How do people here in /n/ feel about these fat bikes?
They literally don't do anything better than other bikes. Not even snow or sand.
I see these ugly ass things everywhere in my campus
pls no
I mostly use mine during the winter. The snow here is almost always powder that causes a normal sized front wheel to slide out sideways and the rear to spin out when trying standing start. The fat bike really shines for me riding in the street after the cars have made deep ruts, the bike has the stability to just get in a tire track and follow it.
If you plan on riding in the street and you have a lot of ice studded tires are a must. If anything fat tires are worse on ice than mountain bike tires. So budget $400+ just for your winter tires.
Also nice on rough rooty mountain bike trails. But the big tires are no substitute for suspension as the bike can start bouncing. On really narrow single track the wide tires can cause some problems. The side of tire grabs the edge of the rut and wants to yank you out of the track.
I'd never use one as my daily summer bike, too much effort to pedal and slower. In winter they can be brutal to pedal everyday on a longer commute.
Good for unpacked snow. Pointless on other stuff.
I just put these on my 1996 Trek 850 rigig mtb. Do I have a meme bike now, too?
>>889192
This be the meme bike. The ROLLOVER is AMAZING now. I don't even have to steer. I just katamari over dogs, pedestrians, refrigerators couches, canadians, 29'erz, everything!
>>889193
Boy that is one ugly ass rear fender
>>889094
I love mine, I take it pretty much everywhere. It kind of just moves stuff out of the way when you're on a trail. I don't have to worry about picking a line because the 4.3 tires just go where you point them. Here it is after riding up a shallow creek
I am pretty gay, with other gays want to but penis in but when see fat bike?
>>889094
FUN.
I just wouldn't buy one.
>>889094
They suck. Incredibly heavy, unwieldy, and the tires themselves create problems rather than solving them. If you're doing anything other than very light offroad you'll need front suspension anyway.
I won't even get into how all that rotating mass is impairing handling to ridiculous amounts.
Fat bikes are okay to ride in the forest slow, in clean tracks without too many bends. Anything else is pure suffering.
I only rode one, once; Surly Ice Cream whatever, with the 5" tires. It was really awesome on the groomed ski hills/tracks, and probably nice on other types of loose surfaces. Tons of traction. I tested one at a resort for a bit, so much traction I was doing wheelies uphill and riding through deeper powder, where my 2.5" bike tires were sinking and spinning.
If theres ground to bite into beneath the snow, then narrower tires are better.
>>889094
They're the new fixies
>>889545
The average Fat Bike is ~30lbs which is less than a lot of road bikes on /n/. A sub 25lb fat bike would handle fine if your used to running big MTB tires and aren't a little bitch.
Running them on dry ground is pretty slow and inefficient but for winter they're pretty damn fun. Canada is winter for 10 months a year which is why you see more and more fat bikes, Desertfags or Floridafags wouldn't understand.
>>890669
>The average Fat Bike is ~30lbs
No. sub 30 pounds is pretty light for a fat bike. The average is going to be more like 32-36 pounds and the cheaper ones are going to be closer to 40 if not more (the cheapest I could find with a quick look here in Britland was about $700 and weighed 42 pounds, that's more than my overweight DH bike).
>which is less than a lot of road bikes on /n/.
lolno. Even an old steel ten speed is probably going to be less than 30 pounds, the average modern aluminium road bike is like 25 pounds and carbon is going to be sub 20.
>A sub 25lb fat bike would handle fine
And be stupidly expensive. That's gonna be full carbon with no suspension and cost you the same if not more as a carbon framed full suspension bike with regular sized tyres.
Not arguing for or against fat bikes btw, just correcting some things.
>>890691
I guess the market is different on north America. You can get a lightly used almost full carbon fat bike with a bluto for well under $3500 on pinkbike. You can get some crazy deals if you live in a rich city where people have disposable incomes. People will build up a top of the line bike just to see if they like it, ride it twice then get bored or find they don't have enough time to use it then sell it for a quarter of the price they paid.
You can go Chinese carbon and get pretty light for pretty cheap. It's plenty durable enough for snow riding and light trail riding.
You can get a Walmart Fat Bike for $200 ish that's around 40 pounds.
not everything has to be fast and light. Sometimes you just do shit because it is fun. Two of the people I ride with bought them last year and really like them. They ride them off and on all year and have a crap load of other bikes so they mix it up a lot. I've fooled around on one a bit and I'm not sure I'd buy one but I'd like to play with one for a day or two. I just bought a slack hardtail with 150mm fork which is over kill for this area but fuck it I like it lol. I also have a rigid and a full squish. I ride them all and enjoy them all for different reasons.
>>890717
>You can get a lightly used almost full carbon fat bike with a bluto for well under $3500 on pinkbike.
You say that like it's not a shit load of money. That sort of bike isn't even close to being representative of the average fatbike.
>You can go Chinese carbon and get pretty light for pretty cheap.
Probably, I haven't looked into it. The thing is, again that's not what the average fatbike is.
>>890721
>Sometimes you just do shit because it is fun
That's fair, I just think that most people will find other sorts of bikes just as fun and for a longer duration. I'd like a fatbike to mess about on too but I know it wouldn't get used much, so there are plenty of other types of bikes I'd rather get first that will be more useful. I think fatbikes are more of a novelty, the sort of thing you'd be better off renting than buying.
I'd love to try one this winter. But not enough to justify the purchase.
>>890691
>No. sub 30 pounds is pretty light for a fat bike.
I built my own and it weighs 29.8. It uses the non light Surley tubes and 4" 120TPI tires and 80mm rims with holes. Other than that it's just a normal aluminum framed bike build,I used a 2 X 9 drive train and hydro brakes. Nothing about my bike is out of the ordinary.
>just correcting some things.
So am I.
>>891546
I don't doubt that your bike is sub 30, but that's still pretty light for a fat bike. If you didn't specifically build it up to be light then you just got lucky with component choices.
Bear in mind that 1 pound isn't a lot, just under half a kilo. You can drop that on a regular mountain bike just by changing tyres. Your holey rims are probably lighter by more than that amount. This is why I don't like weighing bikes in pounds, it's far too large a unit and a small inaccuracy in measuring can throw it off by a whole integer.
>>891551
>but that's still pretty light for a fat bike.
Not in the slightest. Most newer fatbikes use 60 mm holey rims and 1X11 drive trains. I just don't think you realize how light they are. They have no suspension weight, forks and oil, shocks and all the linkage. I just weighed my full suspension bike, it's a Santa Cruz I built, and it's basically just a 2 X 10 with tubeless 26" tires and it weighs 26.2 lbs. But one thing is for sure I can go anywhere my full suspension bike can go on my fatbike but definitely not the other way around.
>>891558
>I just don't think you realize how light they are
I wasn't just pulling random numbers out of my arse, I actually had a look at what some of the offerings weigh. Within the selection I looked at I think just one came in at under 30 pounds and not by a lot, the rest were between 30 and 36 with the one outlier at about 42 pounds.
I'm not saying sub 30 is super crazy light (that would be more like sub 25), but it is still lighter than average.Once again this is the statement I was disputing
>The average Fat Bike is ~30lbs which is less than a lot of road bikes on /n/.
You can't deny that is an absolute retarded thing to say.
>I can go anywhere my full suspension bike can go on my fatbike but definitely not the other way around.
You could go anywhere a full sus bike could on a cyclocross bike too, just really slowly. The only places a fat bike can ride that a smaller tyred bike can't is the beach and stupidly slushy mud. Fair enough if you ride either of those regularly, seems like fun so I can see the appeal, but I doubt the majority of owners do that.
>The average Fat Bike is ~30lbs which is less than a lot of road bikes on /n/.
You can't deny that is an absolute retarded thing to say.
How is that retarded? A lot of people ride old steel 10 speeds with 3lb frame pumps, 5lb locks and panniers.
The trailheads around here are filled with $10 000+ trenduro bikes at ~26lbs, I'm not pulling these fat bike weights out of my ass that's just the way it is. I guess it's different in the UK.
>>891563
>The average Fat Bike is ~30lbs which is less than a lot of road bikes on /n/.
>You can't deny that is an absolute retarded thing to say.
That's because I never said it and it wasn't in my post. And the weights you found, I couldn't find any, were probably old bikes and they used the large frame size.
>>889095
>Not even snow or sand.
of course theyre better in snow and sand
>>891558
Any mountain bike over 11 kilos feels heavy if you aren't just going to the pub or doing very light offroad. At 13kg it's an absolute behemoth, and most fat bikes easily go over 15kg unless you pay big bucks.
Even a 13kg fat bike (which is very light for a fat bike) feels way, way heavier than a normal 13kg mountain bike, because there's a ton of rotating mass. You also need wider handlebars to turn that heavy front wheel, which also impairs handling.
Fat bikes have their place: snow and sand. Pretending they're good at anything else is retarded.
I rented one at the Grand Canyon last December. Could not find any terrain a regular mountain bike would struggle with, so a bit of a waste. It was fun and I'm glad I did it, but will not be buying one of my own. If you don't do a bunch of hard snow or loose sand, the extra rolling resistance is not worth it. Like a cargo bike or folder: if you don't know you need it, you don't need it.
>pic from rental outfit
>>891607
>Any mountain bike over 11 kilos feels heavy if you aren't just going to the pub or doing very light offroad. At 13kg it's an absolute behemoth,
Pro rider here people lol
Come on man. How many people are really out there on 11kg or lighter bikes? I know a lot of the people here are pretty serious but most people aren't and normal mtn bikers' bikes are pushing 13+ kilos. My full squish is 13kg, my new fancy slack hard tail is just over 12, and even my damn geared rigid is 12. The only people I really come across riding these magical 11 kilo and lighter bikes around me are single speeders and usually rigid single speeders.
>>891587
>How is that retarded? A lot of people ride old steel 10 speeds with 3lb frame pumps, 5lb locks and panniers.
Pumps and locks are not part of a bikes weight, and it could be argued that panniers aren't either (the bags at least, the racks would be). Even then, that is not representative of most road bikes on /n/.
> I'm not pulling these fat bike weights out of my ass that's just the way it is.
The only weight you've given is for your own bike, and I believe you with that one.
>I guess it's different in the UK.
The selection isn't as vast. We actually have less of the cheap heavy ones though, there are still plenty of the more expensive ones available. However that doesn't change the fact that the average fat bike is more than 30 pounds, to get lighter than that you need to pay more and specifically choose lighter parts or just get lucky with choices.
>>891600
With snow it depends on the type. If it's fresh then the narrow tyres could potentially be better as they'll cut through the snow and grip the ground underneath instead of sliding around on top of the snow. For harder packed stuff wider tyres could be better.
>>891619
my 1x9 hardtail is under 10...
![Conversion-Kits-Ktrack-Skis-Tool-Track-Wheel-Snow-Bicycle-Winter-Sports-Skiing-Convert-Bike-to-Snowbike[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/355VO4e.jpg "Conversion-Kits-Ktrack-Skis-Tool-Track-Wheel-Snow-Bicycle-Winter-Sports-Skiing-Convert-Bike-to-Snowbike[1].jpg")
Tank Tracks.
>>891619
In fairness it's not difficult to get a bike under 11kg these days.. Of course more agressive/longer travel bikes (I hesitate to use the e-word) are usually gonna be 12+ but not everybody rides that type of bike. There's no excuse for having an xc bike heavier than 11kg, and many "trail" bikes are around that weight too.
>>891619
My daily ride is 9.8kg...
get rekt
>>891736
kind of want
>>891619
>Pro rider here
>my new fancy slack hard tail is just over 12
You're not a pro rider. Most hard tails in the low-middle range are around that weight.
>How many people are really out there on 11kg or lighter bikes?
Maybe you live in "fat bike oversize wide handlebar knobby tire slack geometry cruising style" country, but regular cyclists often ride hardtails under 11kg. Mine is a little over 9kg.
>normal mtn bikers' bikes are pushing 13+ kilos
No.
>magical 11 kilo and lighter
You're simply retarded.
>My full squish
>new fancy slack hard tail
>damn geared rigid
I seriously believe you're mentally challenged.
Most people aren't riding $3k US hardtails sorry they aren't. Most people are doing good to be able to ride $1k hardtails and those are pushing 27-30lbs. Yes I know everybody on here has them but you aren't normal. I know it isn't that hard to make a bike light these days but it still isn't cheap. Maybe one in ten bikes I see people ride are in that 22-24lb range. Most are in the 26-30lb range.
>tfw when you try being a weight weenie and can only get your short travel fully down to 30 pounds
No idea what was holding it back, it all seemed fairly light as individual parts but it's like a block of lead sneaked its way into the frame after putting it all together.
>>891607
>Pretending they're good at anything else is retarded.
Kinda like you pretending to know what you're talking about.
>>891607
>wider handlebars impair handling
are we back in the 90's now?
>>891911
Not him but it's true.
The only function for those wide wheels are boggy conditions
>>890727
>3500
>a shitload of money
>when talking about bicycles
alright...
I saw a kid casually riding a fat bike around the neighborhood the other day. He was going to go fishing in this man-made pond we have nearby. It does not have fish in it. He was riding on the sidewalk too. He was clearly not very smart.
>>892299
It is. For that sort of money I could get a very good bike for pretty much any discipline, even multiple bikes.
For what I get paid, which is a fair bit more than the national minimum wage here in the UK, it would take me nearly 300 hours of work to earn that (NMW would be closer to 350 hours), and that's not even considering bills or spending money on other stuff. That's 8 to 9 weeks of straight saving assuming a 40 hour week.
>>892322
How do you know there are no fish in that pond?
Nearly every body of water larger than half and acre in america whether man made or natural, that has been standing for more than a few years , has fish in it.
All those ponds in housing developments, all the ponds on golf courses, teeming with fish.
I had a mukluk last year
the conditions where fatbikes excel over normal mountain bikes in snow is very slim, 1-3 inches of fresh stuff on hardpack where you have a lot of elevation gain, and with that you have to drop the pressure so low the bike becomes super sluggy when the road surface gets a bit better (like if you're connecting trails and riding on roads between them)
you still can't really go biking through more than 5-6 inches of fresh snow on them. it's hike a bike after that every 30 seconds if you have grades to go up.
I found I only had a good time when riding on groomed snow mobile trails, thats something normal mountain bikes can do, maybe the 29+ would be better
I thought the mukluk was actually more fun on normal trails in the spring/summer than it was in snow.
I sold it a couple months ago, they're fine, fun bikes but their capabilities are exaggerated and for big tire fun, 29+ seems to be better
>>892339
Where do I even begin...
>>889094
in my town they are keen among dumpy old men w/ DUI's to get the around the corner to the store
>>891609
yeah, if you think it might be a waste
just dont get it because you are right.
looks like something i would try as well.
i wonder how jumps do on it...
>>889097
lmao why the fuck would someone ride a fatbike to class.
