Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    404

    All Mountain Fat Bike?

    Turns out I'm a big fan of AM geometry, and specifically the AM 29er hardtails out there. Kona Honzo, Banshee Paradox, Yelli, Nimble9, etc... I ride a DB Mason as my primary. Love the slackness for the ease of hopping, manuals, step ups, step downs, and the like. I'd liken my riding style to that shown in the Norco Bigfoot promo vid(Love riding unshaven logs, boulder fields, and rocks in general, and just trying to clean new things), though I've got to look harder for such opportunity where I ride.

    Given the similar tire diameter, I think I'd like a fatbike in the same mold. Slacker HA(currently ride 66.5 degrees), shorter stays, more bomb proof construction.

    Love my Necro, but have several issues with the spec:

    Quick release dropouts(one horizontal; one vertical)- I think it's a bad joke that a bike with so much weight(overall and rotating), traction, and wider hubs, be connected by a flexy noodle for an axle. Sure, some of that will be masked by sloppiness in high volume tires, but why compound the issue? I have to really cinch down the rear to prevent movement, and often have to stop and reclamp the skewer during aggressive riding. These bikes deserve QR15.

    58mm spider- Great for fitting tiny chainrings, but horrible for any kind of aggro riding, where chainring hits are likely. The bash is mounted to the mid ring, instead of being mounted to a sturdy 104 bcd spider. A stiff breeze bends these things.

    No ISCG- Related to above. When building a go anywhere bike, with weak chainrings, ISCG would allow at least a taco bash to protect the rings. The possibility of chain guides is nice also.

    I see the new Trek has through axles, and dropper post routing, which intrigues me. But ultimately, I'm looking for an AM fatbike with slack geo and a burly build, made to take a beating in the rough stuff. Does this bike exist in the current market? Will fatbike construction eventually evolve into this realm, just as 29er geometry has? I don't want to compromise when switching to the fatbike. I want it all.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    16
    Only custom fatbike with suspension fork for all mountain agressive riding
    Necro made for touring.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sattvic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    57
    Lookup Sandman on Vimeo - I think you will find that they do exactly what you describe on a fatbike.

    Here is one example:



    Lot's of posters (I read most of them prior to ordering a Fattie myself) have tried to get the HA and geometry measurements on the Hoggar Ti from Sandman - but it is apparently a secret. This put me off completely as I am used to know the HA, SA etc. of a frame before I commit to buying it, nonetheless it looks like a sweet ride.

    I have just ordered a Muru Witjira V2 with a suspension fork with very much the same purpose in mind as you mention. Can't tell you about it before I ride it
    Age is a state of mind

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Sattvic View Post


    Lot's of posters (I read most of them prior to ordering a Fattie myself) have tried to get the HA and geometry measurements on the Hoggar Ti from Sandman - but it is apparently a secret. This put me off completely as I am used to know the HA, SA etc. of a frame before I commit to buying it, nonetheless it looks like a sweet ride.
    Seems silly. If we were a competitor and going to copy the geometry we'd just get a hold of a bike and measure it before we copy it. So the only people they are keeping it a secret from is their potential customers.

    It will be interesting when the numbers do come to light to see if there was anything really unusual that needed to be kept under wraps.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,207
    Quote Originally Posted by AllMountin' View Post
    Does this bike exist in the current market? Will fatbike construction eventually evolve into this realm, just as 29er geometry has? I don't want to compromise when switching to the fatbike. I want it all.
    Sounds like you should go the custom bike route. There are some options that aren't insanely expensive and you can get exactly what you want.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Steve Balogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    586
    If I understand correctly, my Fatback's oversize headtube will take a CaneCreek Angleset. That will not get down to 66.5, but near 68.5 I'm thinking. If you get a custom build, I'd recommend getting an oversize headtube for one of those adjustable headsets. Not sure how a slacker HA would feel with a fat tire, but I do prefer the slacker angle of my Fatback over my regular bikes. We have at least three fat-bike builders in our state (Michigan), I believe at least one of them does not make anything in standard geometry, everything is made to order.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vaultbrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    807
    jncarpenter on here rides this one by bystickel. Hope he doesn't mind me posting this up.


  8. #8
    MaverickMotoMedia.com
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,407
    I rode a 9:zero:7 recently- compared to my Pugsley, it had more trail-oriented geometry. On the Pug, I'm definitely over the front wheel and high on the bike, while with the 907, I felt like I was more behind the front wheel and "in" the bike. I don't recall exactly which model I rode, but it would be worthwhile to give the folks at fatbikes.com a call and talk to them about what you're looking for.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    453
    how many variables go into a frame's design ?I would think not so much..

    A handful of builders across the world wouldn't happen to settle on the same geometry?

    these ppl aren't designing a new wankle engine!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    116
    Short 16.9" chainstays, beefy frame, purpose built for aggressive riding - Schlick Cycles APe:

    http://schlickcycles.com/bikes/ape-f...essive-riding/

    Inspired by: http://schlickcycles.com/2013/04/29/...ain-bike-park/

    You'd need to check with them about the dropouts, tabs and ring protection -but since they do custom, you should be able to have it all.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,188
    I have a hard time looking at that bystickel and not thinking it would not perform well on anything other than hard pack. The back wheel has to have the majority of the riders weight on it.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    182

    All Mountain Fat Bike?

    Krampus?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    105

    All Mountain Fat Bike?

    Try a Salsa Mukluk. Ride feels very slack and nice. 907 does not feel as slack. I have never tried a Sandman, but it sounds like a ride close to what you are looking for.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,762
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    I have a hard time looking at that bystickel and not thinking it would not perform well on anything other than hard pack. The back wheel has to have the majority of the riders weight on it.
    It is actually a rockstar on most terrain...perhaps the picture was misleading, but it was a very good handling aggressive trail bike. I did just send it to it's new owner in CA this week...so we'll see what he thinks of it for west coast riding.


  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    159
    I ride a Yelli as my hardtail and a Transition Bandit for FS and I have a Mukluk (2012). I ride short stems and wide bars and put a 60mm stem from the parts bin and a wider bar from the same bin. Climbs like a mother(yeah it climbs beyond my leg's ability) jumps and bunnyhops with aplomb and is pretty dang fun on fast rocky(jumpy) downhill. A total summer worthy ride. A bike has to be fun to jump and hop around for my approval and this actually fits the bill. Holey rolling Daryls get beat around a bit though.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    404
    Thanks for all of the input. You've given me some options for sure.

    I love the look of that APe, but would have to decide if the very restrictive tire clearance is worth the trade off. Could see a Gravity Dropper on one of these being a blast to ride.

    By Stickel looks like a fun ride. Curious what the HA is on the one shown.

    Sandman. $$$. Sweet rigs, but for me, currently, the fat bike is a stable ride. Their forked bikes look sick, but it would have to be my primary to justify it. Their rigid Atacama is more reasonable, but still spendy enough to make custom look pretty attractive.

    The thought of using an angleset and short stem on one of the slacker production bikes seems like a fair compromise. I am more after the feel of the geo and a relatively stout frame. Suspension travel is not all that necessary for a fattie on available local terrain.

  17. #17
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,718
    Hey;

    Consider that you are looking for something that differs from the classic raison d'etre of a Fatty; to go good in snow. There are a small set of characteristics that make that easier. The newer offerings seem to be designed with more trail friendliness in mind, but they still need to work when riding on matter that will not necessarily want to stay in place. Consider also that Fatties steer differently than normal bikes by default. Things like wheel flop, and tire and gyroscopic self steer are not really found on other bikes, and must be considered when choosing frame/fork numbers.

    With all of that in mind, it seems to me that an angle set on a currently available bike would be the best way to try out your ideas. If they don't pan out, you can set the front end to normal and still have a rideable bike!
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  18. #18
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,496
    Quote Originally Posted by vaultbrad View Post
    jncarpenter on here rides this one by bystickel. Hope he doesn't mind me posting this up.
    This was one of the inspirations for my custom fat bike. I did a photoshop comparison, and we have the about the same seat tube angle, but my head angle is a lot more slack (66.6 ). My chainstays get as short as 16.3". My Jones is a better all around balanced bike (basically, it climbs better), but the Vertigo is easier to boost and hop around on and is all around more fun, thus, it has become my main go-to bike now.

    Last edited by Drevil; 08-04-2013 at 08:42 AM. Reason: Threw in head angle
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  19. #19
    never summer
    Reputation: singlefin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    240
    You could do an On One Fatty frameset or rolling chassis and build it to your spec. AngleSet or Slackset and you can drop the 68 deg HA on down 1.5 deg....which gets you to your 66.5 deg.

    For your Necro: Why don't you switch the Necro to fun bolts? If you have a Surly hub you can convert it to Ultra New for like 60 bucks. Sounds like your QR's might be stretched or the cams are worn...I've never had issues with Shimano XT, and Chromag. I agree though...thru bolts are just simple, strong and just make sense in this application. You can get a different crankset like Raceface, SRAM, or E.13 and be done with the MWOD and its uniqueness.
    Fargo Ti + Moonlander + Necro Pug + Nature Boy

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59
    What comes to Fatty, it has that slanted steel fork as default, which gives around 66deg actual head angle. Head tube on the frame is that 68 deg and slanted fork legs 64,xx deg. When measuring from the axle to the upper headset bearing it gives that around 66 deg.
    At least my calibrated phone app gives :P

    So if you want the same head angle feel when you change your Fatty fork to lets something like bear grease fork, you have to get that angle set to tilt that fork forwards to get the same wheelbase, otherwise it changes drasticly.
    Of course there is no real drop out offset(rake) on the steel fork and it has been accommodated with that slant.

    Here you can see how slack the Fatty is, when it really isn't.

    All Mountain Fat Bike?-jypn4jy.jpg

    Really like it though

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,432
    Adding offfset to the fork is not at all the same as adding rake to the frame. Miscalculating the fork's offset as if it was rake, then adding it to the frame's headtube rake gives you a completely fictitious number that has nothing to do with the frame or fork.
    Your calculation does not give "actual head angle" at all.

    Adding more rake to a frame without adjusting the fork's offset will just give you a slow-handling bike.
    On One did both (on purpose) to keep the handling lively.

    If you want a custom set-up AM frame- hit up Carver!
    There're steel AM builders that'd be more expensive...
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59
    No it isn't. You are right. I'd need to take that slant away and create the offset from it. Normally suspension forks have something like 45mm offset, and that comes from combination of upper crown and dropout. Fattys fork has 56mm offset in form on slant.
    I understand pretty good how all the changes effect the steering feel, and I also understand what just slack look and feel behind the bars makes to you confidence while riding tricky trails and it has very little to do with minor changes in turning characteristics.
    And when there is some sort of slackness in fork legs then fork also takes all the hits differently than a steeper fork with the same axle positioning(wheelbase) via dropouts. (As in case Fatty)
    I just don't want any of my trail bikes to have their front wheels buried somewhere under the down tube
    Even if they had huge wheels and they rolled over everything...

    I just had to google it up and rake has some different meanings in different sports I still think that offset is rake and head angle is head angle.

    Okay, enough of that
    Last edited by Tomsson; 08-05-2013 at 04:16 AM.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vaultbrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    807
    ^Now I think I know what you intend to imply about the relationship between head angle and the means by which the fork is offset. The way that the fork is offset will impact the way it handles direct hits? And you would prefer having a fork with straight blades set at an angle to achieve offest over a fork with curving blades of the same offset? I think you are also thinking about the "trail" as well. Trail is the distance between where the the wheel contacts the ground and the intersection of the plane of the fork from headtube through the axle to the ground. It sounds like you prefer more trail.

    Back to all mtn fat bikes. The schlick looks pretty cool. I havent been limited by 4" tires in swamps, or soft sand yet. I also havent tried any 4+" tires so maybe i dont know what I'm missing. I'd like some BFLs to try.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by AllMountin' View Post
    ...

    I love the look of that APe, but would have to decide if the very restrictive tire clearance is worth the trade off. ...
    I suspect you are the first person to ever post that clearance for 3.8" knobbies is "very restrictive". I'm sure you won't be the last. It's amazing how perceptions of adequate clearance change over time. Personally, I think there needs to be an engineering trade-off between aggressive short chain stays and tire width.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    404
    The limit is 3.8" on a *relatively* narrow 65mm rim. I'm currently running a 4.0 on 82mm rim, which is fine, but I don't really want to go smaller. I don't need BFLs(don't even like Larry's) or Bud/Lou on clown shoes, but if I want half fat, I'll buy a Krampus. :-)

    Really makes the case for owning two: Moonlander for snow, and APe for fun! But reasonable people don't own two fatbikes, do they??? ;-)

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mountain bike in north Vietnam ? the best adventure mountain bike
    By bikingvietnam in forum Vacations & Destinations
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2013, 02:46 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2012, 10:48 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 04:15 PM
  4. Continental Mountain King Mountain Bike Tire
    By dciandrew in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-26-2011, 09:21 AM
  5. Mountain Bike Trails Closed Friday the 25th at Pinnacle Mountain
    By ArkansasOutside in forum Midsouth - LA, MS, AR
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 09:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •