to save weight, extending the frame like a 29r so it will better accommodate the suspension fork. Nice bikes, but I can't see many people here buying those to race on, even myself. My Fatback is just as good in my opinion, if I want what they are doing I could have someone local build me up some trials rims with fatty hubs and skip the suspension fork. If anything, I'm thinking the freeride crowd would have fun with a Sandman, we don't have the XC terrain similar to where they are doing so well racing them. I never cared to challenge that guy, but prior to the Pugsley, a lot of people including myself, John Heft, Mike Flack, and a few others here in Michigan have built up "Sneaux Bikes" with trials rims or similar Snow Cat rims and put large 2.4-2.7 size tires on them, whatever would fit the frame. Alaskans often used the Nokian Gazza 3.0 with Snow Cats back in the day. They market the Sandman as a "Trail Bike" as a new concept, but not everyone agrees it's a new concept. The Surly 1X1 frame somewhat falls into the same category. And as Allmountain pointed out, some people do the fat front, but many are also using a trials rim in the rear. I like the Sandman, but that guy that posts on MTBR needs a better marketing strategy, in my opinion. People are getting frustrated with their lack of info on the geometry as they keep most of the dimensions a secret. Most of the Americans posting that have bought a Sandman are not using them for racing and having a great time with them otherwise. They are earning some bragging rights with their race results though. I'd like to see Danielle Musto go against one of those guys on her Mukluk

The Sneauxbike may still be a good bike for some in Michigan, if you don't want a full fatbike or a half-fat, put a set of trials rims on your current MTB, and get some big XC tires for them. I never got a chance to try some of the newer 2.4's people put on their XC rigs, like some of the offerings from Schwalbe. Do that and you have a good bike for ugly dirt roads or sandy backroads and trails, plus something that will work better in snow.

[cjsbike]

I had Scott Quiring build me a fatbike over the winter. I went with steel for ride quality and affordability.

I commute year round on the Q fatbike. Winter on Larrys and spring, summer, fall on Black Floyds.

My Q was designed around a 170mm rear hub and 135mm front hub. I am not to keen on the 135mm offset of some manufacturers, plus I cannot fit any stock XL frames. To freakin tall!

Here are some pics of the tank:

http://bunkerhillbikes.blogspot.com/

If you have further questions, PM and I will give you my email.

-Chad

[Shaguardriver]

If you are looking primarily for an alternative to front suspension, you could try a hybrid. I've seen(but never ridden) an El Mariachi setup with a wide rigid fork and the fat tire in the front only. Seems like an easy enough thing to build.

It would be unique if nothing else.

That is a great idea but I am looking for the rear tire to float on the sand also. I have been running the widest tires my frame will accomidate which is a 2.35 specialized Enduro. For the last few years I have been running it with a ridged fork but my son and I riding more trails and I need a bit more cush.

I may be doing the dual bike with the fat tires and a set of 29s.

[okeja]

The Sneauxbike may still be a good bike for some in Michigan, if you don't want a full fatbike or a half-fat, put a set of trials rims on your current MTB, and get some big XC tires for them. I never got a chance to try some of the newer 2.4's people put on their XC rigs, like some of the offerings from Schwalbe. Do that and you have a good bike for ugly dirt roads or sandy backroads and trails, plus something that will work better in snow.

^^This
I ran SnowCats for years with 2.25 tires - started as winter only thing but I loved them so much I just left the wheels on year round

The wider rim allows a more vertical sidewall which allows you to take advantage of those large tires
(run lower pressure to take the edge off bumps and still roll well; with less chance of pinch flat and less side roll compared to narrow rim)


Now I have Alex DX32 with 2.3 tires; not coolest or lightest but I found a super good deal so <shrug>

Many wide rim options available and most will fit in standard frame so the cost to try it out is low
if you run rim brakes std cantis work better than linear pull (V brakes)