Jseis 

Saw them in Costco two weeks ago. $700. Al frame, hydraulic disc brakes, 3x9, 4" tires.

Rollfast

Ask that forum's leader(s) or Siu Blue Wind.

striker65

I haven't ridden a bike in over 45 years, my doctor wanted me to walk for at least 30 minutes a day. I saw a fat tire bike at Target and thought it was cool. Bought one and now ride around my neighborhood, get plenty of hello's and nice bike. I'm enjoying myself and getting some exercise.

Maelochs

Dude, that's just so wrong. get on Strava and start acing some segments. Shave your legs and match your socks to your bar tape. Be a Real cyclist.

Enjoying yourself? Pah!!!

striker65

I'm 65 and enjoying myself!

corrado33

I have ridden a fatbike. I've ridden it on snow, and I've ridden it on asphalt. The latter of those two suck.

They "look cool" is the answer to why so many people are riding them around on the street. And since they're so expensive those same people probably didn't have enough money to buy a decent commuter.

Fat bikes are a niche bike. Better than most bikes at very few things, then painfully less than average at everything else.

No, they're not better mountain bikes than mountain bikes and if you try to say "well what if the trail is super rocky" it still wouldn't be good. Besides the fact you're comparing apples to oranges (I'm assuming you're trying to make the hardtail MTN bike vs. fatbike comparison,) full suspension bikes will always be better at technical trails than fatbikes. Fatbikes are slow. They roll slow, they climb slow. They climb well mind you, but they do it very slowly. They don't lean in well because of the gyro effect (I think) of the ridiculously heavy wheels.

Sure, you can spend multiple thousands of dollars on a fatbike to get a nice carbon fiber one to make it as light as a typical cheap mountain bike, but if you spent the same amount of money on a badass mountain bike you'd be much better off for mountain riding.

Who the heck would run 1-2 PSI in those tires? Even at 7 PSI they bounce with every pedal stroke like you're riding a wal-mart full suspension bike. They're miserable to ride that low.

I think of fatbikes like I think of 'bents. Toted as the best thing since sliced bread by the few fanboys who own them, but in reality they're nothing special.

gregf83 

You assume that everyone on a mountain bike is trying to get somewhere quickly. Most aren't. They're just happy to be out on the trails riding around. Much like hikers, it doesn't matter how much ground the cover in 3 hrs. No one cares if your average speed on a MTB is faster. If a fat-biker wants to race there are races for fatbikes.

Whether one bike or another is 'better' at something is entirely subjective.

Hypno Toad

+1

The short story to why I ride a fatbike on roads: 'cause I have a fatbike and it's fun!

Long story from a fatbike-lover:

We were in Hawaii for vacation a few years ago, the resort had Origin8 Crawlers for rent. Lisa agreed to spend an afternoon riding them. We were both blown away at the terrain you could ride with 4" tires. She fell in love with fatbiking, and wanted to buy our own (who am I to get in the way of N+1?)

When we got home (Minneapolis), we decided to get his/hers Pugsleys. I expected it to be fun in fresh snow, but not much else. I still wasn't sure how much I'd use it, since I have a 26er with studs for winter-commuting. Like so many have posted, I expected that the fatbike *must* too much work with the weight and wide tires. But a funny thing happened, I started using the Pugsley to commute more often than the 26er (only using the 26er for icy days).

Then the warm months came, and I'd still find reasons to ride the Pug. On trails, on roads, or whatever, just because it's fun.

Flash forward to today, I converted my Pug to drop-bars (Woodchippers) to race the Almazo 100. Great choice for me, because I struggle on the step descents with soft gravel. While training for the Almanzo, I'd ride this Pug everywhere to get into shape. I also enjoy riding it when Lisa's on her road bike, it allows me to get a good workout (she understands that her pace is below my typical pace). This is not a "fast" bike, but many people are surprised to find it's not a "slow" bike.



To the "fad" comments all over the place, fatbikes are (and are not) a fad. Being in the home city of the first mass-produced fatbike (Pugsley); I've been seeing them for a long time. I've seen the explosion happening in the last few years. I giggle to see what some people do with fatbikes (but I'm certain people giggle at me and the drop-bar Pug). IMO fatbikes are like full-suspension MTBs, full-suspension has it's place, but 90% of riders are buying them 'cause it "looks cool" and have no intention of using it on aggressive off-road tracks. OTOH, if you go to any single-track course around the Twin Cities in January, and you will not suggest fatbikes are "just a fad".

corrado33

Fine, you can take YOUR subjective meaning of "better" and I'll take mine. However, common vernacular for mountain bikes is that "better" means "faster/lighter/more nimble/more expensive components." If somebody says "I bought a better mountain bike", barring any obvious subtext, you don't think they meant "I bought a more comfortable mountain bike." If YOU want to buy a comfort bike, then sure, fat bikes will probably be "better" than a typical cruiser. However, I will stick by what I said in that full suspension bikes will always be BETTER, meaning faster, more nimble, and lighter than fat bikes. Hell, a hardtail priced the same as typical "good" fatbikes will be better than fatbikes at mountain biking.

Not everyone wants to buy a bike to go slow. Most of us (hell, the vast majority of us) buy bikes to go fast. That's why we spend thousands of dollars on ever better bikes made out of carbon fiber. That's why we lust after the newest thing from Specialized. You don't spend a hours biking up the side of a mountain to come down the other side SLOWLY.

RJM

You see people on them because they are fun. Riding a fatbike on single track is fun, so is riding a rigid single speed, so is riding a full suspension endure bike. It's just a different way to enjoy biking.

Better doesn't even enter into it.

RJM

I find my rigid single speed mountain bike better than my full suspension, even though the full squish is probably the faster bike. More fun on the rigid though.


I don't find fatbikes more comfortable than a full suspension bike...not sure comfort is a consideration at all. They ride differently though.

gregf83 

Get a road bike then. MTBs are slow. Do you mock and make fun of all the mountain bikers who have less expensive bikes (and by your definition) worse bikes than you. Are they all having less fun on the trails because they aren't as fast as you? Are fit mountain bikers having more fun than slow mountain bikers? I could go on but I think you get the idea that your arguments don't really hold up to logical scrutiny.

Cycling is a hobby. Most people who get into it have multiple bikes. I have 5 bikes including a nice mountain bike hanging on the wall that didn't get ridden last year. I still enjoy it when I ride it, I just don't have many close MTB trails and haven't felt like driving to the trails for a while. I didn't buy the bike for 'show'; I bought it because it's fun to ride. I do recall riding it part way up a snow covered mountain once and eventually had to stop due to the depth of snow. If I lived someplace where it snowed I'd probably get a fatbike and I'm sure I'd have fun riding it slowly through the snow.

I've only test ridden an electric fatbike on a field so don't have any experience with them but it appears they'd have enough suspension in the tires to ride a reasonable level of trails. They look much simpler to maintain than an expensive MTB with no suspension or pivots to worry about.

bonz50

the fat bikes have intrigued me for quite a while, but like others, not sure I could justify it around here, and frankly, they seem quite a bit overpriced for a rigid fork/frame and often 1x10 running gear unless you're shopping wal-mart and crap brands. for me, utility vs price i can't make the argument, however, in a few years when they start hitting CL en masse I might be able to justify it. then again, considering the lower utility i would have from it, a lower end brand might be a better choice if kept basic. for me, I still want to try one, especially in some of the state parks around here and it might actually be something I can talk the wifey into riding, but I suspect something like a GT Grade or C'dale Slate might be more what I'd actually need and would be a better n+1 for me.

corrado33

Comparing apples to oranges are you? Sure, let's compare off road bikes with road bikes. That's a fair comparison.

And if you only knew. My mountain bike cost $800, new. A bike most serious bikers wouldn't even consider a "mountain bike." On the group rides around here, I almost always have the cheapest/worst bike. Do I care? Hell no. It's not the bike, it's the motor, as I'm still always one of the faster riders in the group. I'm surprised you're not arguing the subjectiveness of the word "fast." I mean jeeze, I didn't think I'd have to define the word "better" today. Without context, a "better" bike is one that's lighter, faster, more nimble, and with more expensive components. If you're going to argue that then well, you may want to get checked out.

Fat bikes are good at riding slowly. If you are going to ride slowly, regardless of where you are riding, then a fat bike will be your best bet.

I think you're the one being illogical today. I'm not the one trying to compare mountain bikes to road bikes.

Hypno Toad

LMAO! You and I enjoyed this conversation earlier this year. You don't like fatbikes, that's cool, don't buy one. I love my fatbike and you don't need to tell me I'm wrong.

My fatbike (see post with picture above) was 'better' than roughly 865 other bikes at the Almanzo 100. There were roughly 500 riders that DNF; and 370 bikes behind me that made the finish.

Here, you can enjoy the newest thing from Specialized, I'm sure you'll be faster with this bike:

revcp 

Better is not simply about the bike. It's also about the conditions and the context, so people don't buy fatbikes because they want to ride slowly.

Re the conditions, I can ride my fatbike in places and at times when other bikes simply can't be ridden. When I did the Arrowhead Ultra this past January there was NO ONE on a 29er, and because of the snow conditions everyone with 3.8"--4" tires was suffering. Those who were doing best were riding 5" tires at 2-3 psi. I'm not aware of any mtb that can take that pressure and width. During the rest of the year I can ride my fatbike on trail, where a high end mtb is better, but can also veer off trail and just ride out into the woods, where the fattie is better.

As for context, I know people who prefer a fat bike to a full squishy because it feels more secure and is less fussy, so a fatty is better for them.

Your definition of "better" is off because it considers the bike itself in a vacuum divorced from where/when it will be ridden and by whom.

ThermionicScott 

Fat bike criteriums ("criteria"?) are on their way next.

First ?fat bike? races at the Quad Cities Criterium | WQAD.com

corrado33

So what kind of bike was the winner riding? We all know that races aren't won by the bike. They're won by the rider. And people who want to go fast and win normal (aka not fat bike specific) races generally don't race on fat bikes. (Yes there was that one guy who won the open cyclocross race a few years back with a fat bike.) Where did I say that I didn't like fat bikes? Where did I say you were wrong? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Fat bikes are the SUV of the biking world. Big, comfortable, slow. Unless, of course, you're riding in the very specific conditions where fat tires are better, sand/snow. In EVERY other situation there are bikes that are better suited for the conditions and will allow a particular biker to go faster. Riding on snow and sand is still slow even on a fatbike when compared to typical off road riding. (Whether it be gravel grinding or mountain biking.)

I personally love fat bikes, I'll just never buy one because I have bikes more suited for the conditions I ride in, and fat bikes are hideously expensive for what you get. However, they are FUN to putz around on. Other bikes are just more fun at what they do. Riding a fat bike down a mountain bike trail is a novelty. It's "interesting." But that's it. My cheap mountain bike would do it with more finesse. A more expensive bike would do it a hell of a lot faster, with less rider fatigue. My gravel grinder is much better suited for going fast on gravel and dirt roads. A fat bike would handle the washboarding with more comfort, but the gravel grinder will be faster.

Oh and I'm sure I would be faster with that bike, considering it's an electric mountain bike. Which, of course, comes in many styles all of the way from fat bike to 27.5+ bike (pictured) to traditional mountain bike.

StanSeven

I'll believe fat bikes are not a fad when there's a fat bikes forum here

Dunbar

I see more electric fat bikes than regular ones. I saw a few when the trend first emerged (and Walmart started selling them) but I think they're so impractical and slow that it never really caught on. IMO the electric ones are the Hummers of the cycling world. Big, heavy, slow and expensive.

Hypno Toad

You are correct, you did not say I was wrong for liking fatbikes and you have never stated a dislike for fatbike. I made an overstatement based on a number of post in this thread and the other one. I am sorry for putting words in your mouth.

The fastest riders on the Almanzo 100 ride gravel bikes, of course, and the winner rode the 100 miles faster than I can ride 100 miles on a road bike on pavement. So being first is an unrealistic goal for me. My competition is my finish last year.

To restate your point, it's about the correct combination of the rider, the bike, and the conditions/course; the correct combination is key to being your fastest/best. I have ridden the Almanzo on both a fatbike and a gravel bike, I had a better result riding a fatbike. That's because the Pug plays well to my strength and weakness. I'm weak on descents, the Almanzo has many steep descents (over 10%) with loose gravel. The Pug allows me to keep pace with other riders on this fast downhills, and I don't have to fight for the good line. I'm a strong climber, so on the steep climbs, I have the engine to pass riders on lighter bikes. Therefore, I do take offense to the repeated use of "slow" to describe a fatbike - this was the fastest bike for this rider on that course.

OTOH, next month, I will be riding the Westside Dirty Benjamin, I will use the gravel bike for that ride. That's because this race is mostly flat with mostly hero gravel.

BTW - I was trying to be funny with the electric assist bike - sorry if the joke missed the mark.

RJM

Cross country bikes don't win downhill events either.

Silly argument, honestly.

Fat bikes win in fat bike races. We had a local mountain bike race here a couple of weeks ago where there was a fat bike category and guess what, the fastest bike in that category was a fat bike.

Seattle Forrest

This.

Not this.

Mountain bikes are slow. That's why nobody races them in le Tour. And on top of the bikes being slow, you ride them in places that are slower for technical reasons. When I want a good workout I'll get on my CF road bike with a power meter, or if I want a really good workout I'll run. When I want an awesome day on the trail and to see amazing things and have a lot of fun, I go somewhere nice and rent a MTB. Or hike, or climb.

RJM

If you want a really, really good workout, ride a fatbike on singletrack.

Banzai

HypnoToad, are you running a 100mm front hub on that? Is it a PITA to get the front wheel in and out?

Just curious. I've had a Pugs frame in my basement for a year, (found it on clearance for a steal) and this thread makes me want to build it.