You can do the same thing. The difference is..One is more comfortable than the other. That is fact. It's just physics. In addition when riding rocky or rooty trails full squish keeps the tires planted on the ground. It reduces the transfer of vibrations and bumps from the tire to your hands and allows you to remain under control on rugged trails and reduces fatigue on long rides. I did rigid fat bike thing one summer then switched to full suspension for the next summer it was night and day difference on how my body felt after the ride. Never again will I do rigid fat bike as my only.

Go remove the suspension from the car you drive daily and then go drive it on some back roads and get back to me. You might be capable of answering your own question.

To a degree you are correct...but suspension helps in that regard also.

Or maybe have the best of both worlds and get a full suspension fat.

I am beginning to think some people have never ridden a decent FS bike

I have both, and the idea that a fat bike provides the benefits of a FS bike seems nonsensical to me. They are completely different animals.

Are there some obstacles/tech situations where a rigid fat bike has an advantage? Sure, if the challenge is mostly due to traction (snow, deep leaves, lots of loose rock) and speeds are low. Otherwise, I find an FS bike to be far more competent on rock/rooty/technical terrain. Further, the faster the speed, the less rough it needs to be for the FS bike to outshine the fat bike.

CAN you do rocky/rooty/tech trails on a fat bike? Of course. I do, and it is a blast. But for that matter you can do them on a rigid bike with 2.1" tires. And that is a blast as well (just beats the crap out of me).

Not trying to knock fatties, I recently got one (rigid Wednesday) and love it, but a large part of what I love about it is the added challenge compared to the FS (Turner 5-Spot). And the fact that it is much better suited for the $h!t conditions we have around here 5 months out of the year. (mud, snow, deep leaves) means I get more riding in.

Bottom line is that if I had to vote the FS or the Fattie of the island.... the fat bike would go.

my pug was awesome in the snow. but if the street was plowed at all , then a rigid mtb was fine. for me there werent enough unplowed roads around for the fb.

Even with a smaller wheel/tire, the gearing on my Beargrease is far too limiting for riding at higher (road) speeds. I put a lot of miles on my fatty including snow races and frequently ride it as a second class for cyclocross racing. I really love the bike, but for the only ride, no.

I ride river beds. Rocks, sand, water and have tried both FS and Fat bike. The friend with the FS tried my fatty and after, he said he could not do these rides without a fat bike and I agree with him.
As I've posted before: MTBs are good for single track, fat bikes are good for no track

That's where FS plus bikes come in 27.5+ or 29+

I'll just chalk it up to you don't know what you don't know.

Yea. When I go along a trail, if I see a hole in the brush I'll head right in. Sometimes it leads me to someplace beautiful, other times into a thorn bush.

Certainly. I've been considering it. My cycling activity has gotten down to single track mountain biking (here in rural New England), loaded/solo touring one month a year out west, and utility trips to the store, etc. I could enjoy doing all of these things on a fat bike. Trouble is, I already own 3+ bikes to cover these functions, so I'm not too tempted to sell off two of them. But yeah, I know others who have arrived at owning one bike: a fat bike and they are some of the happiest riders I know.

Rigid fat bike is OK to have as a single one and only bike if all you ride is buff single track. But if you ride stuff like this...that's where it sucks...

Horses for courses, I simply don't ride the terrain for a fat bike. My one bike garage would either be a ~130mm full sus or an aggressive steel hardtail.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is an 'aggressive, steel hard tail'?

yeah, long travel hardtail. smash the descents and still have the efficiency for the climbs. something like a production privee, stanton slackline etc.

Comes down to having the right tool for the right job.

Older thread, bumping for my impressions having ridden my first fat-bike. I don't ride fast on trails. I'm a wimp. For one ride I hit frequently though, through two miles of power lines in my community, I could absolutely see this being my only bike. The fat bike gives me more confidence downhill at speed. That path is a convenient short cut that I avoided regularly until now.

I'd probably rephrase this question because one bike will never suit all your needs ideally. I'd ask, "If you had to spend good money on only one bike, would it be a fat bike?" In that case, absolutely. Relatively efficient roadies, for brewery cruises and such, can be had for cheap. The fat-bike does everything else well and you tend to get more as you spend more, relative to a road/gravel/hybrid.

Besides, if you ride for fitness and not distance or speed, the fat bike just gives you a better work-out. Ride it enough and your fitness will catch up.

I love fat bikes.

I use my fatbike for tons of riding - typically, 1,000 to 1,500 miles of winter, gravel, fun every year ... But I can do most of that riding with my faster gravel bike (except winter single-track rides/races). I love my Pug, but if I had to thin the herd to one bike, Pug won't be the one.

OK, now that this crazy talk it done ... I downsize my house last year so I have more $$$ to add more bikes, including a second fatbike.