Results 1 to 69 of 69
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    439

    Framed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike

    Spotted at the Fatbike Birkie this weekend. Not many details available yet but it looks like I'll be adding a third Framed Fat Bike to the collection.


    Framed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-17218672_10211097720072102_8075650804885490934_o.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-17191616_10211097718072052_8075269687113508479_o.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-17191824_10155829725384186_6925928857658394051_o.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    77
    That looks nice. Hopefully some more info comes out soon

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    645
    The rear swingarm looked extra beefy It was cool they released it at the Birkie.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    More info.....please.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    Anyone have geo?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    137
    Available June 1. Not a bad price, either. I may need to swing by the House.

    Framed Montana X01 Eagle 1x12 Full Suspension Fat Bike w/ Carbon Wheels 2017

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    20
    I think the price is incredible! Compare it to the Bucksaw pricing and Framed is a lot cheaper. Really bummed that I do not see a front derailleur nor a mount to install one though. That would be a deal breaker for me, hopefully there is an option somehow.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by woodsbiker View Post
    Really bummed that I do not see a front derailleur nor a mount to install one though.
    They make bikes with front derailleurs? whats that for? .. :P

    Maybe I should have waited a little longer for this to come out. Already spent all my money on the farley. oh well.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    Does anyone know what the Geo is? do they sell a frame only option? the price is amazing but i would be changing basically every part on there.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    137
    Personally, I would like a Farley or this, but like Jeff said, Frame only is what I am looking for. I hope to swing by the House this week and ask some questions.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    439
    They seem to offer quite a few different builds to fit all sorts of budget.

    NX1 model with Alloy rims is $2300.

    Framed Montana NX 1x11 Full Suspension Fat Bike 2017

    NX1 model with Carbon rims for $2800

    Framed Montana NX 1x11 Full Suspension Fat Bike w/ Carbon Wheels 2017

    X1 model with Alloy rims $2600

    Framed Montana X1 1x11 Full Suspension Fat Bike 2017

    X1 model with Carbon rims for $3200

    Framed Montana X1 1x11 Full Suspension Fat Bike w/ Carbon Wheels 2017

    X01 Eagle with Alloy rims for $3200
    Framed Montana X01 Eagle 1x12 Full Suspension Fat Bike 2017

    X01 Eagle for Carbon rims for $3700
    Framed Montana X01 Eagle 1x12 Full Suspension Fat Bike w/ Carbon Wheels 2017

    The X01 Eagle build with Carbon crank and rims for $3700 is a pretty wicked build for the price.

    I'll probably end up doing a frame only build using most of my parts from my Alaskan Alloy.Framed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-eaglex01.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-framed-montana-full-suspension-fat-bike-17.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-framed-montana-full-suspension-fat-bike-17-1.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-framed-montana-full-suspension-fat-bike-17-2.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-framed-montana-full-suspension-fat-bike-17-3.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-framed-montana-full-suspension-fat-bike-17-4.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-framed-montana-full-suspension-fat-bike-17-5.jpgFramed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-framed-montana-full-suspension-fat-bike-17-6.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by woodsbiker View Post
    I think the price is incredible! Compare it to the Bucksaw pricing and Framed is a lot cheaper. Really bummed that I do not see a front derailleur nor a mount to install one though. That would be a deal breaker for me, hopefully there is an option somehow.
    Look at the shape of the seat tube above the bottom bracket. Doesn't look like you'll be getting an FD on there.

    Unfortunately those are the times we live in.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    100mm of travel, 197 hubs, looong chainstays.

    I agree with woodsbiker, this design needs a front derailleur.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    547
    Where do you see the frame only option?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Negotiator50 View Post
    Where do you see the frame only option?
    I don't think there is one. They were saying they would like to see that, I think. Haha

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    100mm of travel, 197 hubs, looong chainstays.

    I agree with woodsbiker, this design needs a front derailleur.
    I can see why the chainstays is so looong. The BB joint has like no space to make it shorter! and any shorter, it would probably cause the chainstay to break since it's a 197 hub.

    Nope, it doesn't need a front derailleur I have a 32t on my AK, true can get a bit tough going uphill at 1x1 speed, but it's worth it when going flat and downhill 1x4 (and on)! So a 34t with 4.0 tire contact patch shouldn't be as bad as my 32t with 4.8 contact patch.

    EDIT: One thing that I deff hate about Framed is that they use crappy brakes. My AK came with Avid mechanicals, and quickly swapped them out for Guide RS. The SRAM DB5 I cannot comment on, but they should have used something more higher end, at east Guide R brakes. Also, they should have a alloy frame option. Higher weight is expected, after all fat bikes tend to be pretty heavy even tubeless.
    2015 Specialized Rockhopper
    2015 Giant Stance FS (wife's bike)
    2016 Framed Alaskan Alloy

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    100mm of travel, 197 hubs, looong chainstays.

    I agree with woodsbiker, this design needs a front derailleur.
    Head tube looks way steep too.

    I don't get it. If you're going through the trouble to make a full sus fat bike, give it geometry to match the application.

    There are plenty of people that will say it will be great for trail riding blah blah blah, but why the hell are we still stuck in the dark ages with the majority of hardtails out there?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    With only 100mm of travel this bike is not designed to be all mountain so why would you expect it to have AM like geometry. I don't know what the numbers are but i do agree it is on the steeper side. i hope it is around the 69 degree mark. For me, in the midwest that would be perfect. this would be a awesome bike for all the trails around me in MN. they also already make AM style fat bikes so if that is what you are looking for get a Mutz.

    I hope their warehouse gets some stock soon so i can go check them out.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    684
    Then tell me, what is it designed for that a hardtail can't do?

    Framed specifically mentions fast descents and 'lines galore', which to me sounds oddly like they are trying to play it off as a trail bike.

    If I want a full sus 'regular' bike with AM geometry, I don't need to go to a custom or high end frame builder, because there are a myriad of frames like that available from nearly every manufacturer out there. It's common.

    I'm not expecting them to put a 65 degree head angle on it but sheesh, even 67 or 68 would be nice to see with stays that are not so freaking long.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    different strokes for different folks. if you want a 67 degree bike they already exist. as for what it does that a hard tail can't do, well ask the rest of the bike mfgrs why them make short travel 27.5 and 29ers. it should not be that difficult to see that there is a market for a not AM geo FS fat bike. just like there is a market for non AM FS regular bikes. I gather it is not your cup of tea but for a lot of people the ride more XC oriented trails this will be an awesome bike. you get the plushness of FS with the traction and confidence of a fat tire. i am very glad to see this bike. the Lamere was really thinly option and the price is just way out there compared to this bike. can't wait to test ride one.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Engineer90 View Post
    I can see why the chainstays is so looong. The BB joint has like no space to make it shorter! and any shorter, it would probably cause the chainstay to break since it's a 197 hub.

    Nope, it doesn't need a front derailleur I have a 32t on my AK, true can get a bit tough going uphill at 1x1 speed, but it's worth it when going flat and downhill 1x4 (and on)! So a 34t with 4.0 tire contact patch shouldn't be as bad as my 32t with 4.8 contact patch.

    EDIT: One thing that I deff hate about Framed is that they use crappy brakes. My AK came with Avid mechanicals, and quickly swapped them out for Guide RS. The SRAM DB5 I cannot comment on, but they should have used something more higher end, at east Guide R brakes. Also, they should have a alloy frame option. Higher weight is expected, after all fat bikes tend to be pretty heavy even tubeless.
    I was being sarcastic, kinda like making a joke, but not always funny

    It's always good to see more FS fatties because it makes the genre less fringe, which increases the liklihood that suspension mfgs will build better fat forks.

    I'd love to see some long travel, slacked out, short chainstays options. There are plenty of the other.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Engineer90 View Post

    Nope, it doesn't need a front derailleur I have a 32t on my AK, true can get a bit tough going uphill at 1x1 speed, but it's worth it when going flat and downhill 1x4 (and on)! So a 34t with 4.0 tire contact patch shouldn't be as bad as my 32t with 4.8 contact patch.
    Why sacrafice your gearing? Glad it works for you for how and where you ride. At the end of the day you cant get the range of a 2x. Eagle gets closer but look at the $$$$$

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkers View Post
    Then tell me, what is it designed for that a hardtail can't do?

    Framed specifically mentions fast descents and 'lines galore', which to me sounds oddly like they are trying to play it off as a trail bike.

    If I want a full sus 'regular' bike with AM geometry, I don't need to go to a custom or high end frame builder, because there are a myriad of frames like that available from nearly every manufacturer out there. It's common.

    I'm not expecting them to put a 65 degree head angle on it but sheesh, even 67 or 68 would be nice to see with stays that are not so freaking long.
    My wife's enduro/AM FS Stance has a 68 degree head angle and 17.1" chainstay. That bikes handles like a dream! Eyeballing the Montana pix, seems like it might be even at 68 degree head angle, I mean, looks like it would definitely a hell of a lot better than my current AK. And like I said, chainstays that long, to me make sense and don't blame Framed tbh. And cannot compare 27.5 to fattie, but shouldn't be too far off in handling IMO.

    I just wish they had an alloy option and I would buy it in a jiffy.
    2015 Specialized Rockhopper
    2015 Giant Stance FS (wife's bike)
    2016 Framed Alaskan Alloy

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by woodsbiker View Post
    Why sacrafice your gearing? Glad it works for you for how and where you ride. At the end of the day you cant get the range of a 2x. Eagle gets closer but look at the $$$$$
    Actually the 32t came stock with my AK. But I got used it.

    And nooooo, Eagle is wayyyyyyy to much $$$$!!! I'm happy with my SRAM X5, shifts really well.
    2015 Specialized Rockhopper
    2015 Giant Stance FS (wife's bike)
    2016 Framed Alaskan Alloy

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    There are a number of less expensive options that get you very close to the range of Eagle and most 2x solutions. Also, where i ride i have no need for such low gearing that my current 2x provides. I don't actually need anything lower then about a 32-40 that is on my fat bike. also i would think that 32-50 would be so low that simply walking would be faster. for the Midwest a 1x with a 34 up front and 11-40/42 cassette is more than adequate in my experience. YMMV

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefflinde View Post
    There are a number of less expensive options that get you very close to the range of Eagle and most 2x solutions. Also, where i ride i have no need for such low gearing that my current 2x provides. I don't actually need anything lower then about a 32-40 that is on my fat bike. also i would think that 32-50 would be so low that simply walking would be faster. for the Midwest a 1x with a 34 up front and 11-40/42 cassette is more than adequate in my experience. YMMV
    What options? 32-50 is faster than walking, especially up a hill. It has a ratio of .64. My low gear has a ratio of .6 and can still do 4mph up a hill. I would rather climb a hill than walk my bike any day. We all have such different conditions and strengths, everyone needs something different. On the other end of this my big ring setup is 38-11. I use both extremes.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    there are many companies that make 50t cogs for both 10 and 11 speed drive trains. They get you "Close" to what Eagle and 2x's offer. I didn't say equal to or greater. To me Eagle is mainly a way for SRAM to brag. There are those that need it but 11-42 covers much more than i will ever use. But like you said, people have many different needs. this bike fills the need for those that want a dedicated 1x setup. For me, where i ride, there is no need to haul around a 2x system when 1x works. The bike world has been sold on 1x so i imagine you will see more frames that don't accept a FD. wait 5 years and someone will reinvent it and it will become the latest craze.

  28. #28
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefflinde View Post
    there are many companies that make 50t cogs for both 10 and 11 speed drive trains. They get you "Close" to what Eagle and 2x's offer. I didn't say equal to or greater. To me Eagle is mainly a way for SRAM to brag. There are those that need it but 11-42 covers much more than i will ever use. But like you said, people have many different needs. this bike fills the need for those that want a dedicated 1x setup. For me, where i ride, there is no need to haul around a 2x system when 1x works. The bike world has been sold on 1x so i imagine you will see more frames that don't accept a FD. wait 5 years and someone will reinvent it and it will become the latest craze.
    One issue that is overlooked is the fact that 1x greatly frees up suspension designers to make efficient single-pivot designs that are relatively simple. The ever present FSR design significantly increased the anti-squat in the granny gear, to boost efficiency. Trying to pedal up stuff in the middle or big ring was a slog-fest, much more than if you shifted down, and not because of the gearing. The idea with many bikes was to try and strike a balance with the fact that the middle ring was going to be ridden most of the time, but that the other two would be used on the extreme ends, and to do this and have decent kinematics was a tall order with the varying effective those rings had on the suspension. So if you like suspension designs that absorb bumps and are efficient, the change to 1x has been a big improvement resulting in less suspension compromises.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    524
    I see what you guys are saying, having 2x is best for uphill. But also remember, this increases weight and usually the 42t or even 50t cog was too big. I had the problem with my 29er even with the relatively short wheelbase. It had a 3x in the front with the biggest one being 42t, on every log I would bottom out. After going 1x (with 30t RaceFace), it simplified biking and I clear all logs no problems.

    If you look at some of the best FS bike frames, like the Stumpy FSR or Santa Cruz Hightower, the BB is pretty high off the ground to give the most clearance for clearing logs or rocks, whatever you might get stuck on. Not only that, but this also allows more travel on the front suspension.
    2015 Specialized Rockhopper
    2015 Giant Stance FS (wife's bike)
    2016 Framed Alaskan Alloy

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    218
    Is there a weight on the base model that's available? I can't seem to find it listed.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    i was in the House shop over the weekend trying like heck to see one of these things and i was unsuccessful. however i did chat to the very nice employee and he said bike weight is around 29lbs. this was an estimate and non-binding. Not sure what build this was but i can work with that weight.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    439
    I had heard rumors that the rear spacing was actually 177x12 instead of 197x12 and it looks like that is true as they have updated the specs on the website. I was really hoping it would be 197x12 so that I could use my existing wheelsets from my 2 Alaskan's on this build. It now looks like I'll have to order a new rear wheel.

    Framed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-montana.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    Wow that really sucks. wont be buying this then. the whole draw of this was so that i could use the 3 sets of 197 wheels i have for my rigid on this bike. what a shame. i hope this turns out to be an error. guess it is back to watching for a Chinese carbon frame.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bacon Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    186
    Awesome, I prefer 177 spacing on a FS fatty

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    250
    Any frame only talk?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    218
    Thanks for the info, I was expecting around 30lbs and I'm good with a +/- range of a few more, and for the price that makes this a pretty sweet all around bike!

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon Fat View Post
    Awesome, I prefer 177 spacing on a FS fatty
    Serious question, why? Besides Q-factor is there something that you prefer more about 177 than 197?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by blowery View Post
    Any frame only talk?
    Again off the record but I was told not sure why they wouldn't do a frame only option. So not definitive but positive news. Just not for me.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by blowery View Post
    Any frame only talk?
    I contacted The-House when they first came on the website with this question. They said that frame only would be available after they had more stock. Probably July.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefflinde View Post
    Serious question, why? Besides Q-factor is there something that you prefer more about 177 than 197?
    I tried asking a similar question on another thread. It's largely personal preference by the sound of it. A few zealots are adamant there is no need for the newer larger axle spacing. Some cite the extra flare of the chain/seat stays cause clearance problems for feet/ calf's.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bacon Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefflinde View Post
    Serious question, why? Besides Q-factor is there something that you prefer more about 177 than 197?
    Q is a big issue for me and I'm not going to run a tire larger than 4" (too much bounce, too much weight) so there is no need for 197"

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon Fat View Post
    Q is a big issue for me and I'm not going to run a tire larger than 4" (too much bounce, too much weight) so there is no need for 197"
    Good, concise and best answer I heard to date on this questions​. Makes sense to me and guess in hindsight I'm onto it as well. I don't have snow out this way and 4 inches is plenty for real world sand riding (avoiding the dry sand and riding below the high tide mark)

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    These all make sense. For me the biggest thing is consistence with my hard tail. I have 3 sets of wheels for various conditions and i don't want to have to have a new standard. Also my wife rides a 197 hard tail too so we can swap out when we want. too bad cause this was exactly what i personally was looking for.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Engineer90 View Post
    I see what you guys are saying, having 2x is best for uphill. But also remember, this increases weight and usually the 42t or even 50t cog was too big. I had the problem with my 29er even with the relatively short wheelbase. It had a 3x in the front with the biggest one being 42t, on every log I would bottom out. After going 1x (with 30t RaceFace), it simplified biking and I clear all logs no problems.

    If you look at some of the best FS bike frames, like the Stumpy FSR or Santa Cruz Hightower, the BB is pretty high off the ground to give the most clearance for clearing logs or rocks, whatever you might get stuck on. Not only that, but this also allows more travel on the front suspension.
    Ummm, it appears high uncompressed... sag it out and measure it, not much different from other fs.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by MozFat View Post
    I tried asking a similar question on another thread. It's largely personal preference by the sound of it. A few zealots are adamant there is no need for the newer larger axle spacing. Some cite the extra flare of the chain/seat stays cause clearance problems for feet/ calf's.
    It's simple math, the wider the axle, the less heel clearance, q factor is bb width, not the same issue.

    Personal preference, hell, it's all personal preference, choices generally are. If you want a wide axle, at least understand why it might be important, or not.

    197 axle spacing is for chain line and tire clearance, as is 120mm bb. The idea is to run the narrowest spacing for your application. The same can be said for chainstay width.

    Extra capacity is fine if you don't mind clearance issues and carrying a little extra weight.

    The real kicker is the aesthetic and practicality of combining 5" tires and full suspension; some would go as far as to question the practicality of front suspension and 5" tires.

    Yup, it's all personal preference.

    I'm in summer mode, my fat tires are collecting dust, it's all plus tires till next fall, unless I get a Lenz Fatillac

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    385
    Cheers Nurse B we all live and learn. Some just slower than others

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    It's simple math, the wider the axle, the less heel clearance, q factor is bb width, not the same issue.

    Personal preference, hell, it's all personal preference, choices generally are. If you want a wide axle, at least understand why it might be important, or not.

    197 axle spacing is for chain line and tire clearance, as is 120mm bb. The idea is to run the narrowest spacing for your application. The same can be said for chainstay width.

    Extra capacity is fine if you don't mind clearance issues and carrying a little extra weight.

    The real kicker is the aesthetic and practicality of combining 5" tires and full suspension; some would go as far as to question the practicality of front suspension and 5" tires.

    Yup, it's all personal preference.

    I'm in summer mode, my fat tires are collecting dust, it's all plus tires till next fall, unless I get a Lenz Fatillac
    Thank you Ben! A well written explanation without as much opinion. I tip my hat.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by MozFat View Post
    Cheers Nurse B we all live and learn. Some just slower than others
    Oh I'm slow, trust me, I've eaten my fair share of sole, made plenty of expensive mistakes, fortunately I have a good job and a forgiving banker

    There's no one shoe fits all in this world and sadly it's hard to demo every option before buying... and then sometimes preferences change with riding experience.

    I only got hooked on short chainstays and slacker hta after my LBS steered me there when I was getting back into bikes from muni.

    There's really no such thing is having a chainstay that is too short, might say the same for slacking hta; I ain't ridden anything too slack.

    It's a shame that Framed didn't go for a more progressive design, but it's their business model not mine. I'd say the same thing about Trek and even Foes, folks gotta get with the program, only dowhillers and trekkers need long chainstays.

    Give it a couple years and full suspension fatties will mirror what's going on in B+.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    8
    Any ride reports yet? Looks like they're shipping these now.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    3

    Montana

    Just arrived last week, Couple rides so far. Climbs ok, but could use a lower front ring for long class 3 climbs. ( at least for me) Handles well on tight trails, The framed tires seem to hold good on most trails. Running them at 10psi. About an hour to set up after arrival.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  51. #51
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    It's simple math, the wider the axle, the less heel clearance, q factor is bb width, not the same issue.
    I had an interesting experience a few days ago on my 197mm bike. I rode it all winter, with Wolfhammers and Lake 302s, never having any clearance issues or feeling like it was too wide. In fact, I felt crazy bowlegged when I got on my summer rig a few months back. Anyhow, I put flat pedals on the 197 bike a few days ago to ride to a softball game. As soon as I started pedaling, bang bang bang, my heels started banging off the stays. Something about the clipless pedals keeping my feet straight vs. the flat pedals where my heels were contacting the chainstay. Had to constantly "think" about where my feet were while riding the flats. Moving feet forward helped a bit, but still the issue was there. Rode all winter in all kinds of conditions and never thought about this.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bacon Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    186
    Could be that the flats allow you to put your foot closer to the crank, reducing the Q. And mtn bike shoes usually have a narrow heel compared to sneakers

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon Fat View Post
    Could be that the flats allow you to put your foot closer to the crank, reducing the Q. And mtn bike shoes usually have a narrow heel compared to sneakers
    Or it's just a super wide arse bike

    I constantly cuss my fat bike choice in tight terrain, pedal strikes suck!

    I'm contemplating 160mm cranks, got 170s now, ride as short as 115mm on Muni.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    409
    I wonder if body size and shape makes difference in how one feels about Q factor. I am on the bigger side of the scale and to me Q factor is not an issue on fat bikes. I have never had issues with heel clearance or feeling bow legged. Or maybe i just dont know what i am supposed to feel like.

    I am glad to see these are in stock now. i will have to go test ride on at the shop.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    385
    A bit surprised this thread went cold. Thought there would have been a flurry of at least test ride reviews, if not unpacking pics and full reviews

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    54
    Has anyone else pulled the trigger on one of these? Seriously considering buying this week. Im 6'2" 280, so the 19" frame gives me a little hesitation. Currently riding a '14 Fatboy SE XL, and at times it feels a little big. I was thinking the 19" Montana might be more playful.

    Price is right up my alley, it's about the max I want to spend and checks all the fat boxes for me. I looked at the Fatillac mentioned above and if I were a much more experienced rider, I could see the expense. As it is, I am still very much a beginner, especially on the trails.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    With the geo listed, this bike will not be that playful, only difference from a hardtail will be softer ride.

    You need to ride the bike before buying.

    If you can't afford a high end FS fat like the Fatillac, a plus bike with better geo would be a good choice, esp if you already have a fat bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelbo View Post
    Has anyone else pulled the trigger on one of these? Seriously considering buying this week. Im 6'2" 280, so the 19" frame gives me a little hesitation. Currently riding a '14 Fatboy SE XL, and at times it feels a little big. I was thinking the 19" Montana might be more playful.

    Price is right up my alley, it's about the max I want to spend and checks all the fat boxes for me. I looked at the Fatillac mentioned above and if I were a much more experienced rider, I could see the expense. As it is, I am still very much a beginner, especially on the trails.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    54
    I wish riding it was possible. I called the closest dealer to me (3 hrs away) and he told me he had sold 3 Framed bikes in the last couple of years, and that I would be better off calling Framed directly.

    I've looked at a few plus bikes, but keep coming back to fat. There are no Treks, Salsas, anything in my area, so buying sight unseen is the only option.

    Thank you for your response.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bacon Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    186
    I wouldn't be overly concerned about getting a fat bike with the modern long slack geo with short chainstay, especially as a beginner. My FS has kinda old school geo with longer stays. I have no issue with it on the trails, lifting the front over stuff take a little more effort than on my short chainstay fat bike, but its not like you can't make it over something because of the longer stay.

  60. #60
    PRETENDURO
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7,533
    $3,339 for the 31 pound build, carbon toobliss. I need to hide my damn creditcard! If I wasnt in debt at the moment (or if I knew I was going do die within the next few months) Id pull the trigger. Go out and ride the rad balls out of hell and find my the limits of my riding abilities on this badboy!
    QUOTE from MTBR.COM: You have given Brewtality too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    So a beginner doesn't benefit from a good handling bike?

    I'd think that a beginner woudl benefit most from a good handling bike.

    The dilemna in full suspension fat bikes is that the geometry and suspension has not kept pace with the other genres like plus and non plus bikes. This slow pace of develpment is due to the fringe nature of these bikes.

    I'd never steer someone toward a dated suspension or geometry, esp if they have the money to buy new.

    I get that outside of Lenz, all other full suspension fat bikes have long chainstays and steep HT angles.

    To the OP, if you can't get a new geo bike in fat, and you already have a rigid fat, a plus bike is good compromise.

    Can you ride a Trek locally?

    $3400 for a bike is not a good deal, it's average for what Framed offers. Parts are parts, the frame and suspension matter, so the issue not how much you get but what you don't get:

    You don't get short chainstays
    You don't get progressive geometry
    You don't get much travel

    Personally, I'd rather have a progressive geo hardtail fatty like the Wozo than a full suspension fatty with old school geo.

    0.2 cents

    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon Fat View Post
    I wouldn't be overly concerned about getting a fat bike with the modern long slack geo with short chainstay, especially as a beginner. My FS has kinda old school geo with longer stays. I have no issue with it on the trails, lifting the front over stuff take a little more effort than on my short chainstay fat bike, but its not like you can't make it over something because of the longer stay.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bacon Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    So a beginner doesn't benefit from a good handling bike?

    I'd think that a beginner woudl benefit most from a good handling bike.

    The dilemna in full suspension fat bikes is that the geometry and suspension has not kept pace with the other genres like plus and non plus bikes. This slow pace of develpment is due to the fringe nature of these bikes.

    I'd never steer someone toward a dated suspension or geometry, esp if they have the money to buy new.

    I get that outside of Lenz, all other full suspension fat bikes have long chainstays and steep HT angles.

    To the OP, if you can't get a new geo bike in fat, and you already have a rigid fat, a plus bike is good compromise.

    Can you ride a Trek locally?

    $3400 for a bike is not a good deal, it's average for what Framed offers. Parts are parts, the frame and suspension matter, so the issue not how much you get but what you don't get:

    You don't get short chainstays
    You don't get progressive geometry
    You don't get much travel

    Personally, I'd rather have a progressive geo hardtail fatty like the Wozo than a full suspension fatty with old school geo.

    0.2 cents
    "old" geometry still handles well

    Depends on how and where the OP ride, he might not want a low and slack bike with short CS and 150mm of travel on a fat bike. He might just be looking for a comfortable bike to ride on the trails, not something to go bombing down trails on

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    54
    quick comparison. HT angle and CS length

    Montana 68.5* 18.1 in
    Farley 68.8 17.4
    Fatillac 67 16.5
    Bucksaw 67.7 17.5
    Wozo 69 16.5


    I'm going to take a chance on the Montana. I have no doubt it will far exceed my expectations and ability.
    Last edited by kelbo; 08-02-2017 at 07:39 PM. Reason: spelling error of course

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    3

    Montana

    I have had my Montana for a few months now. Love it! Good on trails. I do switch out the forward sprocket depending on where I ride. Comes with a 32 tooth and I have a 28 and 30 NH climbing. No complaints so far. Tires seem good, great traction for loose scree climbs. I did tear the derailleur hanger off and ruined the rear derailleur and chain by picking up a stick in the derailleur cage. Not the bikes fault. All in all, very happy with the bike and its handling.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Framed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-montana1.jpg  

    Framed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-montana2.jpg  

    Framed Montana Full Suspension Carbon Fat Bike-montana.jpg  


  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,502
    Longest chainstay in the industry, should be awesome for manuals

    I sold my Mutz for this very reason ^

    Have fun, in the end it's just a bike, but keep in mind that you're buying a full suspension bike that will be less agile than a Farley.

    I rode my Wozo last night, 27.5 x 3.8 Minions, fifteen miles of sweet Eastern Sierra single track, on the down it was like riding a big boyz BMXer. This is how a a fat bike should ride.


    Quote Originally Posted by kelbo View Post
    quick comparison. HT angle and CS length

    Montana 68.5* 18.1 in
    Farley 68.8 17.4
    Fatillac 67 16.5
    Bucksaw 67.7 17.5
    Wozo 69 16.5


    I'm going to take a chance on the Montana. I have no doubt it will far exceed my expectations and ability.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    54
    I don't even know how to manual dude. I think I'll be okay, haha. But you nailed it. It's just a bike. The Wozo has the steepest headtube angle of them all, so I guess I'm not following your argument. Other than the Fatillac, each bike seems to make a sacrifice in one area or another. If I come back from my first ride defeated because of my chainstay length, I will send you a growler of our finest local barleywine.

    I also ride a SE Fat Ripper with my 2 boys when we go tooling around the neighborhood. Been working on my wheelies, so one day I can manual.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    385
    Kelbo, which model are you going for?

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    54
    NX1 with Alloy or Carbon. That's about the max I want to spend. Letting my Dad enjoy my Fatboy for awhile.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    385
    Sounds good, I reckon it's a tempting rig at those prices. Now if only it had a Mastadon option....

Similar Threads

  1. Carbon fork vs full suspension on a Fat Bike
    By MSU Jason in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-16-2015, 06:13 PM
  2. Help choosing new carbon full suspension bike
    By Coonass33 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-28-2015, 08:23 PM
  3. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 01-30-2014, 06:48 PM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-25-2013, 08:26 AM

Members who have read this thread: 227

Posting Permissions

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