Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 243
  1. #51
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Winter and summer weights, both with wellgo flats plus light and gps mounts. With spds about 100g lighter and it would be very easy to shave another 1/2 pound or more off with a few lighter parts (i.e hacksaw and drill.)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-summer-trim.jpg  

    Lightest Fatbike-winter-trim.jpg  


  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Winter and summer weights, both with wellgo flats plus light and gps mounts. With spds about 100g lighter and it would be very easy to shave another 1/2 pound or more off with a few lighter parts (i.e hacksaw and drill.)
    Nice! Frigging light. Love it.
    CRAMBA Chairman

  3. #53
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,756
    How are you liking the HD running backward in the rear? Just wondering

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,081
    Seeing as we are talking about the lightest fatbike, has anyone compiled a list of the frame and fork weights?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  5. #55
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    my 907 came in at about about 34Lbs with my nates on
    I think If I work at it by adding a drop post and lefty fork I could get it up to 36 maybe 37 lbs
    it dose needs a good sturdy rack on the back so 40Lbs is not out of the question

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    280
    my personal Pug, with Large Marges, a Larry and Nate. (w/tubes) and regular parts (X0 GripShift and X0 rear deraileur, triple front, Hayes Stroker Trail brakes).

    No silly weight saving efforts beyond the e*thirteen cranks and the Carbon SS Chub hub on the front (coz' it was there and I was feeling silly).

    Just weighed by a local weight weenie magazine editor at 34.4Lb.

    It also allowed him to clear the one climb that he's never cleared before, due to lack of traction on his Spark. (on my Pug, with a Nate at 6psi)

    Elvis.

  7. #57
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    How are you liking the HD running backward in the rear? Just wondering
    Don't really know if it's better in reverse, it's the only way I've run them so far. Not sporting them in this pic but this is the conditions I've been using them in and we need all the traction we can get. btw that's SJ's 907.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-fat-posing.jpg  


  8. #58
    BikingMoto
    Reputation: bikinmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    28
    Can you help me answer this question, for single track riding during the summer, the marge lite rims should be better than the rolling darryls, correct? lighter but still fat enough to eat up the trail. Am I correct?

  9. #59
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by bikinmoto View Post
    Can you help me answer this question, for single track riding during the summer, the marge lite rims should be better than the rolling darryls, correct? lighter but still fat enough to eat up the trail. Am I correct?
    Yeah I think the Marge Lite would be the hot ticket for summer single track use. They should run about 60-70 grams less each then my self drilled Rolling D's.

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Yeah I think the Marge Lite would be the hot ticket for summer single track use. They should run about 60-70 grams less each then my self drilled Rolling D's.
    I'm anxiously awaiting the new Hope hubs. I wanna do a Hope+Marge Lite+HD combo.
    Hoping the Hopes aren't hopelessly expensive.

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    I'm anxiously awaiting the new Hope hubs. I wanna do a Hope+Marge Lite+HD combo.
    Hoping the Hopes aren't hopelessly expensive.
    local bikeshop (https://www.facebook.com/angrycatfish) has one of the hope proto's in stock. They are thinking the rear will retail at $266, no update on the front yet. sounds like they are OK on a weight front too.

  12. #62
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    I'm anxiously awaiting the new Hope hubs. I wanna do a Hope+Marge Lite+HD combo.
    Hoping the Hopes aren't hopelessly expensive.
    A friend of mine just built up a set for his Pugs 135/100mm hubs using WTB lazer lites and HD's. Super fast and light wheelset.

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by bikinmoto View Post
    Can you help me answer this question, for single track riding during the summer, the marge lite rims should be better than the rolling darryls, correct? lighter but still fat enough to eat up the trail. Am I correct?


    in my opinon yes,, ive got lm lite rear and a 47mm trials front

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Quote Originally Posted by zombinate View Post
    local bikeshop (https://www.facebook.com/angrycatfish) has one of the hope proto's in stock. They are thinking the rear will retail at $266, no update on the front yet. sounds like they are OK on a weight front too.
    That would be a good price, since that's what the regular 135mm Evo's list for.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    Carver Ti Frame + carbon fork = 4 lbs. 10oz. for a size 19".

    Carver Ti - Complete Build on BFL's = 30 lbs. 10oz.

    Complete write-up and spec's can be found here: snowbikes.wordpress.com
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-dsc_0039cs.jpg  

    Let it Snow!!!

    2011 Surly Pugsley 3.7/3.8
    2012 Carver Ti O'Beast 4.7

  16. #66
    Did I catch a niner+?
    Reputation: Mr Pink57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    Mukluk 2 (M) modified 31.5 Lbs

    Clown Shoes
    DT Super Comp Spokes AL Nipples
    Q- Tubes
    Huskers
    Salasa hubs
    WTB Pure V Ti seat
    XT Cassette -1 (8spd)
    WB Fork
    Heavy Platform SPD's
    Magura MT8 brakes/SL Rotors
    Truvative World Cup Stem
    Super Light O2 in Tires
    Just curious if you have any measurements of the Husker on a clown shoe have been curious what kind of size people get on them with this big rim.
    Mr. Krabs: Is it true, Squidward? Is it hilarious?

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pink57 View Post
    Just curious if you have any measurements of the Husker on a clown shoe have been curious what kind of size people get on them with this big rim.
    102mm @ 6 psi

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by davelees1 View Post
    Carver Ti Frame + carbon fork = 4 lbs. 10oz. for a size 19".

    Carver Ti - Complete Build on BFL's = 30 lbs. 10oz.

    Complete write-up and spec's can be found here: snowbikes.wordpress.com
    Somehow me thinks this should be in the most expensive category

  19. #69
    BikingMoto
    Reputation: bikinmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    28
    Please check out this video, the beauty of mountain biking with a fat one.

    it is in Vimeo, it is the Sandman Titanium fat bike, the video number is: 35113296

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    Somehow me thinks this should be in the most expensive category
    It wasn't cheap, that's for sure!
    Let it Snow!!!

    2011 Surly Pugsley 3.7/3.8
    2012 Carver Ti O'Beast 4.7

  21. #71
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    Somehow me thinks this should be in the most expensive category
    Actually the Carver Ti frame with the carbon fork are probably the best values out there for ti at least. I give Carver prompts to making Ti a little more affordable.

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by bikinmoto View Post
    Please check out this video, the beauty of mountain biking with a fat one.

    it is in Vimeo, it is the Sandman Titanium fat bike, the video number is: 35113296
    Here is the link:
    Let it Snow!!!

    2011 Surly Pugsley 3.7/3.8
    2012 Carver Ti O'Beast 4.7

  23. #73
    BikingMoto
    Reputation: bikinmoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by cozz View Post
    in my opinon yes,, ive got lm lite rear and a 47mm trials front
    So comparing the LM lite with the Darryls in regards to jumps and bumps in the trails, how does the LM lite suck up the impacts compared to Darryls, Darryls are slow but feel like butter? Opinion?

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by davelees1 View Post
    Carver Ti Frame + carbon fork = 4 lbs. 10oz. for a size 19".

    Carver Ti - Complete Build on BFL's = 30 lbs. 10oz.

    Complete write-up and spec's can be found here: snowbikes.wordpress.com
    Thats stunning.

    I'm putting together a Ti fatbike with blue bits. I can never stop myself going too far though (just bought blue saddle, silly smallfurry). Wish I had your judgement

    Also 1+ to Carver love. They may not be offering locally (well local to you Merkins ) built frames. But they're bringing Ti into a whole new price bracket. Plus look stunning.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,499
    well, frame at about 1400, fork at 300.
    fatback's ti is 2000, another 400 for their carbon fork..
    not comparing the two quality-wise, just saying it's definitely not the most expensive you can make a ti frame/carbon fork'd bike

    complete builds as bought form the companies will be cheaper I'm sure, but that's a 700$ price gap there.
    for that $ I'd get the carver custom built with SnS couplers, maybe the softtail seatstay cluster too, and take it everywhere.
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  26. #76
    ogarajef@luther.edu
    Reputation: 1strongone1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,387

    Schlick Cycles Northpaw

    Just finished the build today. New Schlick Cycles Northpaw, crappy Iphone pics. 24.75 ready to ride.

    I don't know why the pictures are sideways. I will get a real camera and post some better ones in an individual thread later.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-photo-10.jpg  

    Lightest Fatbike-photo-9.jpg  

    Lightest Fatbike-photo-8.jpg  

    Lightest Fatbike-photo-7.jpg  

    Lightest Fatbike-photo-6.jpg  

    "RIDE IT LIKE YOU HATE IT"

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    49
    That's a sexy beast. Now we're talking. Let's get a full parts list on this bad girl. I bet she's tubeless, at that featherweight scale reading. Do get another thread going & post some hi-res bike porn pics.

  28. #78
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    that thing is so light it is shooting straight up
    must be hard to ride

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  29. #79
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    that thing is so light it is shooting straight up
    must be hard to ride

    Sj
    Lots of snow Joe here we go!

  30. #80
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,212
    Quote Originally Posted by thickfog View Post
    I hear ya. I wonder if some of these scales are off. Some bikes here are lighter than my rip9. And she's got some light parts. I don't get it.
    your rip9 has a frame close to 8lbs! alloy hardtail is like 3-4lbs.
    beaver hunt

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter View Post
    your rip9 has a frame close to 8lbs! alloy hardtail is like 3-4lbs.
    Yeah true. My rip9 is around 6.5 lbs. It's the old style 08. New ones are little heavier, but are they really 8 lbs? Another reason to keep mine going!
    Yeah, my small 907 weighed around 4. Some of the fatbacks are less than 4. Awesome! But the wheels and tires alone are so damn heavy.
    CRAMBA Chairman

  32. #82
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by thickfog View Post
    Yeah true. My rip9 is around 6.5 lbs. It's the old style 08. New ones are little heavier, but are they really 8 lbs? Another reason to keep mine going!
    Yeah, my small 907 weighed around 4. Some of the fatbacks are less than 4. Awesome! But the wheels and tires alone are so damn heavy.
    Yeah but then you need to throw in your 4+ pound suspension fork compared to a less then 2 pound carbon rigid fork. It's still tuff to swallow though my Fatback only weighs 5lbs more than my Niner air 9 but that's built a little solid.

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: All Seasons Cyclist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    86
    Reading this thread makes me feel like a NASCAR fan at a Weight Watcher meeting! My Surly Necromancer tops out at 46 pounds (Alfine hub, Slime in both Nate tires, JCPC Pedals)

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    It's still tuff to swallow though my Fatback only weighs 5lbs more than my Niner air 9 but that's built a little solid.
    That's awesome. And you're running 90s which are heavier too. I wonder how much closer you could get. That would be interesting. Carbon bars, stem, cranks, seatpost, light seat, light pedals, foam grips, ti bolts, light rotors, brakes. Hmm. Within. 1.5-2lbs maybe. It'd be one expensive fatbike!


    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
    CRAMBA Chairman

  35. #85
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by thickfog View Post
    That's awesome. And you're running 90s which are heavier too. I wonder how much closer you could get. That would be interesting. Carbon bars, stem, cranks, seatpost, light seat, light pedals, foam grips, ti bolts, light rotors, brakes. Hmm. Within. 1.5-2lbs maybe. It'd be one expensive fatbike!


    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
    That's with my over drilled RD's and Du's on with the 90's and BFL's the differnce is a little more.

  36. #86
    don't fear the barleywine
    Reputation: Moe's Tavern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by AcuNinja View Post
    who's got a lightweight AL Mukluk? Just curious what that beast weighs. It looks like the light bikes here so far are all ti, and the AL bikes are mostly porky. Truth?
    Wouldn't exactly call it lightweight but this 2010 Mukluk is 31lb 6oz when running SS, and about 1lb more when running a 1x6 setup.

    Drilling the GFS rims saved a lot. Tubless saved (dunno, exactly, but it was a lot).
    Lots of room for weight loss with heavy bars, pedals, post, tires, saddle, rims, steel rear axle, etc, etc. I but I like it how it is. Actually, I love it. Double Nate is well worth the weight, btw.


  37. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork View Post
    This was just to see what we could do with the parts we had.

    Could you post the spec please?

    Cheers

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    463
    The sandman hoggar, size L, as sold, was 14,8 kg, or 32,6 lbs.

    I changed the inner tyres with michelin latex C4 tubes, so now around 14 kg.

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Nothing's impossible View Post
    The sandman hoggar, size L, as sold, was 14,8 kg, or 32,6 lbs.

    I changed the inner tyres with michelin latex C4 tubes, so now around 14 kg.
    Do the tires seat evenly when using these tubes? Whenever I have tried ultralight tubes in the past they would stretch and fill differently in different places causing a bump as the wheel rolled that no amount of fiddling could really solve. I was using Maxxis Flyweights so Michilen hopefully is better.
    Latitude 61

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    463
    If I use a new tire it blows in bells, After inflating to about 2 bar and deflating to the desired presure the tire works well, but i had one tire exploding pumping it in one go tot 3 bar

    If I use an older "pr stretched" tire (used for a while in a schwalbe supermotto on a normal rim, or at least pumped a few times in supermotto on a 47 mm rim the tires inflate more evenly.

  41. #91
    Missouri sucks...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,306
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Do the tires seat evenly when using these tubes? Whenever I have tried ultralight tubes in the past they would stretch and fill differently in different places causing a bump as the wheel rolled that no amount of fiddling could really solve. I was using Maxxis Flyweights so Michilen hopefully is better.
    Have you tried baby powder? My brother had the same problem with a Large Marge(not light model) and his Nate. Too much rubber on rubber was the theory so he threw some GoldBond foot powder in their and it kept it even

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,829
    Quote Originally Posted by DFYFZX View Post
    Have you tried baby powder? My brother had the same problem with a Large Marge(not light model) and his Nate. Too much rubber on rubber was the theory so he threw some GoldBond foot powder in their and it kept it even
    Baby Powder was there. The Maxxis tubes just had so much expanding to do that it wasn't even. They would even fold over themselves, it seemed like they were a 36er tube trying to fit into the smaller diameter. I still may try the Michelins.
    Latitude 61

  43. #93
    9:zero:7
    Reputation: Morej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    103
    Just got my 2012 2x10 XL 9:zero:7 built. Weight without pedals is 29.08 Cyclevolution did an awesome job.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-p1130855.jpg  

    Lightest Fatbike-p1130877.jpg  


  44. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    639
    I can tell you from the wheel perspective, the devil is in the details.

    I have a very old wheelset, but I recently re-laced my front wheel with a new hub and spokes.

    My rear wheel has nice, butted, light weight spokes and a non-disc XTR hub (Circa 2002), 44mm rims and that wheel is 1180grams. My front wheel I re-laced with a cheap-o CODA disc hub, non-butted spokes and 44mm rim... 1290grams. Before re-lacing, I think the front wheel weighed 940grams.

    Moral of the story... sum of the parts used... small changes make big gram differences.
    - The only thing that keeps me on a bike is happiness.

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,051
    Moonlander weight don`t matter in zero gravity
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    463
    In zero gravity weight doesn't matter, on earth, during a climb,....

    But I stopped bragging about weight as I found out that a 29'er hardtail with suspended fork and offroad tires goes under 20 lbs

  47. #97
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    8,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Nothing's impossible View Post
    In zero gravity weight doesn't matter, on earth, during a climb,....

    But I stopped bragging about weight as I found out that a 29'er hardtail with suspended fork and offroad tires goes under 20 lbs
    that would be VARY rare if true so for the masses 26-30 is more the norm.

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    11
    This is truly drool worthy. Psyched to see so many Alu and Steel frames among the Ti bling.

    Keep 'em coming. Idea for a new thread: heaviest fattie! Racks and more, let's see the Sherpas along with these Sprinters.

  49. #99
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post
    Moonlander weight don`t matter in zero gravity
    I had my Moonlander weighing in at just under 29.5 today... with cyclocross wheels. I rode it out of the house then turned around because I felt stupid.

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    463
    NVPatthy,
    untill I turned my sandman into a 29'er the heaviest 29'er in the wide area was 12,5 kg or 27,5lbs
    I guess that the hoggar with arch rims and slant 6 tires and lots of latex will stay under 30 lbs, with
    I must add that most bikes around here are still 26'ers, it are the more ambitious guys that go for the 29'er first. On the other hand, my 11 kg 26'er fully is certainly not the lightest bike around either.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •