Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,867

    Fat Bike Wikipedia Entry??

    Just about everything else in the world has one. I'm thinking this forum might have the most collective knowledge on the interwebs concerning them. Should we?

  2. #2
    Fat!Drunk!Slow!
    Reputation: JordyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,390
    Lets do it!

  3. #3
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,867
    I guess the first step would be to define a Fat Bike.

    Where do we draw the line on tire clearance? Is it a Fat Bike if it can clear 3.5" of tire? Or does it need to have over 100mm(4") of clearance? What was the biggest tire that would fit in the original Fatbikes Mark made? Those were made for Gazzi's on Remolino rims(@3.5") and Remolino 3.5" tires on Remolino rims, right?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,440
    I say keep it current in terms of the definition, leave the gazzis and remos in the "history" section of it.

    points I think you should touch on:
    tires: 3.5"
    use: flotation over snow, sand and bogs
    advantages: less environmental impact as the tires cut through the ground less due to wider dispersion of weight.
    compare to: snow tired use on offroad 4x4's, atv's, snowshoes.
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    ...I would have to say the fat movement predated Ray's Remelino or Mark's Fatbike. I would say the fatbike movement started with stock frames and Simon Rockauer's (sp?) original home-welded snowcats...or did Evignson's (sp?) sixpack and it's full-custom predecessors come before snowcats?
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach
    I guess the first step would be to define a Fat Bike.

    Where do we draw the line on tire clearance? Is it a Fat Bike if it can clear 3.5" of tire? Or does it need to have over 100mm(4") of clearance? What was the biggest tire that would fit in the original Fatbikes Mark made? Those were made for Gazzi's on Remolino rims(@3.5") and Remolino 3.5" tires on Remolino rims, right?
    The early Wildfire frames and forks won't fit Surly tires on Remolino rims (which are 82mm if I remember right). They might barely fit if they were to a narrower rim, though.

  7. #7
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,867
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman
    ...I would have to say the fat movement predated Ray's Remelino or Mark's Fatbike. I would say the fatbike movement started with stock frames and Simon Rockauer's (sp?) original home-welded snowcats...or did Evignson's (sp?) sixpack and it's full-custom predecessors come before snowcats?

    I think the custom four packs and six packs should definitely be included in a history section, but stock mountian bike frames are just mountain bikes, even with wider rims in them, the tires were nowhere near fat enough to be considered a fat bike?

    Any more info on the early customs would be great, either here or in the fatbike history thread.

  8. #8
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon
    The early Wildfire frames and forks won't fit Surly tires on Remolino rims (which are 82mm if I remember right). They might barely fit if they were to a narrower rim, though.

    Right, I don't think the endos were available back then.

  9. #9
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,867
    So, for the general, opening description, how about this(based a little off the wiki for " mountain bike"):

    A Fat Bike is a bicycle created for cycling on soft, unstable surfaces. They are used primarily on sand, snow, gravel and bogs, but can be and often are used just about anywhere a mountain bike or road bike can go. They are built around much wider tires than a mountain bike, which can be run at very low pressures to increase the size of the tire's contact patch. This gives the bikes increased stability on loose surfaces, and lessens the likelihood of the wheels sinking into softer or more fragile surfaces. The current standard tires are marked as 3.7" or greater in width, though the actual measured width will vary from 3.5" - 4"+ depending upon the rim used. Rims are available for these tires in widths up to 100mm, which is 4 times the width of a standard mountain bike rim.


    Anything anyone wants to add or change? Anyone want to take a stab at writing up their own?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach
    Right, I don't think the endos were available back then.
    Correct. I think the biggest available thing at the time was the 3.0 Gazziloddi. Remolino tires are 3.5", but are much lower volume than the Nokians.
    I think Mark was the first to commercially produce a dedicated frame. If I remember right Ray Molina's bikes were modified from something else, though he did have the rims and tires produced.
    If you want, I have a ca. 1999-2000 Wildfire (with original Marzocchi-crowned rigid fork and Remolino rims) that I can photo for the "History" section of the wiki article.
    Andy

  11. #11
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,867
    Andy that would be great.

    If there are no other thoughts on the paragraph I typed up above, I'm going to move on to the next part.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,440
    "early attempts to accomodate these fat tires include the oversized bolt-on braces for marzocchi forks made by envy and blackspire"
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  13. #13
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,867
    Actually, I think Brooklyn Machine Works made the first 3" tire compatible bolt on brace for the Monster T. But that was only 3 actual inches, a mere chubby bike.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,440
    I'd rather be be known as chubby but superfly, than a fat pugsley?

    aaah late-night schoolyard-quality ramblings... where WOULD the internet be without you?


    anyways, yeah i think those early "modifiers" deserve a couple mentions? maybe?
    if only to show the determined progression form guys bolting 3 rims side by side in their basement all the way to store-buyable mukluks.
    this article's getting bigger, meh, it'll get "corrected" by someone eventually... post it!
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    66
    The article seems to have gone away since this thread last existed, I think it is time to recreate as it is definitely notable now.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Steve Balogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    600

    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.C View Post
    The article seems to have gone away since this thread last existed, I think it is time to recreate as it is definitely notable now.
    With more of these bikes sold now, the issue of access is now showing up in more places as well. Fatbike history is nice, but landmanagers and other park officers need a solid definition of what a current fatbike is. Right now tire widths range from 3.5 to 4.8", and we can use them on normal MTB trails as well.

    I was recently asked/told: "I don't know where in Michigan you could even ride a bike like that" The popularity of these bikes sadly remains with us, the outside world is still oblivious. Some people still ask me if I made it myself.

    Put up a few pics of a typical modern fatbike, tire widths, and a good description of how they are being used and we should be golden. Also a good idea to say "..as of 2013", so it can be updated later.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,779
    outstanding gents

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Balogh View Post
    With more of these bikes sold now, the issue of access is now showing up in more places as well. Fatbike history is nice, but landmanagers and other park officers need a solid definition of what a current fatbike is. Right now tire widths range from 3.5 to 4.8", and we can use them on normal MTB trails as well.

    I was recently asked/told: "I don't know where in Michigan you could even ride a bike like that" The popularity of these bikes sadly remains with us, the outside world is still oblivious. Some people still ask me if I made it myself.

    Put up a few pics of a typical modern fatbike, tire widths, and a good description of how they are being used and we should be golden. Also a good idea to say "..as of 2013", so it can be updated later.
    Back on 2/27/2011 Velobike had a thread: forms.mtbr.com/fatbikes/trail-damage-thread-why-fatbikes-better-than-walkers

    Might be something useful there?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,576
    I think the term "high floatation" should be in there somewhere. It's (the term) has been around for a long time in other ORV venues. All tires "float" the vehicle above the surface they're traveling on. High Floatation is exactly as it says... using higher volume, lower pressures and larger footprint (and almost always wider rims too) to increase the level of floatation and make traveling on soft/loose surface's more efficient (or just "doable" at all).

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    756
    Sorry guys...on my above post (#18) must have missed something on the tail end...the address was longer than space allowed...takes me offline.

    Help?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    66

  22. #22
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,704

    Nice job...

    ...whoever posted this: Fatbike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Short and sweet; a photo would be nice.
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

Posting Permissions

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