Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 156
  1. #51
    Chronic Underachiever
    Reputation: MauricioB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by onepivot View Post
    This is all well & good, but answer to my original question seems elusive: does anyone have any good info on whether or not any of the big brands are working on a fat bike design? I thought someone might have some insider info.
    Trek had two fat concept bikes (one with a built-in hatchet rack, complete with hatchet) on display at Trekworld 2011. Haven't heard much since.

    Except...someone I know works in the Trek skunkworks and claims that he came up with something similar to the Krampus about 3 years ago. He said that upon seeing the prototype unveiled at a meeting, the product managers looked at him as if he were from Mars.

  2. #52
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by onepivot View Post
    This is all well & good, but answer to my original question seems elusive: does anyone have any good info on whether or not any of the big brands are working on a fat bike design? I thought someone might have some insider info.
    Judging by current bike reviews/hype - they are all busy mining the "27.5/650b" thing. That still looks like a "normal" bike, one that conventional wisdom says is acceptable. Fatbikes are still outside that.

    I note that the 100mm BB standard came out of DH/FR, so there is a bigger market for cranksets than just fatbikes. Hubs, rims, tires? Fat only.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  3. #53
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Judging by current bike reviews/hype - they are all busy mining the "27.5/650b" thing. That still looks like a "normal" bike, one that conventional wisdom says is acceptable. Fatbikes are still outside that.
    Agreed. I think we would all love things a little cheaper... but still, we do have a pretty good selection of things considering how rare these beasts are.

    I honestly just don't see the big guys getting into it with how small the market & desire is for fat bikes... don't forget either how some people just do not like the snow and/or cold! I know they are great for other things, but they are still pushed for snow use

    To all of us that are constantly following fat bikes... we of course know how awesome and fun they are, but to your average cyclist they are still kind of a freak of nature bike. We are a bunch of freaks... and don't you forget that

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bethany1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    712
    In some ways it would be great to get SRAM and Shimano in for fat-bike specific parts (forgive me if they already are) and some of the big name companies for suspension forks. Components are where the money is at.

    I can't see big names like Trek join in just yet for a complete bike. Was looking in my LBS when I took my Muk in and all the new bikes look pretty boring and basic. Nothing even caught my interest.

  5. #55
    Living the thug life.
    Reputation: Logantri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    793
    My 2 cents of knowledge.

    Trek did not jump on board the 29er movement, they pushed it through when no big player would touch them. They pushed through the first real tires and shocks to make a real 29er mountain bike.

    The QBP brands are run separate, but they all answer to the same boss, and if you think they don't talk to each other than you are foolish. The big reason fatbikes are a popular as they are right now is because QBP was the biggest player to run with'em. They have HUGE distribution. You probably would not be riding a fat bike right now if they did not pick up the ball and run with it.

    Surly has given credit to Evingson in their Pugsley designs. He actually helped them design the first one from what I was told by a Surly man.

    No, QBP did not invent the market, they made it something from nearly nothing. Just like Trek/Fisher did with 29'ers.

    Oh, and it has been like 10 years since Trek bought companies that were poorly run. It is no time to get off their backs about acquiring other companies.
    I proudly ride for these guys.

    My blog.

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Well, QBP is also a "local" company for those in Minnesota.
    You sort of mashed the Salsa and Surly brands together. Quality did buy Salsa years ago, I do not remember it having anything to do with a stem recall (those happened more recently), but that Ross S wanted to move on.
    Surly was created by QBP IIRC. It is run by a (small) bunch of goofy Twin City "hipsters". You you have ever met the staff of either brand you know they are very different and it is not an act.
    Yeah, a group of goofy twin city hipsters who just happen to have the resources of an enormous bike parts distributor sitting behind them. Good for them, and for us, that gets us some very cool bikes, but that massive corporate backing and distribution network is what makes their stuff available, not the cool hipster vibe and meat flavored website.

    What I'm saying is, having been out to trek many times, there's probably a lot less difference between the two companies than we'd like to believe. Before the big consolidation, there was a small team in charge of each brand. Small, as in maybe 3 or 4 people for Klein and LeMond. All of them passionate riders who actually cared about the bikes. I've met them. They too, were different and it wasn't an act. No real difference from Surly.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeG View Post
    Per X9 Fat Bike Crankset There will be X-9 and X-5 2x fatbike cranksets. More options = a good thing IMO!
    well, I think this is a good sign it is happening soon, but all I have heard is the respons I got when I asked the same question, which was "Specialized sales rep says one is in the works."
    I welcome it, since it probably means cheaper tires and hopefully better rims(tubeless ready).
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails How Long Before The Big Boys Join The Fray?-picture4_zps42d8e7b0.jpg  


  8. #58
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Yeah, a group of goofy twin city hipsters who just happen to have the resources of an enormous bike parts distributor sitting behind them. Good for them, and for us, that gets us some very cool bikes, but that massive corporate backing and distribution network is what makes their stuff available, not the cool hipster vibe and meat flavored website.

    What I'm saying is, having been out to trek many times, there's probably a lot less difference between the two companies than we'd like to believe. Before the big consolidation, there was a small team in charge of each brand. Small, as in maybe 3 or 4 people for Klein and LeMond. All of them passionate riders who actually cared about the bikes. I've met them. They too, were different and it wasn't an act. No real difference from Surly.
    Except that Surly is still a separate brand with distinctly different products than Salsa (and All City, Civia, Foundry...)

    The point being, despite being part of a large corporation, Q's brands reflect the passions of the team members. It is not simply marketing hype. It is great that Steve Flagg lets them follow their dreams.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #59
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,026
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    No real difference from Surly.
    Respectfully, I'd beg to differ. While their may have been small teams, who loved the brand they worked for, the higher ups were solely profit and brand minded. Once proven their technologies or ideas were to perform, the brand's were killed so as to streamline profitability.

    QBP bought Salsa as a struggling company with a venerable history, and saved the brand name. Salsa still makes bikes. Yes, long way from where they started (sadly. the Handjob is no more) but it's still around. Or, they start their own brands, Surly, 45 North etc. They have the cojones to go it without some pioneers name on their down tube.

    I'd be all over them if they say, bought FatBack or 9Zero7, slapped names on their frame designs for two years, then dropped the name like a bad habit and called it something else.

    I don't know enough about the subtle subterfuge of QBP vs the Alaskan old guard, so I can't speak to that, but do know they certainly seem to have gotten a boost from Q's involvement in the niche, and hope they at least enjoy selling out of everything they make....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    Surly has always been first at innovating. They gave you 100mm wide wheels and now almost 5" tires and lots of other firsts. Salsa brought in 170 hubs. All QBP companies. So lets show some respect.
    Surly freely admits that they took ideas for the Pugsley from the Alaskan bikes that were around- Wildfire, Evingston, ect. Vicious also offered a bike before Surly got in the game.

    The Endomorph tire is basically an updated version of Ray Molina's original 3.5" sand tires, which were made by Tornel in Mexico.

    100mm rims were made by both Choppers US and 907 before the Clown Shoe came out, and were in use on quite a few bikes..

    Fatback was doing 170 hubs before Salsa. Wildfire had gone to 160 mm symmetrical rear ends long before Salsa was in the game as well.

  11. #61
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Surly freely admits that they took ideas for the Pugsley from the Alaskan bikes that were around- Wildfire, Evingston, ect. Vicious also offered a bike before Surly got in the game.

    The Endomorph tire is basically an updated version of Ray Molina's original 3.5" sand tires, which were made by Tornel in Mexico.

    100mm rims were made by both Choppers US and 907 before the Clown Shoe came out, and were in use on quite a few bikes..

    Fatback was doing 170 hubs before Salsa. Wildfire had gone to 160 mm symmetrical rear ends long before Salsa was in the game as well.
    All true.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,495
    As a Canuck, I'm a bit embarrassed that one of the Canadian bike companies aren't building a fat bike yet - not like we are short of snow or anything. I'd love to see a fatbike based on Banshee's Paradox 29er geometry, or something from RM, Kona or Devinci...
    I think that the more companies get into it the better, more options, more development of parts and hopefully cheaper prices!

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Respectfully, I'd beg to differ. While their may have been small teams, who loved the brand they worked for, the higher ups were solely profit and brand minded. Once proven their technologies or ideas were to perform, the brand's were killed so as to streamline profitability.

    QBP bought Salsa as a struggling company with a venerable history, and saved the brand name. Salsa still makes bikes. Yes, long way from where they started (sadly. the Handjob is no more) but it's still around. Or, they start their own brands, Surly, 45 North etc. They have the cojones to go it without some pioneers name on their down tube.

    I'd be all over them if they say, bought FatBack or 9Zero7, slapped names on their frame designs for two years, then dropped the name like a bad habit and called it something else.

    I don't know enough about the subtle subterfuge of QBP vs the Alaskan old guard, so I can't speak to that, but do know they certainly seem to have gotten a boost from Q's involvement in the niche, and hope they at least enjoy selling out of everything they make....
    Well, you are dead wrong about trek, but, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

    But... higher ups who were only interested in profit? Are you serious? Because surly is not interested in making a profit? because QBP hasn't essentially cornered the market on an up and coming bike style? or are they just doing that out of the goodness of their hearts?

    Every company is interested in making a profit. Even surly. And I can bet behind every surly product is a spreadsheet that's designed to find the sweet spot between production costs, distribution costs and what they can charge. Which is why we all line up to pay $150 for tires.

  14. #64
    oh crap...
    Reputation: farmerfrederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    540
    Great thread!
    Grow some food for yourself.

  15. #65
    Down South Yooper
    Reputation: Plum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post

    QBP bought Salsa as a struggling company with a venerable history, and saved the brand name. Salsa still makes bikes. Yes, long way from where they started (sadly. the Handjob is no more) but it's still around. Or, they start their own brands, Surly, 45 North etc. They have the cojones to go it without some pioneers name on their down tube.
    ...
    Think that you're mixing Ibis and Salsa a little. Ibis (AFAIK) is also a different beast then they were BITD, when Scot Nicol was THE boss. As I understand it, he is still A boss, among other bosses. Not affiliated with QBP as I know.

    Just a minor quibble, I'm sure you know the story better than I. I still have a hand job opener on my keys, although it kinda sucks as an opener.

    As for the whole big industry fat bikers, appropriating designs, ideas, etc, is there anything REALLY new in the bike world? The 3.8's were new, the 4.8's are new, everything else from the hubs to rims to bb spacings were existing products (not to the degree that they are now, granted) in other markets, right? I can completely understand feeling put out by a mass production frame that steps on the small guys toes WRT spacings or offsets, but it's the nature of good ideas to take hold and propagate, no?

    Plum
    This post is in 3B, three beers and it looks good eh!

  16. #66
    HIKE!
    Reputation: sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,611
    I'd bet on Kona being the next "big" brand in the fat bike market. And by "big" you can read more on that above. QBP as a whole is big as Kona. Salsa or Surly are not as big as Kona, but their parent company has gotta be on par. But add up Kona, Salsa, Surly AND all of QBP and you still aren't as big as Trek (or Specialized, or Giant....) are! And there is no value judgement to that. It's just reality, things evolve, folks jump on board, our selection and pricing gets better.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    A buddy of mine had a HT Kona Somethingorother that had Snowcats (44 mm) and 2.something tires...that bike was the most fun bike I've ever ridden. I have no doubt Kona would make one h3ll of a fatbike.
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  18. #68
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,074
    Im excited about others getting on the band wagon
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Plum View Post
    Think that you're mixing Ibis and Salsa a little. Ibis (AFAIK) is also a different beast then they were BITD, when Scot Nicol was THE boss. As I understand it, he is still A boss, among other bosses. Not affiliated with QBP as I know.

    Just a minor quibble, I'm sure you know the story better than I. I still have a hand job opener on my keys, although it kinda sucks as an opener.

    Plum
    I was going to point out this same thing, but you beat me to it! I have one of those hand job openers on my key chain as well, and completely agree that it sucks as an opener, but looks supercool

    Nothing else to add, carry on!

  20. #70
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Plum View Post
    Think that you're mixing Ibis and Salsa a little.
    Oops, good catch, you are absolutely correct.

    As for the rest, yes, and no. Some stuff is new, and generally for the betterment of the whole. Wider rear ends, fatter tires etc.

    I've seen how the big boys play though, and it's always some marketing gimmick, some tweak, that makes everyone else's stuff not play well with theirs, and of course, you as an end consumer won't be able to buy it over the counter, assuming it would even fit your bike in the first place. Try to buy a Fox Gary Fisher/now Trek, G2 fork from Fox example.

    Whether it's a proprietary tire and rim bead set up, rear end spacing that is in between or just beyond the current standards, something. So you wouldn't be able to say, pick up a frame from the big S and build it, unless you used their parts, thus sucking you into their realm even more.

    The fatbike market to date, is independent, and inclusive. Should the big boys come to the party, rest assured, for their product it won't be, and there will be no reason beyond pushing consumers into their "concept store" mentality, but they won't do anything, any better, for said exclusivity.......
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Oops, good catch, you are absolutely correct.

    As for the rest, yes, and no. Some stuff is new, and generally for the betterment of the whole. Wider rear ends, fatter tires etc.

    I've seen how the big boys play though, and it's always some marketing gimmick, some tweak, that makes everyone else's stuff not play well with theirs, and of course, you as an end consumer won't be able to buy it over the counter, assuming it would even fit your bike in the first place. Try to buy a Fox Gary Fisher/now Trek, G2 fork from Fox example.

    Whether it's a proprietary tire and rim bead set up, rear end spacing that is in between or just beyond the current standards, something. So you wouldn't be able to say, pick up a frame from the big S and build it, unless you used their parts, thus sucking you into their realm even more.

    The fatbike market to date, is independent, and inclusive. Should the big boys come to the party, rest assured, for their product it won't be, and there will be no reason beyond pushing consumers into their "concept store" mentality, but they won't do anything, any better, for said exclusivity.......
    You mean the same way there are 2 competing standards for hubs now, neither of which will work with the other? I really don't see the open-source love-fest you see when you see fatbikes- I see expensive bits that generally barely work as promised.

    As it stands now, you can't pick a frame from salsa and just move your surly wheels to it without buying special adaptors and they're owned by the same freaking company.

    The fatbike market to date is fractured and exclusive. You pretty much have to know someone to get a new set of tires if you didn't pre-order them blind the day they were leaked to the internet. Cranks sort of work kind of most of the time except when they don't and you have to take 4 cogs off your casette because the tires only kind of work in that frame. Fatbikes are a mess.

    I love my pugsley, but it's a mess. I love the fact that it's a mess. It appeals to my inner mechanic, knowing that I somehow managed to get x-component to work where no one else could, but that's not what the bulk of riders want. they want easy, they want it to work. And that's what the big boys bring to the party. Stuff that works as promised.

    No one wants their favorite indie band to get popular. But sometimes they do. I hate that apple has gone from being an innovative underdog to a soul-crushing overlord, but **** happens.

  22. #72
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,026
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    **** happens.
    Plainly, we won't agree, which is fine, I still like you

    Surly, did the best they could to make the whole bike (Pug) function with industry standard stuff. 135 mm hubs, 100 mm DH BB's etc. Obviously, the rims and tires had to be unique, but they still used the 26" format as opposed to inventing their own diameter, claiming it was .23% more betterer....

    Salsa followed Fatback's lead with the 170 rear spacing. Note that they did make adapters for those who wanted to use their 135's, (see any of the 142mm bandwagoneers doing a 135 adapter for their stuff?) They (and Fatback) used either overseas sources for brand name, price point versions, or "allowed" higher end aftermarket folks like Hadley, Hope, Paul, etc to make them, but didn't make them brand exclusive, only available through them.

    I agree, things work with full gear range, barely. But that's not because the big guys aren't here yet. Design issues and barriers are more at play, than the fact that is doesn't have some particular head badge on it.

    If you're just dying for a bike with 10,000 logos on it, and a mess of really bad marketing hype surrounding it about how they waited long enough to really dial it in compared to the rest of the market, you likely won't have to hold your breath much longer....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    250

    10,000 logos ...branding gone wild

    [QUOTE=

    If you're just dying for a bike with 10,000 logos on it, and a mess of really bad marketing hype surrounding it about how they waited long enough to really dial it in compared to the rest of the market, you likely won't have to hold your breath much longer....[/QUOTE]



    And what is it with the 10,000 logos thing anyway? One of the reasons I like Surly is they are one of the few brands I know of that allow the buyer to peel off their labels if they wish. Stealth mode can be good at times.
    Last edited by Team Honeybadger; 01-08-2013 at 05:34 PM. Reason: oops

  24. #74
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,220
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    You mean the same way there are 2 competing standards for hubs now, neither of which will work with the other? I really don't see the open-source love-fest you see when you see fatbikes- I see expensive bits that generally barely work as promised.

    As it stands now, you can't pick a frame from salsa and just move your surly wheels to it without buying special adaptors and they're owned by the same freaking company.
    This has been pointed out before, but every time I see a comment like this, I feel it bears repeating- Salsa and Surly are indeed owned by the same company, but they are run as completely different entities with the ability to do independent designs, and in fact, this is encouraged. Surly could have already done a 170mm symmetrical frame but for their entrenched philosophy which will remain in place as long as certain individuals steer that ship. (Not that I am saying that is good or bad. It just is.)

    There is sharing across brands, to be sure, but if Salsa did aluminum "Surlys", what would be the point? Conversely, the steel framed fat bikes are Surly's domain, and will always be offset designs. That sucks in your described scenario, but it is what it is.

    [The fatbike market to date is fractured and exclusive. You pretty much have to know someone to get a new set of tires if you didn't pre-order them blind the day they were leaked to the internet. Cranks sort of work kind of most of the time except when they don't and you have to take 4 cogs off your casette because the tires only kind of work in that frame. Fatbikes are a mess.
    I would say that you are living on the front end of innovation where sometimes things are great, sometimes things are less than advertised, and sometimes things really suck. I saw this with early mountain bikes, early front suspension designs, early full suspension, etc....

    Once everything gets sorted, you won't see such "messes". But I think it bears remembering that a short 4 years ago there was a lot less of everything for fat bikers.

    I love my pugsley, but it's a mess. I love the fact that it's a mess. It appeals to my inner mechanic, knowing that I somehow managed to get x-component to work where no one else could, but that's not what the bulk of riders want. they want easy, they want it to work. And that's what the big boys bring to the party. Stuff that works as promised.

    No one wants their favorite indie band to get popular. But sometimes they do. I hate that apple has gone from being an innovative underdog to a soul-crushing overlord, but **** happens.
    Maybe the "big boys" will get it right, but much has been figured out for them already. With the horsepower to command better components and tolerances from Asian factories, they may have some refinements to bring to the table, and certainly more choices. Is that "getting it right", or is it cashing in on the "next big thing"? Who knows, but choices should proliferate, (if in fact more companies come in, which I believe they will), and that should only add to "your mess". Whether that is a positive or negative is yet to be seen, but most bike geeks like that sort of scenario.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  25. #75
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,074
    Good post Ted ! How bad can it get..... they have already made the word "standard" obsolete as far mountain bikes go

    The few fat bike makers have 3 different rear spacings too, counting sandman's its 4.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    Good post Ted ! How bad can it get..... they have already made the word "standard" obsolete as far mountain bikes go

    The few fat bike makers have 3 different rear spacings too, counting sandman's its 4.
    I've heard about 135 w 17.5 offset, 135 w 28 offset, 165, 170, and coming soon or already here 186 and 190. For a bit there were 160's too. Luckily the 165/170 and I suspect 186/190 can play together if you don't mind a little squeezing or stretching of dropouts. So yes "standard" doesn't apply but it's all fun to play with.
    Latitude 61

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    413
    What rises to the surface for me here is all that's ugly in the fat bike world is really its beauty.

    This is a time of innovation and frustration for fat bikes, the two are synonymous with inventors. Yup, there gonna put some weird stuff out there but keep in mind that each company making this stuff mostly comes from their own visions and not necessarily to be compatible with another, sure their are some overlaps and some are very close but not close enough to be bolt on compatible. That's OK, they were not supposed to be !

    No different than mtb's, fat bike tech will probably standardize more and more as the designs mature, they will however never stop maturing, it's just the rate at which they do. Mtb's are in a leveling off design state right now, they have been around for about thirty years at this point. By comparison, fat bikes are young and innovation will be strong for some time to come. I see them as a viable growing segment of the bicycle world that will land in many channels of the buying demographic spectrum, perhaps not huge but a lot bigger than it is now.

  28. #78
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Respectfully, I'd beg to differ. While their may have been small teams, who loved the brand they worked for, the higher ups were solely profit and brand minded. Once proven their technologies or ideas were to perform, the brand's were killed so as to streamline profitability.

    QBP bought Salsa as a struggling company with a venerable history, and saved the brand name. Salsa still makes bikes. Yes, long way from where they started (sadly. the Handjob is no more) but it's still around. Or, they start their own brands, Surly, 45 North etc. They have the cojones to go it without some pioneers name on their down tube.

    I'd be all over them if they say, bought FatBack or 9Zero7, slapped names on their frame designs for two years, then dropped the name like a bad habit and called it something else.

    I don't know enough about the subtle subterfuge of QBP vs the Alaskan old guard, so I can't speak to that, but do know they certainly seem to have gotten a boost from Q's involvement in the niche, and hope they at least enjoy selling out of everything they make....
    EDIT: *My entire next paragraph is proved incorrect on the next page*

    *QBP did not start Surly. The company's original name was 1x1, and their only product was the Rat Ride(edit: and hubs). When QBP purchased them, the company name became Surly, and the Rat Ride became the 1x1. Still good bikes by good people, but they are not a QBP invention. *


    Regarding the second point, Wildfire, Evingson and Remolino are all out of business. Vicious no longer makes their fatbike. Surly's intrduction of their tires to the market through the years have certainly been huge and positive innovations. Fatback showed up with light, symmetrical frames, soon followed by 9::ZERO::7, then, several years later, Salsa found out that both of the Alaskan companies were selling out every run, and sneaked in with some incredibly shady actions and has claimed a large chunk of the market share. Sandman came before Salsa as well, but I think the Atlantic ocean limited influence.

    So, I don't think QBP overall is the enemy. They've done a lot of good for the fat bike market. I do think Salsa is the embodiment of everything people are talking smack on the 'big names' in this thread for. They've done nothing but take other people's innovations and cheapen them up in a graphic laden package. It's a shame that Salsa's big wigs have a direct hand in 45North, because other than that, 45North has some good products.
    Last edited by sean salach; 01-09-2013 at 01:54 PM.

  29. #79
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,873
    Hey;

    Regarding the OP;

    Looking at the numbers is what Big Guys usually do. Based on that alone, I'm not sure that the Fatbike market would make sense for them. 650B would make a lot more sense against that standard. If they make a calculation that they can get a lot of face time and market buzz, even though they don't stand to turn big sales numbers, they might still throw in.

    Perhaps the biggest factor here might be whether they realize just how good an every-day-do-it-all bike a Fatty can be. If they realize this fact, and think they can convince enough people of that, they might buy in in a bigger way.

    I really don't care one way or the other. The little guys out there now will probably always have a market, if they are savvy and concentrate on high performance and quality. The noobs that would go to their LBS and come home with a Trek Fatbike likely would never have heard of Fatback or 9-0-7 anyway.

    There will be good and bad in whatever happens, either way. That's how the world works.
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  30. #80
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,877
    In all fairness, (QBP) Salsa, and Surly are sponsors of the 2cnd annual Fat Bike Summit being held in Island Park, so they are putting their money back into the sport. In a huge way...without advocacy, this sport will have a hard time with access in a lot of areas.

    Salsa & Surly Sponsor The 2nd Annual Fat Bike Summit | FAT-BIKE.COM
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

  31. #81
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    In all fairness, (QBP) Salsa, and Surly are sponsors of the 2cnd annual Fat Bike Summit being held in Island Park, so they are putting their money back into the sport. In a huge way...without advocacy, this sport will have a hard time with access in a lot of areas.

    Salsa & Surly Sponsor The 2nd Annual Fat Bike Summit | FAT-BIKE.COM

    from the same article: "The event is hosted and organized by Fitzgerald’s Bicycles and QBP."

    So, they're basically 'sponsoring' an event that they're putting on.

  32. #82
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,877
    No, in reality, Fitzy is putting the event on, and Surly, Salsa and (QBP) are sponsoring it.
    As am I, for full disclosure.
    Welcome to Bicyclart! | bicyclart.com

    The event is in Island Park, MT, near us in Teton Valley, QBP is a little far way.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

  33. #83
    Ride good on the internet
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    QBP did not start Surly. The company's original name was 1x1, and their only product was the Rat Ride(edit: and hubs). When QBP purchased them, the company name became Surly, and the Rat Ride became the 1x1. Still good bikes by good people, but they are not a QBP invention.
    Categorically incorrect in regard to the origins of Surly.

    Wakeman Masse started the 1x1 brand while employed as an engineer at QBP. The first product was a chain tensioner, and then Josh Yablon (also a QBP engineer) and Wakeman designed the frame as a 1x1 product.

    Then when they sold them all, they decided to start a brand. Hence, the name change to Surly. 100% QBP from the cradle.


    Sorry.


    Ok, back to lurking.

  34. #84
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Interesting. Thanks for the history lesson!

  35. #85
    Ride good on the internet
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    214
    You can see that? It my post shows up for me in the middle of page two. Damn these cookies on the innernets.

  36. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    EDIT: *My entire next paragraph is proved incorrect on the next page*

    *QBP did not start Surly. The company's original name was 1x1, and their only product was the Rat Ride(edit: and hubs). When QBP purchased them, the company name became Surly, and the Rat Ride became the 1x1. Still good bikes by good people, but they are not a QBP invention. *


    Regarding the second point, Wildfire, Evingson and Remolino are all out of business. Vicious no longer makes their fatbike. Surly's intrduction of their tires to the market through the years have certainly been huge and positive innovations. Fatback showed up with light, symmetrical frames, soon followed by 9::ZERO::7, then, several years later, Salsa found out that both of the Alaskan companies were selling out every run, and sneaked in with some incredibly shady actions and has claimed a large chunk of the market share. Sandman came before Salsa as well, but I think the Atlantic ocean limited influence.

    So, I don't think QBP overall is the enemy. They've done a lot of good for the fat bike market. I do think Salsa is the embodiment of everything people are talking smack on the 'big names' in this thread for. They've done nothing but take other people's innovations and cheapen them up in a graphic laden package. It's a shame that Salsa's big wigs have a direct hand in 45North, because other than that, 45North has some good products.

    I find it odd that many people smack Salsa for "steeling/copying" Fatback's design, while most of the same people would complain if Salsa introduced a new proprietary standard (e.g. 164mm hubs offset by 12mm).

    I think we should make a rule that says any new players in the fatbike game must not copy any existing standards *and* must not introduce any new standards. Then we could live in a perfect world where you are only allowed to build fatbikes if you are Surly or Fatback, or if you have a cool beard and hail from Alaska or Minnesota.

  37. #87
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    There was a lot more to it than that, Bob. Fatback was the only one using the Fatback standard, and it was patent pending, when Salsa pulled their shl!t. The 135 offset was the main standard and it was free and available at the time.

  38. #88
    Living the thug life.
    Reputation: Logantri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    There was a lot more to it than that, Bob. Fatback was the only one using the Fatback standard, and it was patent pending, when Salsa pulled their shl!t. The 135 offset was the main standard and it was free and available at the time.
    Yeah, I remember Thirstywork threatening litigation and the ongoing debate if one could patent a dropout width and what would stop someone from making a hub just a few mm difference.

    What ever happened with that?
    I proudly ride for these guys.

    My blog.

  39. #89
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    There was a lot more to it than that, Bob. Fatback was the only one using the Fatback standard, and it was patent pending, when Salsa pulled their shl!t. The 135 offset was the main standard and it was free and available at the time.
    if a "standard" is patented, then it isn't a "standard" and never should be able to become one. standard means across the board everyone can use it. patenting something like say the 170mm standard would've damaged fatbiking immensely. IMO.

    and as far as the big guys getting in....QBP is pretty damned huge (i know, surly not so much...)

    i'd love the huge companies to get involved, as the chances of seeing an FS fatty or other cool changes would become much greater
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    There was a lot more to it than that, Bob. Fatback was the only one using the Fatback standard, and it was patent pending, when Salsa pulled their shl!t. The 135 offset was the main standard and it was free and available at the time.
    I just filed a width hub patent on every unused width between 100mm and 200mm. I'm going to be angry when someone steals my idea.

  41. #91
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Logantri View Post
    Yeah, I remember Thirstywork threatening litigation and the ongoing debate if one could patent a dropout width and what would stop someone from making a hub just a few mm difference.

    What ever happened with that?
    The rest of this topic bores the crap out of me, but this is a good question.

    Is a distance a patentable thing?

    What happened when 150mm hubs came into being?

    I'm not doing Socratic questioning - I simply don't know.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    The rest of this topic bores the crap out of me, but this is a good question.

    Is a distance a patentable thing?

    What happened when 150mm hubs came into being?

    I'm not doing Socratic questioning - I simply don't know.
    If it is anything like the software industry I work in they will allow patents for the stupidest and simplest little thing. Patents were originally designed to protect the little guy but they've kind of backfired. Large companies collect thousands of patents on the most minute things and use them to push little players out of the industry. Even if the little guy isn't infringing the legal costs usually break them. Specialized has used the same tactic in the bike industry. I think the patent system as is currently stands is a real mess.

  43. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,999
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    If it is anything like the software industry I work in they will allow patents for the stupidest and simplest little thing. Patents were originally designed to protect the little guy but they've kind of backfired. Large companies collect thousands of patents on the most minute things and use them to push little players out of the industry. Even if the little guy isn't infringing the legal costs usually break them. Specialized has used the same tactic in the bike industry. I think the patent system as is currently stands is a real mess.
    Agreed! Patents are given out for anything, as long as someone wants to pay for it. It's just a money maker for the government without regard for actual innovation.

    I'm glad that there is no patent on the 170mm hub width. The only thing that would accomplish is creating more 'standards'.

    Seems like the only real standard is 100mm BB's!

  44. #94
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,220
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    If it is anything like the software industry I work in they will allow patents for the stupidest and simplest little thing. Patents were originally designed to protect the little guy but they've kind of backfired. Large companies collect thousands of patents on the most minute things and use them to push little players out of the industry. Even if the little guy isn't infringing the legal costs usually break them. Specialized has used the same tactic in the bike industry. I think the patent system as is currently stands is a real mess.
    A much better example in the bike industry is Shimano. If you've ever heard about the "Patent Book", you know what I mean.

    The whole 170mm hub thing is really a moot point. So what? Let's say Salsa engineers a 180mm hub, then markets a 1500 dollar fatbike like they did in 2011. I don't think it would have stopped things from going the way they have, do you? (Plus, a Bud and Lou would fit! )

    Speaking from my own personal experience, I never bought a Surly years ago because to piece one together it would have cost far over $2000.00 to do it with the kind of parts that today are off the back. I had met Greg and knew of Fatback as well, but again, too expensive for a bike I wasn't sure I'd use much. (Obviously I was blind to the possibilities, but that's where I was at then.)

    Salsa comes in and knocks the price down significantly for entry, so I bought in. At that time, I didn't care what the hub spacing was.

    Ya know what I mean? Had Salsa not done completes, I very well may have bought a Surly when they did completes shortly after Salsa announced theirs. I can not imagine I was the only one thinking this way, but maybe I am......
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Weren't the first 100mm BBs used with 165x12mm thru axles?
    I see a few 165x12mm hubs for real cheap now.
    does anyone know if they can easily be changed to 170mm QR?
    Wouldn't some axle conversion end caps do the trick?

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    I just filed a width hub patent on every unused width between 100mm and 200mm. I'm going to be angry when someone steals my idea.


  47. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,213
    Aha, I see I'm not the only one who thought kona would build one. I waited for a couple years and it never happened. In my neck of the woods they have just started catching on, the local club forums are all abuzz with fatbikes. Just like 29ers, I believe it's a matter of time before they become more mainstream. Well maybe not to the extent of 29ers, but most shops will have one on the floor. I do enjoy their uniqueness though, and sometimes it's nice to have peace and quiet and the trails all to myself and a (albeit false) sense of remoteness, in a way I'll be saddened when I see them all over the trail.

  48. #98
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,877
    Quote Originally Posted by masterofnone View Post
    Aha, I see I'm not the only one who thought kona would build one. I waited for a couple years and it never happened. In my neck of the woods they have just started catching on, the local club forums are all abuzz with fatbikes. Just like 29ers, I believe it's a matter of time before they become more mainstream. Well maybe not to the extent of 29ers, but most shops will have one on the floor. I do enjoy their uniqueness though, and sometimes it's nice to have peace and quiet and the trails all to myself and a (albeit false) sense of remoteness, in a way I'll be saddened when I see them all over the trail.
    Just ride farther, maaaan, just ride farther....
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

  49. #99
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    If it is anything like the software industry I work in they will allow patents for the stupidest and simplest little thing. Patents were originally designed to protect the little guy but they've kind of backfired. Large companies collect thousands of patents on the most minute things and use them to push little players out of the industry. Even if the little guy isn't infringing the legal costs usually break them. Specialized has used the same tactic in the bike industry. I think the patent system as is currently stands is a real mess.
    Almost every patent ever issued is for a slight variation of another existing design that, in the designer's eye, makes the product better and marketable. You come up with a good idea, that improves upon existing means of solving a problem, you spend time and money developing that idea, then you go into business making and selling the product that utilizes that idea. Then everyone with more resources than you sees that it's a good idea, starts making it themselves, and in turn makes a lot of money off of the proportionately huge investment of time and money you put into developing it.

    *OR*

    You come up with a good idea, that improves upon existing means of solving a problem, you spend time and money developing that idea, you patent the idea, then you go into business making and selling the product that utilizes that idea. You then recoup you original expenditure and hopefully make some profit. If other companies think it's as groundbreaking as you do, they license the idea for a small commission and you actually turn a livable profit off of your hard work.

    You seem to favor the first scenario?

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by onepivot View Post
    I've heard rumors that Specialized is working on a fat bike or two. Wouldn't be surprised if others are as well. Is the market big enough for the big bike brands to jump in, or is it still a niche market too small for them to be interested? Has anyone else heard such rumors?
    My biggest beef and barrier of dropping $2500+ for a nice fat bike is the weight. I ride one of my buddies spare bikes on a pretty regular basis and the weight - I just can't seem to get past a 30 pound rigid bike and riding uphill just sucks.

    What I see a big company entering the fray offering is the ability to create a carbon fat bike/fork combo and drop substantial weight. Lighter weight rims are also needed, and the current $100+ tires each are a joke. I've had to replace a couple of his 45N tires due to rips on rocks. It's wrong when a fat bike tire costs about the same as a really good car tire. On top of that, 45N/QBP was back ordered for over 3 months on getting a replacement earlier in the season. I think some alternative tire sources (Specialized, Bontrager, Schwalbe, Maxxis, etc) would be a good thing and drive the prices down.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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