deuxdiesel
Observer
I keep toying with a Rohloff wheel for our tandem fat bike, but it's a big investment. At $2500, that looks like a pretty good deal considering the hub alone is like $1400.
Fat bikes
- Thread starter p nut
- Start date
I keep toying with a Rohloff wheel for our tandem fat bike, but it's a big investment. At $2500, that looks like a pretty good deal considering the hub alone is like $1400.
rruff
Explorer
You mean you were actually slower on a climb? You'd lose nothing on a climb from the size alone. Physics. And this is verified by people who've tested them with power meters, and racers too. On some surfaces you gain speed from better roll over and traction. Acceleration and quick turns are where you lose a little.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Indeed momentum works both ways, slower to accelerate, slower to decelerate.
You guys might find this interesting, a write-up done by Schwalbe. It was pre-fat bike but the principles still hold. There's charts and everything! Big (width) and low (pressure) are where it's at. There's a limit to that, they are comparing fat tires 2.35 to skinny 1.7...
View attachment Rolling_Resistance_Eng_illustrated.pdf
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
rruff, I think the adoption of tubeless and the ability to run low pressures has pretty much proved that. I'm not convinced that taken to the extreme with fat bikes that it holds but it seems the sweet spot falls about 2.2" to ~3" for an all around tire for most situations.
p nut
butter
I think the sweet spot correlates pretty tight to terrain. Typically, 2.4" is the sweet spot for me (a proper 2.4", like Ardents) on most trails. But there are places, rougher, looser trails, where 3" or 4" tires excel. With the advancements in the fat bike wheels/tires, I've actually enjoyed 26x4" tire set up. Paired with some decently light wheels (ones I've got are 2,200g) and light tires (Jumbo Jim), it makes for a pretty nice, go anywhere set up. I also don't ride with any sort of suspension, so extra fatness helps that much more.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
I run a 2.4 front and 2.2 rear (both plain old 29). I'd run something larger in back but my frame is old skool and that's as big as can fit. When I say all around I just mean a quiver of one. Maybe I'm wrong but looks to me that all the people trying to push fat bikes into regular trail duty aren't having much fun after a couple of hours. That's why I say a plus bike might be closer to ideal, if you can utilize the fat-ness anyway.
p nut
butter
For trails around you and I, fat bikes on regular MTB trails aren't that much fun--you're right. I rode Heils and Devil's BB last year, and glad I wasn't on my fat bike (except a couple sections where it got pretty chunky). My main ride has 29x2.4" rear and swap between 29x3" and 29x2.4" up front, depending on trail. I actually had a 26x4" up front (2.4" rear) for Porcupine Rim, which worked out well. I wouldn't be unhappy with that set up for year-round riding.
_
Good thing about fat bikes, though, is you can swap wheelsets for each season. With bikes like Suzi-Q and other narrow q factor'ed frames, they're becoming even more versatile.
_
Speaking of fat bikes, I just saw this movie. Can't remember where I found the link, but it's worth a watch. Crazy how many rode on regular mountain bikes.
[video=vimeo;84178875]https://vimeo.com/84178875[/video]
_
Good thing about fat bikes, though, is you can swap wheelsets for each season. With bikes like Suzi-Q and other narrow q factor'ed frames, they're becoming even more versatile.
_
Speaking of fat bikes, I just saw this movie. Can't remember where I found the link, but it's worth a watch. Crazy how many rode on regular mountain bikes.
[video=vimeo;84178875]https://vimeo.com/84178875[/video]
Last edited:
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
That Tumbleweed and Suzi-Q do look great on paper. Having non-fat bike hips makes fat bikes a real specialty for me. I dunno, I like my bikes like my truck, throw backs. I guess I'll be dragged into the modern world kicking and screaming. 
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Actually James @ Blacksheep fixed my Rhygin when a weld failed, the top tube at the head tube. That was about 15 years ago. Still a faithful townie. Plus Metax tubeset, so no rust ever! Yeah, it's about 2 sizes too small. That's a 17.5" frame on 26" wheel, rides more like a BMX bike!
Loves me them Jones. That's kewl.
Yeah, you know I'm all about retro. Well except for the belt drive. And FOX FiT4, gotta have that. Oh and Paragon sliding dropouts. But nothing else modern.
Loves me them Jones. That's kewl.
Yeah, you know I'm all about retro. Well except for the belt drive. And FOX FiT4, gotta have that. Oh and Paragon sliding dropouts. But nothing else modern.
Last edited:
Christophe Noel
Expedition Leader
Did my first ride on my Mukluk fitted with 45mm 27.5 WTB Scraper rims and 3.0 Ranger tires. Pretty darn fun. I almost went with 29+, but I'm glad I didn't.
Eagle05
Adventurer
I've never owned a Fat Bike, but almost purchased one a few years ago before deciding on a 29er with studded snow tires for my time in Alaska. It was loads of fun in -30°, but if one of these AWD fat bikes been around (and assuming I had the spare change to throw at it), I think I would have been quite happy.
http://christinibicycles.com
http://christinibicycles.com
Christophe Noel
Expedition Leader
Ah, the two-wheel-drive fatbike. The definitive answer to the question no one asked. LOL.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
The DVD Rewinder of the cycling world, eh?