Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 243
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    96

    Lightest Fatbike

    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!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,528
    Yes please, let's see them!



    Weight 907 SS 26.74lbs

    Joke was I built this 907 up for a 24 hour race (BFs were temporary), but I ended up using my Pugsley in full dress mudguards etc, and I think it weighed over 40lbs in race mode.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  3. #3
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Yes please, let's see them!



    Weight 907 SS 26.74lbs

    Joke was I built this 907 up for a 24 hour race (BFs were temporary), but I ended up using my Pugsley in full dress mudguards etc, and I think it weighed over 40lbs in race mode.
    Velocity p35 rims or something? Those rims look tiny.
    Try this: HTFU

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,528
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    Velocity p35 rims or something? Those rims look tiny.
    Bought in Australia - Dice 40mm Two Six. Popular with the DH riders about 10 years ago (been using that set of rims on various hubs for 8 years and they're still perfect). Rim weighs 790gms.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,595
    Only girls need to be concerned about a light fat bike.

    (my pugs is 32.5 pounds)

  6. #6
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,670
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    Only girls need to be concerned about a light fat bike.

    (my pugs is 32.5 pounds)
    I'm of two minds here.

    Heavy fat bikes plow over whatever! Woo! My heaviest was more than 40 lbs.

    Heavy fat bikes are hard to carry and throw over large things =/
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,595
    Agreed on the momentum issue. My wife's Wednesday weighs 36 with the Lefty, but I'm going to make a concerted effort to drop that significantly. To put it into perspective, my Pugs weighs 20% of my body weight, hers is 30%. If I can get to 30 (without the lefty) on hers without going too crazy, I'll be happy.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    105
    28.5# 907 with real wheels :-) lol
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  9. #9
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    705
    This was just to see what we could do with the parts we had.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-resize.jpg  

    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbnozpikr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,684
    Oh my, those are nuts! How light are they if you remove the tubes and tires?
    2012 Intense M9
    2012 Pivot Mach 5.7 Carbon
    2008 Look 595
    2007 Custom Litespeed Sewanee

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,528
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork View Post
    This was just to see what we could do with the parts we had.
    That's impressive, especially with gears.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  12. #12
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    That's impressive, especially with gears.

    What really surprised me with fat bike parts is how not heavy the wheels and tires actually are. I compared my built up Hope Pro2 with DT Comps 3x to Sun Ringle MTX33 29 rims (a hefty freeride rim) with Panaracer Rampages and WTB Dissents on it and it came within 2lbs of the Marge DH built to a Surly new hub with 14g spokes, rim strip, Larry Tire and a Surly Tube. If I chose to build up my own wheel i could easily get it lighter to where the weight difference is possibly negligible. Rubber always weighs less than metals. I would like to build a Marge lite to a Paul WHUB with DT competition or even Sapim spokes and run that tubeless. Bet it would be really close to my 29er front wheel.
    Try this: HTFU

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTR2ebike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork View Post
    This was just to see what we could do with the parts we had.
    That will be a rough ride with no pedals but you could definitely get it lighter with some ww parts. Can't believe it's that with full gears

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    87
    Like it, my Muktard Susitna setup weighs 46 loaded up, or twice Thirsty's experiment.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbnozpikr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,684
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    What really surprised me with fat bike parts is how not heavy the wheels and tires actually are. I compared my built up Hope Pro2 with DT Comps 3x to Sun Ringle MTX33 29 rims (a hefty freeride rim) with Panaracer Rampages and WTB Dissents on it and it came within 2lbs of the Marge DH built to a Surly new hub with 14g spokes, rim strip, Larry Tire and a Surly Tube. If I chose to build up my own wheel i could easily get it lighter to where the weight difference is possibly negligible. Rubber always weighs less than metals. I would like to build a Marge lite to a Paul WHUB with DT competition or even Sapim spokes and run that tubeless. Bet it would be really close to my 29er front wheel.
    Those are surprising figures you came up with there. Two pounds extra just thinking about the moment of inertia is large but I would have expected more than that. Thanks for posting.
    2012 Intense M9
    2012 Pivot Mach 5.7 Carbon
    2008 Look 595
    2007 Custom Litespeed Sewanee

  16. #16
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169
    Intense Mag30 rim = ~850grams
    Nokian Gazzaloddi 26x2.6 = 1350grams
    Nokian Gazzaloddi 26x3.0 = 1550grams

    My Fatback has...

    Fat Shebas = 850grams
    Larry's = 1350grams?

    Hilarious that my Fatback wheels weigh less than some wheels people used to DH on... I used to DH on... Can't believe that... when I get my new MTB built up, it's going to feel so fast :P

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork View Post
    This was just to see what we could do with the parts we had.
    no front brake, no pedals and what rims are those? more pics perhaps
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

  18. #18
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by lamard View Post
    no front brake, no pedals and what rims are those? more pics perhaps
    Those are the 50mm rims. Old style Endo's as well, which were much lighter.
    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,272

    31lb, 12oz. But it's only a 1x7. Uma 90s tubeless.
    CRAMBA Chairman

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Devine Intervention's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    263

    Not the lightest, but real world weights

    I was paying attention to weight, but not a slave to it, when building this bike. (I have a single speed and road bike for that game.) Significant savings came from E*13 crank, Marge Lite wheels, and carbon bars. Potential weight savings could be achieved with lighter pedals, stem, grips, and brakes. Realistic future weight savings may come from carbon fork and Surly light tubes. I only went the route of a titanium frame, because I could afford it and I have to work with paint quality issues all day. Current Weight: about 32 lbs.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-small-17-final-build.jpg  


  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: atom29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    318
    ^those pedals and cassette aren't helping the weight either.

  22. #22
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    my 907 is really light till I put the wheels on

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    49
    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?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,985
    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.
    Latitude 61

  25. #25
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,175
    Yah, bikes with "all" the parts included would be useful LOL...can't ride a bike without pedals.

    Mine pre-suspension fork was hovering right around 30 lbs. After adding the SC32 it's about a pound heavier, but way more fun to ride.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    381
    my geared 907 is 28 lbs with endo/larry and carbon forks, could get it lighter with h bars

    will weigh it once its in summer dress mode

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    415
    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?
    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
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-2012-02-11_14-40-24_570.jpg  


  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: besoft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    92

    Steel frame 28 pounds with pedal, light and computer mount, and bar ends

    Ox plat steel frame, sram xo 160/180 brakes, 3x9 gearing, carver carbon fork, salsa rear and paul front hubs, eggbeaters
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-img_0826.jpg  

    Lightest Fatbike-img_0827.jpg  

    ONCE YOU RIDE FAT U WONT GO BACK!

  29. #29
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-fat-bag.jpg  

    Last edited by bdundee; 02-17-2012 at 01:30 PM.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thesilversurfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    261
    2012 Fatback Aluminum with Carbon fork, UMA 90's and Ritchey WCS components, without pedals is 30lbs dead.


    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/74469747@N06/6839685751/" title="IMG_0880_edited-1 by Fatbackrider, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6839685751_14c608f75d.jpg" width="375" height="500" alt="IMG_0880_edited-1"></a>

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    415
    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.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    982
    If you switched to a Fatback Carbon Fork, UMAlll's and some lighter pedals you would drop at least two pounds. Weight adds up quick on a bike. You could save two to five ounces with different spokes.



    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    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.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,528
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    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.
    That's why I always photograph my bike on the scales...
    Last edited by Velobike; 02-17-2012 at 11:59 AM.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  34. #34
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    I've seen 100 grams in difference from one HD to another.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    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.
    Danaco, The old Ti Fatback I have saves about 750 grams between our rims, pedals, hubs, fork, seat, and cassette. I have slightly heavier brakes, Hayse Stroker Grams, but I suspect a lighter crankset, Middleburn on a Race Face BB. I also have mostly ti bolts for the all of 10 grams that saves So 2 pounds difference all up between the two is not impossible to believe. In summer mode it loses a bunch by going to V!Z rims at under 600 gms each.

    It has way drilled out Fat Shebas, Candy Ti pedals, Modified WTB hubs at about 500 gms for the pair, an old Fatback Ti fork, Flite TT seat, and an XTR cassette.
    Latitude 61

  36. #36
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    That's why I always photograph my bike on the scales...
    my LBS has a cheap scale up on the ceiling so I can't get a pic. Ordered a Park scale today so I can get down to the bottom of this.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    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.
    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.
    CRAMBA Chairman

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    415
    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.
    Kinda my point . I'm not outright doubting folks here, not at all but some disparities are tough to swallow ! Let's face it, I'm just jealous

    It's OK though, I'm used to riding a 32# full squish, it's my secret training weapon when it comes to racing, screw the training regime, rather have fun riding

  39. #39
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    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.
    You would be under 30 lbs with the following 'upgrades':

    Fatback Carbon fork
    Ti bolt seat post collar
    lighter seatpost
    non-goofy(Salsa's fault) rear brake routing
    lighter pedals
    lighter cassette
    70 or 80mm rims
    no bashring

    Some of the folks with very light bikes are also running much lighter hubs than you.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    You would be under 30 lbs with the following 'upgrades':

    Fatback Carbon fork
    Ti bolt seat post collar
    lighter seatpost
    non-goofy(Salsa's fault) rear brake routing
    lighter pedals
    lighter cassette
    70 or 80mm rims
    no bashring

    Some of the folks with very light bikes are also running much lighter hubs than you.
    You are correct on all points. The rear hub is a real brick for sure, the pedals are heavy for SPD's but I like platforms for snow riding. Surprisingly, the wheels with the cown shoes are very very close to the RD set up it came with. I really like the added float and grip I get stretching out the HD's, noticeably better than the 80's.

    I am no stranger to making bikes light and know that every gram adds up. I'll save that for my racing stuff and I know that it makes a difference, ah' the mental advantage !! If I didn't do as well as I have over the years I'd say BS, but for now I'm stick'in with it.

    With the fat bike, I took out over two pounds from stock and feel that is good enough for that bike and the fun I use it for. If I were racing it that would be a different story. Like xc racing, mental advantage(as we'll as real weight wise) works well for me. For fun, heavy bikes make and keep you strong.

    And what's most important is that we ride

    Cheers !

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    243
    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.

  42. #42
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    Kinda my point . I'm not outright doubting folks here, not at all but some disparities are tough to swallow ! Let's face it, I'm just jealous
    I did some checking and I could only find the weight on a Muk 3 (I realized the 2 will be lighter) frame and a med. came in right around 4.5# and my 16" Fatback came in a 3.75# with cups installed.

    Disclaimer: Don't quote me on the Fatback frame weight due to unverified scale.

    Edit: Also I am not taking it back apart to check the weight again.
    Last edited by bdundee; 02-17-2012 at 08:44 PM.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    fine details like butted spokes or Ti bolts help, but really i think the wheels and tires are the biggest variance. My pugs 1x10 pugs build on the skinny 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.

    the devils in the details
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,528
    Quote Originally Posted by lamard View Post
    ...the devils in the details
    That's the secret to a light build IMO.

    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.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    spend a lot of money on delicate parts made of Unobtainium then use of a bit of Drillium or Hackoffium to complete the job.

    fixed
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    187

    2012 Large Fatback a touch under 29#'s

    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..

    New Fatback Build - from the colorado front range

    I'd cut off the KORE post ( 410mm ouch!) if it didn't creak so much at the seat mount. I hate creaking.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-picture-030-small-.jpg  


  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,528
    Quote Originally Posted by lamard View Post
    fixed
    Yup best option. It also lightens wallets, so the overall weight of bike and rider is reduced too.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  48. #48
    Bunker Hill Bikes
    Reputation: cjsbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    308

    Custom Quiring Fatbike

    Going with V8 parts, the Quiring fatbike comes in at 30.22 pounds with out the commuter gear.

    -Chad
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Lightest Fatbike-q-side.jpg  


  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Yup best option. It also lightens wallets, so the overall weight of bike and rider is reduced too.
    May cause spouse to chew you out adding further weight reduction.
    Latitude 61

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    haha, no spouse and usually carry plastic for ultra light weight!
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

  51. #51
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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  


  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,272
    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

  53. #53
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,175
    How are you liking the HD running backward in the rear? Just wondering

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,528
    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

  55. #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

  56. #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.

  57. #57
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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  


  58. #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?

  59. #59
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    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.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    911
    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.

  62. #62
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    381
    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

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    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.

  65. #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

  66. #66
    Did I catch a niner+?
    Reputation: Mr Pink57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    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?

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    415
    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

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    415
    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

  69. #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

  70. #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

  71. #71
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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.

  72. #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

  73. #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?

  74. #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'

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    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!

  76. #76
    ogarajef@luther.edu
    Reputation: 1strongone1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,393

    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"

  77. #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.

  78. #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

  79. #79
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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!

  80. #80
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    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

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,272
    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

  82. #82
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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.

  83. #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)

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,272
    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

  85. #85
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,906
    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.

  86. #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.


  87. #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

  88. #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.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,985
    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

  90. #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.

  91. #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

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,985
    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

  93. #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  


  94. #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.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    Moonlander weight don`t matter in zero gravity
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  96. #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

  97. #97
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    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.

  98. #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.

  99. #99
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,031
    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.

  100. #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 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 7

Posting Permissions

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