Results 1 to 46 of 46
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    334

    LBS: Carbon ETA "Soon"

    Sorry if this is old news. LBS sells Salsa and Surly.

    At my LBS I hypothesized that a carbon framed Fat Bike is probably a mere "two to three years away." His head shook side to side, tight lipped. I pressed him, "What, like one to two years?" Still his head shook, tight lipped. I say, "One year?" Still his head shakes, then finally he says, "Soon."

    How soon is "soon?" What brand arrives first? He also said Fat Bike sales this year far exceeded expectation. Is this common knowledge?

    Rode his XL Salsa Mukluk similar to Mukluk 2 build. First Fat Bike experience, currently riding 2007 Fuji Tahoe SL 9er. Overall, most fun I've had on two wheels. Absolute confidence over slush and snow I'd never dream of riding my 9er. From pleasantly surprised to goose bump fun. Effortless tight U-turns, pivoting with my knee out, whereas I never feel comfortable doing this on my 9er. I rode newer 9ers, and realize they improved the handling.

    Obviously slower than the 9er on smooth surface, but frankly, it didn't matter, especially as old and slow as I am anyway.

    I plan to sell my 9er and ride the Fat Bike all year. Tempted to get the Salsa but prefer double chain ring, while he built a triple...plus I might just wait for the carbon depending on the ETA.
    jimbo

    www.jamesromeyn.com Music and Audio, LLC
    www.prime-vibe.com guitar & violin seasoning device

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,495

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    236
    38 Frameworks already has one...

  4. #4
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    8,241
    I'd much rather see a mass produced full squish before a CF frameset, that said advancements are always a +.
    plus+, plus+ = win:

  5. #5
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,920
    What does carbon bring to the fat bike? Expense, fragility, (ugly as sin aesthetics if the pics I've seen are any indicator) and little else.

    They already have alloy bikes down to the mid twenties.

    How much more weight do you want to save, and at what cost?

    Carbon's just nasty stuff. Totally get the fatbike lust, just get on one, and forget chasing the Jones's who won't ride a fattie till it's as light as their Lancey Pants Madone......
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  6. #6
    Living the thug life.
    Reputation: Logantri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    What does carbon bring to the fat bike? Expense, fragility, (ugly as sin aesthetics if the pics I've seen are any indicator) and little else.

    They already have alloy bikes down to the mid twenties.

    How much more weight do you want to save, and at what cost?

    Carbon's just nasty stuff. Totally get the fatbike lust, just get on one, and forget chasing the Jones's who won't ride a fattie till it's as light as their Lancey Pants Madone......
    Agreed.
    I proudly ride for these guys.

    My blog.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    What does carbon bring to the fat bike? Expense, fragility, (ugly as sin aesthetics if the pics I've seen are any indicator) and little else.

    They already have alloy bikes down to the mid twenties.

    How much more weight do you want to save, and at what cost?

    Carbon's just nasty stuff. Totally get the fatbike lust, just get on one, and forget chasing the Jones's who won't ride a fattie till it's as light as their Lancey Pants Madone......
    Hey, he was just trying to level the playing field.

    Any way, heres my request:
    Full suspension Carbon Lefty with 5" tires. I cant afford it but I want it.

  8. #8
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,162
    Are some of you forgetting?

    We ride bikes... because we choose to... we also choose what we ride and how we ride.

    You are seriously whining about carbon frames? Get real.

    You know damn right there is no full suspension fat bikes because of the lack of fork options and because you don't need floatation on dirt.

    Maybe forgetting carbon also brings strength if done right? The Fatback and Mukluk aren't exactly what I would call a stout frame... they're both pretty noodly in my opinion... and I'm only 150lbs... I can see why most of the Clyde's are riding Pugsley and Moonlander.

  9. #9
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Borgschulze View Post
    you don't need floatation on dirt.

    Maybe forgetting carbon also brings strength if done right? The Fatback and Mukluk aren't exactly what I would call a stout frame... they're both pretty noodly in my opinion... and I'm only 150lbs... I can see why most of the Clyde's are riding Pugsley and Moonlander.
    Hey! Isn't sand, dirt?

    Strength, well sure, but how many are out there blowing up existing frames because of lack of strength?

    Noodley aluminum? Really? I don't ride one, so I can't say, but isn't the general thinking that if you want more cush, buy steel, if you want more stiffness, buy aluminum? Not being snarky, I've never heard this comment from anyone.

    As for more choice, I just detest carbon, and all the price jacking it's brought to our industry. Seems like it gave component makers carte blanche to charge stupid $ for parts.

    Top shelf bikes back in the stone age before carbon became synonymous with high end, were 4 or 5K tops. Full XTR, after market wheels, the whole shebang. Now that we have carbon frames, it's like Sram et al said, wow, let's see how much we can raise component prices and still sell stuff.

    Turns out $12K is still not too expensive for a bike these days. It will only be a matter of time before other material frame prices go up just because they can too.....

    Fatbikes, they just aren't for weight weenies. Some guy whining about his hating to climb on one, and wouldn't buy one till they were lighter? Okay, so don't buy one, or, HTFU and get stronger for it.

    I'm just not a carbon guy, own a few early ones cause it was kinda neat back then, but now they all look like they were squeezed out of the same mold in China, and have the individuality and cool factor of burnt toast.

    I just like my little corner with the cool kids to be left unsullied by the onslaught of ever lighter just because it's possible, mindset. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.....

    YMMV!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Borgschulze View Post
    Are some of you forgetting?

    We ride bikes... because we choose to... we also choose what we ride and how we ride.

    You are seriously whining about carbon frames? Get real.

    You know damn right there is no full suspension fat bikes because of the lack of fork options and because you don't need floatation on dirt.

    Maybe forgetting carbon also brings strength if done right? The Fatback and Mukluk aren't exactly what I would call a stout frame... they're both pretty noodly in my opinion... and I'm only 150lbs... I can see why most of the Clyde's are riding Pugsley and Moonlander.
    Fat Bike

    I would rather see a set of carbon fatbike rims than a carbon fatbike frame. I could care less about the 1/2 pound a carbon frame will save me, but if someone can help me drop a half pound+ off my wheels, than we are talking weight savings that will actually help.

  11. #11
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    I hate these kind of threads.

    Post up a thread when there is a new frame available, or one with build progress pics.

    When will there be one? I don't know! Let's talk about all the lack of information we have.

    Is it going to prompt someone in the industry to spill the beans on some private information? I bet they like their "employed" status the way it is.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Borgschulze View Post
    Are some of you forgetting?

    We ride bikes... because we choose to... we also choose what we ride and how we ride.

    You are seriously whining about carbon frames? Get real.

    You know damn right there is no full suspension fat bikes because of the lack of fork options and because you don't need floatation on dirt.

    Maybe forgetting carbon also brings strength if done right? The Fatback and Mukluk aren't exactly what I would call a stout frame... they're both pretty noodly in my opinion... and I'm only 150lbs... I can see why most of the Clyde's are riding Pugsley and Moonlander.
    The Fatback is noodly? I'm a Clyde on one (and my reg bikes are stiffer ones - Banshee and Knolly so I know a flexing frame when I feel one) and haven't noticed much flex. I wonder how much flex you can really feel with big-ass low pressure tires anyways...

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chainstretcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    16
    I am with you Drew. Hate these kind of threads...
    Anyone remember the days when Signatures were called Taglines?

  14. #14
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    8,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Borgschulze View Post

    You know damn right there is no full suspension fat bikes because of the lack of fork options and because you don't need floatation on dirt.
    not to worry they are slowly making their way in rest assured as for flotation ya damn right some do and it's not just for hero dirt but EVERYWHERE!!
    plus+, plus+ = win:

  15. #15
    Puro Vida!
    Reputation: Nelson34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,303

    LBS: Carbon ETA "Soon"

    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Hey! Isn't sand, dirt?

    Strength, well sure, but how many are out there blowing up existing frames because of lack of strength?

    Noodley aluminum? Really? I don't ride one, so I can't say, but isn't the general thinking that if you want more cush, buy steel, if you want more stiffness, buy aluminum? Not being snarky, I've never heard this comment from anyone.

    As for more choice, I just detest carbon, and all the price jacking it's brought to our industry. Seems like it gave component makers carte blanche to charge stupid $ for parts.

    Top shelf bikes back in the stone age before carbon became synonymous with high end, were 4 or 5K tops. Full XTR, after market wheels, the whole shebang. Now that we have carbon frames, it's like Sram et al said, wow, let's see how much we can raise component prices and still sell stuff.

    Turns out $12K is still not too expensive for a bike these days. It will only be a matter of time before other material frame prices go up just because they can too.....

    Fatbikes, they just aren't for weight weenies. Some guy whining about his hating to climb on one, and wouldn't buy one till they were lighter? Okay, so don't buy one, or, HTFU and get stronger for it.

    I'm just not a carbon guy, own a few early ones cause it was kinda neat back then, but now they all look like they were squeezed out of the same mold in China, and have the individuality and cool factor of burnt toast.

    I just like my little corner with the cool kids to be left unsullied by the onslaught of ever lighter just because it's possible, mindset. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.....

    YMMV!
    Totally agree! And TgIF my fat tire friends!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Just because we can, doesn't mean <b>I</b> should.....
    Fixed it for ya . To each their own. You don't have to buy it, nor like it. I don't like the prices, but I love the technology and I do believe bikes are better now, have a much larger marketplace than ever before in history, and people are pushing and riding them to levels never dreamed of before. Business is business- clearly there is a market for stupid expensive bikes, and good for us all. There is most definitely a trickle-down (both good and bad), but our $5k bikes today are leagues ahead of the $5k bikes of yore. Disc brakes, suspension, lighter weights with more travel, better stiffness, etc, etc. I've been around bikes for a long time and have nostalgia for my old bikes with their indestructible XT derailleurs, but I can't even ride those bikes on the same trails I ride today.

    Oh- and I really like Carbon. Not sure it's necessary on a FatBike, but if folks want it and are willing to pay for it, more power to them and the industry as a whole. If you had early ones because they were "neat," that's probably a big part of why you don't like them- It's like saying you don't like aluminum bikes because the early Cannondales all sucked and buckled like tin cans. Technology and innovations have come a long way with both.

    Just my .02
    "There are two kinds of mountain bikers in the world: those who are faster than me, and me."

  17. #17
    I'm a Target Too.
    Reputation: cendres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by reedallan View Post
    I would rather see a set of carbon fatbike rims than a carbon fatbike frame. I could care less about the 1/2 pound a carbon frame will save me, but if someone can help me drop a half pound+ off my wheels, than we are talking weight savings that will actually help.
    Hmm, am I the only once that gets rock strikes? No carbon fat rims for me, thanks.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    ...so here is my thought from the other day...purely the product of my synapses and various (natural) chemicals...

    The Krampus is Surly's direct descendant of the fully sprung fatty that Salsa prototyped.

    Having been riding fatbikes for 8 years, and Snowcat-shod bikes (nearly exclusively) for a decade prior to that, I just don't truly believe that 4"-5" of tire combined with 3"-5" of spring are of any benefit, and may have some drawbacks.

    Yes, I ride a fully rigid fatbike year-round (in Alaska). Yes, I love my Fatbike; LOVE it in the dirt. Yes, I have multiple wheelsets specific to the day's mission (100's, 65's and 45's). No, I don't ride any of my other bikes, with the semi-regular exception of my fat-front Trek Transport (shopping/errands), Rigid WCF DBR (bar bike), and sometimes my '55 Schwinn Spitfire ( !). Yes, I believe the volume of the rims/tires helps make me faster (downhill) than I would be on a "regular" fully rigid bike; quite probably faster than a front suspended "regular" hardtail.

    My guess is that testing showed that the extra monkey-motion, combined with a high volume rim/tire combo really didn't improve things as much as we would all assume. Some downhill bikes of not too long ago already used 65mm rims and 3" tires; many, I believe, to great success. The Large Marge is a product of that market.

    It was with this thought, coupled with the whole 29'er "hype" that, I believe, led QBP to "test the waters" with the 29+ concept...my assumption being that following Krampus success, a fully sprung 29+ will be a QBP offering before a fully sprung 26" "fatty"...and maybe it won't be the "fully-suspended" bike you or I envisioned, but a "soft-tailesque" offering.

    Again, my thoughts, but I think a 26", XC-weight fully, with max 65mm rims and 3" tires would be far superior to anything shod with bigger rims and tires (for "most" xc/light DH riding). But the 29'er is the marketing queen right now, so it probably makes sense to combine the two and test the market with a comparatively cheaper rigid frame.

    My thoughts only; I am far from an "industry Insider"...though I am privy to a couple future "fringe" offerings that I won't discuss...

    -MT

    *edit*-after posting this I realized it has nothing to do with carbon fibre, but for some reason seemed pertinent to the discussion, so I'm leaving it...
    Last edited by damnitman; 02-01-2013 at 12:03 PM.
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  19. #19
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,920
    Quote Originally Posted by alshead View Post
    There is most definitely a trickle-down (both good and bad), but our $5k bikes today are leagues ahead of the $5k bikes of yore. Disc brakes, suspension, lighter weights with more travel, better stiffness, etc, etc. If you had early ones because they were "neat," that's probably a big part of why you don't like them

    Just my .02
    All good, but your time frames a bit off.

    2005 Cannondale Prophet 4000, full high end parts mix, carbon Lefty, full suspension (even with that modern fancy schmancy platform technology) Mavic CrossMax, MSRP was a hair under $5K if memory serves.

    Heck, it even had disc brakes.....

    Add carbon frame, and an industry that's realized it can rape you sideways if it sells it properly (it's .2% lighter and .035% stiffer than last year, think how much faster you'll be in that race you do once a year, certainly worth $350 for a cassette, no???) and that bike becomes closer to $10K. Don't get me started on the number of shattered carbon XO RD's I see, sticks happen...

    All beside the point. You are correct, ride what you like, doesn't affect me at all.

    I just think it's unwise to push for carbon frames, when we don't even have a production suspension fork yet, let alone a few full suspension offerings.

    Cart before the horse is all I'm getting at.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Cart before the horse is all I'm getting at.
    Word
    "There are two kinds of mountain bikers in the world: those who are faster than me, and me."

  21. #21
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    I just think it's unwise to push for carbon frames, when we don't even have a production suspension fork yet, let alone a few full suspension offerings.

    Cart before the horse is all I'm getting at.
    This I can agree with. I don't think people generally know that, straight from the supplier, carbon fiber prepregs are cheap. As in, $54 of raw material for a three pound frame kind of cheap.

    What costs money are the accoutrements to produce carbon correctly: various molds and tooling that can resist high pressure, high heat, and high use cycles.

    What also costs money is paying people to do layups in / on those molds. When you buy carbon you're buying labor hours and offsetting tooling costs.

    That said, I suspect that you're right, the prices are likely inflated. Personally I want to get to selling sub $1,000 frames, but my math hasn't gotten me there yet. Close but no cigar. Those Chinese carbon frames are basically paying people there ...Chinese wages.

    For my own small-guy-emulating-big-guys carbon project, I've basically cut out the "high use cycles" portion of the equation.

    I'm generally with you on the squish-before-weight-weenie thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Don't get me started on the number of shattered carbon XO RD's I see, sticks happen...
    Totally agree, I never understood the purpose of using a super light anisotropic material for what I'd call a consumable.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    I'm hearing a lot of (I don't want a carbon frame), but how many of you are sporting carbon bars, carbon seat posts, carbon seat rails, carbon stems and so on?
    We can say we are against all progress in the bike industry but in the long run we all to some degree want and use the latest, greatest, lightest whatever comes along to our own personal benefit. I even know a guy who refits old lefty's with modern internals and new clamps and sells them to fat bikers.
    We can't stop progress or the cost of bikes rising. This is currently my only vise and I like it. How many of you have shifted a bike equipped with DI2? If you didn't like it I think you might be lying. Technology is expensive and some of it is even useful.
    Last edited by gcappy; 02-01-2013 at 02:57 PM.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by cendres View Post
    Hmm, am I the only once that gets rock strikes? No carbon fat rims for me, thanks.
    Good carbon rims are far more durable than aluminum rims, significantly lighter, significantly stiffer and will come down in cost like everything else does as the technologhy progresses and the numbers grow. I have three sets of carbon wheels and they have proven themselves to be far more durable than my aluminum wheels. The proof is in the use. Don't knock'em unless you've had some time on them.

    I have been mtb'ing since 1982 and have had many many different bikes, I've been racing bikes since 1990, racing being pretty hard on equipment. Nothing has been a bigger improvement to bikes since the introduction of carbon fiber frames in my experience to date. Earlier stuff, yeah, not nearly as good as today's offerings but you have to start somewhere. Steel is a wonderful material and offers a special feel as is Ti. Aluminum was a night and day difference I experienced after having too many Ti FS bikes. Aluminum is generally speaking makes for very ridgid frames and allows a suspension to do its thing properly unlike a FS Ti frame where everything is moving and creating conflict. Today's carbon fiber frames offer the best of aluminum in both hard tails and FS's but blows it away with the ability to fine tune it in so many ways, can be stiffer than aluminum yet much quieter in feel and also very durable and let's not forget weight, light !

    I'll leave it at that, flame away.....

  24. #24
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,053
    Small flickering flame coming

    This was discussed before, current alu fat rims are down at 690g for marge lites and they are as laterally stiff as carbon because they are 65mm wide, not a noodely 25mm hoop. Also where the spoke pulls on a carbon rim is a strong point pulling the entire hoop maintaining integrity, on a fat rim the spoke pull is on the flat part of the rim which means it will have to be beefed up to stop the nipples pulling through.

    I have ENVE 29 wheels on my singlespeed and they are awesome wheels (besides the slight nipple corrosion issue), but for fat wheels i really dont think carbon rims are going to make any difference. The ENVE rims are not any lighter than alu rims but they are stronger and stiffer but strength and stiffness is not an issue with fat wheels.

    Personally i hope the next step forward with fat rims is tubeless, i believe UMA rims are about as near as we have but i have no experience with them as i tried to buy a set and the shipping cost to get a set to Aus was astronomical. The weight saved by going tubeless is way more that the possible few grammes saved by and expensive carbon rim.... if theres any weight saving at all with the extra carbon needed to strengthen the rim span.

    Have a look at how thick the carbon is where the nipples pull on ENVE rims compared to the cross section profile of some of out current offering in Alu.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails LBS: Carbon ETA &quot;Soon&quot;-enve-cross-section.jpg  

    Attached Images Attached Images    
    Last edited by ozzybmx; 02-01-2013 at 06:05 PM.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  25. #25
    dumb ass
    Reputation: mtnbykr©™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Logantri View Post
    Agreed.
    .+1
    Baby seal walks into a club.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    334
    Thanks to all posters for your thoughtful and informative replies.

    I just emailed Collin at FatBikes for price for complete build of their 9ZERO7 135mm offset aluminum frame. Frankly, I can hardly wait to get my own FB!

    Warning if you're waiting for the next batch from On-One: 20" is largest frame, much too small for me. Even the XL Salsa was a bit tight, and would require a longer stem and possibly seat change to work.
    jimbo

    www.jamesromeyn.com Music and Audio, LLC
    www.prime-vibe.com guitar & violin seasoning device

  27. #27
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,162
    Put a rack on an aluminum Fatback... put some weight on the rack... ride it and try pedalling around some corners... it will be very evident. Now stand on the pedals like you mean it... the frame definitely flexes a lot.

    A carbon frame of the same weight would solve this minor situation.

    You can't forget there was at least two people who buckled their down tube.

    I love carbon. And I'm happy for all new products coming to this niche within a niche.

    You don't like, you don't buy. Simple as that.

    If you want something that doesn't exist.. build it! Tons of people did that to bring you the bike you're riding now.

  28. #28
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,053
    From the on-one website, the tyre clearance measurement looks to not be much more than 100mm, no room for bud'n'lou. Makes me think that they could be aiming these lighter carbon frames at trail riding as thats where the biggest potential market is really.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    What does carbon bring to the fat bike? Expense, fragility, (ugly as sin aesthetics if the pics I've seen are any indicator) and little else. ...

    How much more weight do you want to save, and at what cost? ...
    Carbon can revolutionise fatbikes if we can use it properly.

    At first the carbon bikes were heading in the right direction, but at the moment carbon bikes are imitating the diamond frames of 1900s roadsters (thanks UCI). I have an old Australian EPX frame which demonstrates how carbon could be used more effectively.



    Think of all the stuff we bolt on to our fatbikes (racks, fenders, frame bags, etc), and then imagine it integrated and part of the structure contributing to the strength, rather than making the bike noodly with a load.

    It would be quite possible to have a frame with a large box section front which could hold luggage instead of strapping on a frame bag, the rear end could have an integrated fender and rack, and even possibly panniers. Even the front fork could have an integrated fender and rack and be much lighter than conventional forks with these parts bolted on. Each of these features would contribute to the stiffness of the bike rather than loading it.

    Other people will have different ideas, but I don't think carbon fibre is being properly exploited as a frame material for fatbikes if it is simply used to make a conventional shape frame (albeit lighter/stiffer).

    (As for the On-One carbon frame, bear in mind they're just experimenting with what they have at hand, and no doubt it will evolve. It's encouraging to see them having a go)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  30. #30
    Mr.Green
    Reputation: Lars Thomsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    From the on-one website, the tyre clearance measurement looks to not be much more than 100mm, no room for bud'n'lou. Makes me think that they could be aiming these lighter carbon frames at trail riding as thats where the biggest potential market is really.
    The latest news from Brant, indicates BIG tyre clearance

    Mr.Green

  31. #31
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,053
    Thats better now, clearly around 125mm gap in the new picture.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    815
    Regarding the carbon debate I'll just say this, my two carbon bikes (Look 595 and Scott Scale) have seen far more time and abuse than my Pugsley. Only one of them has a cracked frame, care to guess which one?

    Carbon can be amazing stuff. My Scale is the model with the integrated seat mast. After I cut it down I tried to destroy the left over carbon tube by bashing it with a hammer. While the clearcoat was marked up the carbon seems good as new. Tried some hits with a steel mallet as well, still fine.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    One other thing, carbon fibre is repairable at home without $thousand$ of dollars worth of specialist equipment.

    It's something that the man in a shed with hand tools could use for a fix. That puts it ahead of most other materials in that regard.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    One other thing, carbon fibre is repairable at home without $thousand$ of dollars worth of specialist equipment.

    It's something that the man in a shed with hand tools could use for a fix. That puts it ahead of most other materials in that regard.
    Assuming you are keen to repair your $3K frame at home and you have the ability to do so. I'm not going to fix my own bike, but if my out of warranty Pugs has a problem that can be fixed I can take it to a welder and get it sorted for a reasonable cost or if it's something like a thrashed fork I buy another one from Surly for $100.

    I'm open to a CF bike in general, but not for a huge premium over steel/AL.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    Carbon can be amazing stuff. My Scale is the model with the integrated seat mast. After I cut it down I tried to destroy the left over carbon tube by bashing it with a hammer. While the clearcoat was marked up the carbon seems good as new. Tried some hits with a steel mallet as well, still fine.
    I've been playing close attention to the damage reports for carbon bikes from brands I'd buy since I figure at one point they'll make a bike I decide to buy [Santa Cruz, Ibis, etc...]. My assessment based on what folks are reporting is the main tubes [TT, DT and ST] are all holding up really well. The damage I've seen has all been in the seat stays, chainstays and in some of the carbon suspension linkages. This is in 5" - 6" FS bikes and the crash damage reports seem to involve falling onto rocks - although some of the falls are of the slow speed tip over variety.

    I don't see the the same type of damage on the AL bikes of the same models. They seem to be more of the high speed crash type damage and the main tubes are failing in that mode as well as the smaller rear triangle tubes.

    Looking at this objectively it seems promising to me that carbon bikes are surviving trail abuse. Obviously the amount and type of material used in the front triangle is working out well. I can only assume folks in the bike industry are tracking the frame failures they are seeing and working on solving them.

    I ride a lot of rough rocky trails and I fall a fair bit. I can live with my frame being damage in some epic crash. I just couldn't stomach the slow speed tip over type crash and look down to see my carbon frame need replacing. My AL frame is marked up and dinged virtually everywhere and hasn't needed any attention.

    I'm not quite ready to buy carbon, but it seems like things are getting to the point where I'd give it a shot. In the all mountain FS bike category carbon is about 33% premium. I hope that comes down a bit. I'm not sure if lowered cost for carbon is something the bike industry is even contemplating.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  36. #36
    I'm a Target Too.
    Reputation: cendres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    Good carbon rims are far more durable than aluminum rims, significantly lighter, significantly stiffer and will come down in cost like everything else does as the technologhy progresses and the numbers grow. I have three sets of carbon wheels and they have proven themselves to be far more durable than my aluminum wheels. The proof is in the use. Don't knock'em unless you've had some time on them.

    <snip>

    I'll leave it at that, flame away.....
    I'm no flamer (!), but I do disagree that they'd be the best choice. I do have many thousands of miles on carbon road and track wheels and am quite well versed in their strengths and weaknesses. That said, I do really like them for those arenas. For fat bikes and mountain bikes, I stand by my opinion.

    How do conventional carbon mtb frames fair against normal rock chips? I'm asking; I don't know.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,499
    the only bikes I own that don't have nasty oxidation that worries me in a myriad of places around the frame are made of carbon.
    until cities stop laying down salt in winters it's an issue (for me).
    if you drive to the trails or don't want to use your fatbike for around town jaunts in the winter, or ride on the beach if you live on the coast, then it's less of an issue.
    but there are plenty of 600$ chibon frames out there. no bloody reason they can't be wider.
    I don't like carbon for everything... until that saltwater spray off my front wheel starts making permanent white marks on my nice aluminium parts.
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Assuming you are keen to repair your $3K frame at home and you have the ability to do so. I'm not going to fix my own bike, but if my out of warranty Pugs has a problem that can be fixed I can take it to a welder and get it sorted for a reasonable cost...
    I agree basically. But let's say your CF frame is out of warranty and has a crack. You can fix it without taking it to a specialist. The result may not look pretty, but would be strong enough if done sensibly.

    No special skills required if you have ever glued anything. (Nothing to stop you taking it to a specialist, of course)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,495
    Repairing carbon is super easy, and often as cheap or cheaper to do than other frame materials. I have a friend who works at Roberts Composites in Vancouver - :: roberts composites :: - , their repairs start at $150 including paint touch up. There are lots of other companies in the US who do the same.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Quote Originally Posted by byknuts View Post
    the only bikes I own that don't have nasty oxidation that worries me in a myriad of places around the frame are made of carbon.
    until cities stop laying down salt in winters it's an issue (for me).
    if you drive to the trails or don't want to use your fatbike for around town jaunts in the winter, or ride on the beach if you live on the coast, then it's less of an issue.
    but there are plenty of 600$ chibon frames out there. no bloody reason they can't be wider.
    I don't like carbon for everything... until that saltwater spray off my front wheel starts making permanent white marks on my nice aluminium parts.
    How 'bout we chip in and get you a nice Ti frame?

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,499

    well, it would be ideal... any of the chiti guys doing 600$ fat frames?
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Quote Originally Posted by byknuts View Post

    well, it would be ideal... any of the chiti guys doing 600$ fat frames?
    Keep dreaming. $900 seems to be the ground floor for normal Chinese Ti frames on eBay. Cheapest I've seen a Ti fat frame is $1400 (Carver). Somebody needs to jump on that untapped market. "Byknuts Bicycle Co.", maybe?

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    100
    I know it was already mentioned but 38 Frameworks already has a carbon fat frame available.
    HOGBACK

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Machinist View Post
    I know it was already mentioned but 38 Frameworks already has a carbon fat frame available.
    HOGBACK
    From the weight it doesn't seem to offer any advantage over a good quality alloy frame. Looks nice though.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    871
    As per their site:

    Hogback = 3.5lbs for med carbon frame - $2400.00

    Jackalope = 3.5lbs for med Al. frame - $1200.00

    A good frame saver costs...how much?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    155
    Not meaning to hijack but is anyone actually on a Jackalope? i've been looking for pretty much exactly that bike (have asked about a future Beargrease and also carvers next generation O'beast but both companies have not returned any inspiring or even positive responses...). i have no love for that choice of colour on the Jackalope but the design overall is meeting my wish list specs!

Posting Permissions

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