Full suspension with 197 rear spacing- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Flying Sasquatch
    Reputation: KTMNealio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    302

    Full suspension with 197 rear spacing

    Are there any other full suspension fat bikes out there with 197 rear spacing besides the Trek Farley EX ?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    160
    The Lamere and the various Chinesium SN04 variants.

    The Farley is really the way to go.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,270
    Not to beat a deaf horse, but...

    I wouldn't let hub width be the deciding factor in purchasing a full suspension fat bike; a hub is peanuts compared to a bike.

    I've owned and built a few Mutz, test rode a Bucksaw and a Fatillac, just purchased a Fatillac frame.

    If you have the cash and can build a bike from scratch, a Fatillac is the finest riding full suspension fat bike made.

    If you need to run 5" tires, the Trek is the only option; the Mutz is good to 4.5" tires.

    As an all purpose trail bike for going big, the Fatillac with 150mm travel is hard to beat. It can also be run with 5" rockers, so 125mm rear travel.

  4. #4
    Flying Sasquatch
    Reputation: KTMNealio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    302
    Yeah I was thinking more along the lines that I could swap the $1000+ of tires and wheels between my hard tail and the full suspension.

    If I was going to start over and have just the 1 bike, then it would be different story.

  5. #5
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,865
    I know a guy that bought one of these: Fatbikes - custom built by MAXX Germany

    I can ask him how he likes it now that he's had some saddle time.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,270
    I hear you, that's what I do, it totally makes sense.

    The Trek is a good bike, suspension design is solid, I'd consider one if the CS was shorter and it had a bit more travel.

    When I was riding the Mutz, it was my only bike for ~18mo, no complaints other than weight, worked great for all conditions, had three wheel sets.

    I got a Kona Wozo hardtail fatty to run 5" tires with the plan that I'd build a Fatillac to replace the Mutz for eveything but the deepest/loosest snow.

    We have since moved south, so my 5" tires may not longer be relevant. Now I'm leaning toward keeping my XC bike (Devinci Hendrix) and using the Faillac for snow, muck, and burl.



    Quote Originally Posted by KTMNealio View Post
    Yeah I was thinking more along the lines that I could swap the $1000+ of tires and wheels between my hard tail and the full suspension.

    If I was going to start over and have just the 1 bike, then it would be different story.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    595
    I too would love to hear about more 197mm rear FS bikes. I was really pumped at first about the Framed Montana but then they updated their info to 177mm. i like the trek but i feel the Trek Tax is just way too high. Also the carbon bike has an alloy rear end which for 5k+ is kinda ridiculous. the only one i have come across that i like is the Lamere.

  8. #8
    Flying Sasquatch
    Reputation: KTMNealio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    302
    The Lamere looks just like a CS001 Chinesium frame to me, but for more than double the money.

    I like the Trek a lot, but there are a lot of throw away parts for $3500 (hubs, brakes). If only they sold that alloy frameset...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    595
    The geo on the Lamere has been tweaked to be more XCish which I like. Mainly 69 vs 68 degree on the cs001.

    I also wish trek would do away with those 27.5 wheels. I would actually consider it but the first thing would do is throw away the wheels and tires for either 29+ or 26x65mm. Just not enough tire options for their proprietary wheel size and the ones that are out there are pricey

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,270
    There's a very good reason Trek chose 27.5 x 4"; it's the same reason I ride that wheel size in fat: better ride quality and it matches the height of a 26 x 5.

    26 x 4 is dead, it's just a matter of time.

  11. #11
    PCT
    PCT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    177

    Fatillac

    If you would consider a 177-spaced full-suspension fatbike:

    Selling my Fatillac, frame or complete. Large that fits me great at 5'10"

    Enjoy 5" or 6" of plush rear travel. I have run Bluto 120, Fox 34 140, or Supermax 130 up front.

    Short ass chainstays and supremely confident handling in all tech.

    Runs 26 fat, 27.5+, 27.5x3.8, maybe 29.

    PM for more info. Will post an ad and more details soon.

    Attachment 1152055Attachment 1152056

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-06-2018, 10:30 AM
  2. Any dually frames with 197 spacing?
    By Mike E. in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-16-2016, 08:07 PM
  3. Stout 197 rear hub
    By coyotegulch in forum Specialized
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2015, 09:18 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-2015, 07:32 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 07:18 PM

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.