Who thinks they've got the lightest Fatbike out there? How light can you get with these beasts and how I'd you get there? Just curious. Oh, and these should be real-world weights unlike those many manufacturers choose to list!
I have an old Ti Fatback frame like Thirstys built up between 27.5# and 29.5# depending on summer or winter wheels. Also a 2011 Mukluk at just over 30# but the two frames are only grams apart, it is my sons bike and he has to buy his own light parts. We also have a small alu Fatback and it is just under 30# also with a few heavier parts than the Ti.
30.5# without the frame bag and Welgo mag pedals and the Umas.
Edit: re checked it and came out to 29.5# with the self drilled Rolling D's,HD's, and spd's in summer trim.
I gotta say I'm somewhat perplexed by some of the weights here. Mine being one of the lightes frames (Muk 2) and pretty light stuff on it inluding the lightest brakes out there, they took off over a pound alone and seeing the sub thirty weights of some bikes with similar stuff makes no sense to me.
The funny thing is ,todays fatbikes are probably around the same weight (or maybe lighter) then alot of the early MTbikes from the 80`s & early 90`s (yea yea I know I`am old) & a lot more fun to ride IMO.Plus I know when I get on my Lynskey ridgeline (23lbs ) its like WOW ,especialy going up hill.
fine details like butted spokes or Ti bolts help, but really i think the wheels and tires are the biggest variance. My pugs http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/1x10-pugs-build-skinny-754981.html was 28lb 13 oz when i first built it with crazy light endo/larry that weighed it at 2600g. than i switched to a big fat larry and a 27tpi nate for the rear and it was a gain of 680g more recently i moved to tubeless and swapped a carver fork dropping most of the weight back off. the carver fork didn't like my hope rotors, so i swapped my 160/140 for some 160/160 avid rotors for another 70g increase.
There's no need to spend a lot of money on delicate parts made of Unobtainium when the use of a bit of Drillium or Hackoffium does the same job.
An example, most people don't have their seat post at full extension, and so they could cut off any excess. Your basic alloy post can end up the same weight as that fancy Ti one that you couldn't bring yourself to shorten because you'd spent so much money on it.
However I will happily spend money on a lightweight part if it has the potential to be reused on another build. For example Middleburn cranks.
My object is always to have the bike no heavier than it has to be rather than getting it as light as possible.
I don't have a hanger scale either so I weighed everything as it went on the bike. The only weight not included was the shifter cables.. here are a a few fat bike weight specs for the weight weenies..
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.)
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
15.4M posts
515.2K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!