Ideal Adventure Fat Bike- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 41 of 41
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106

    Ideal Adventure Fat Bike

    Aside from heavy steel bikes, is there an ideal 'lite' fat bike build for adventure touring - singletrack, forest trails across mountain ranges, sand, dirt, gravel roads, maybe 25% off trail cross - country, 30 day rides etc, UNDER $4500. In other words, a good all around riding adventure bike, but A Fat build, for people who are NOT going to the South Pole, or financially supported by some rich outdoor marketeer.

    Second related question is what is the ideal frame and fork material these days e.g. Ti, Carbon, aluminum or steel and why doent any manufacturer make a carbon fat fork with cage Mounts! OK two related questions....

    I want to build/buy this fall, but keep going in circles looking for appropriate build components, and just don't want to start out with a stock 37-40 # steel bike, to which must be added 45 LBS of cages, mounts, gear and food/water, etc...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    182
    If there was an "ideal" bike it would be the only model on the market and everyone would own it. This is an unanswerable question - unless you consider "it depends" an answer.

    You need to discover this answer for yourself. Turn off your computer and start hitting the shops to touch, feel, try, and demo bikes - try them all. Expensive, cheap, heavy, light, 1x, 2x, 3x, electric (eek! - forget I included that last one), carbon, steel, Ti, etc. Focus on how the bike feels under you. Decide what you like about each one and ask the shop for a complete bike with those components, or custom assemble a bike - a good shop will make a few trades for you (stem length, etc). When you get your options narrowed down to three or four bikes that are actually available to you, geographically and in your budget, then go to the web and look at specs. The feel of any bike is way more important than a set of specs and build numbers.

    When you get done, report back to us and let us know what the "ideal" bike turned out to be! Good luck!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    Unfortunately there are exactly two fat bike LBS in all of Washington state, and I have ridden and looked at both Mukluks they carry. Hence was hoping to hear a broader review of what other people have experienced with long distance riding. FWIW I've ridden Nine -0-seven's in Alaska, Moonlanders in the Arabian desert and the aforementioned mukluks in the North CascAdes, but there isn't a carbon bike in 500 miles that I can tell...plus there are a lot of new innovations, so I figure, couldn't hurt to ask.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,667
    First, I agree with the other posters, there is no ideal bike.

    For the mixed riding you describe I can't fathom why you would limit yourself to fatbikes. Especially if you're concerned about bike weight (I wouldn't be too much for your application). Personally, I'd be looking at 29+ (lose the xtra weight of the fat rims/tires from the get go), and I would start with the Surly ECR. 29+ would handle occasional sand and light snow duty just fine, and would be a ALOT more fun to ride on other surfaces, which are likely to make up the majority of your rides. A Mukluk frame rigged 29+ is another good choice, one that would give you the fat option if you felt you needed it down the line. The only carbon fork I've seen with cage mounts is the Salsa Firestarter, but its a 29er and I don't think it'll handle a three inch tire on a wider rim. As for frame materials, I've always preferred steel for loaded touring for its comfort, resiliency, and affordable repairability.
    Veni vidi velo!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by AnimalBikeman View Post
    Aside from heavy steel bikes, is there an ideal 'lite' fat bike build for adventure touring - singletrack, forest trails across mountain ranges, sand, dirt, gravel roads, maybe 25% off trail cross - country, 30 day rides etc, UNDER $4500...
    Well, if I was going for 30 day rides my priority would be getting a bike that wouldn't break under the load and/or be repairable in the middle of nowhere. Thus my first concern would be strength not the ultimate lightness. I'd also want the the 30 day bike to steer well with a load so its geometry may not appeal when ridden unloaded.

    If you take a leaf out of the the book of the folk who actually do long distances, you'll find many of them prefer a steel bike and heavier built wheels.

    I think you're actually looking for 2 different bikes unless you can find a custom builder, but I think you will find that the budget for that would exceed the cost of 2 different bikes.

    However, good luck. I've spent my life looking for the perfect do it all bike - which might be why I have ended up with an (N+1) + 1) collection.

    Edit: I might add that the reason I will be hanging on to my "heavy" Pugsley is so I can use it for a bit of excessively loaded offroad touring.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fat_tires_are_fun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    520
    Hard to believe that the entire state of Wash has only two shops with fatty's. I pictured them all over Seattle, Spokane etc...
    At any rate, you have a nice budget...speaking feom experience my Pugsley has been great, but if I were starting fresh with that budget, would probably go Ti.
    I dont think you can make a Moots work for the price you have in mind,but you could certainly build a really nice Carver O'Beast !
    Probably isnt a wrong answers, but assuming you want to do some real adventures, make sure the frame fits you and has plenty if bosses to attach things...good luck
    - MOOTS Mooto X
    - Salsa Fargo
    - Niner RLT9

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    131
    Wondering how much you weigh and how much gear weight and bulk you expect to carry. That will be important info to know.

    A 140lb guy with summer only gear loads plays by a different set of rules than a 280 lb linebacker in the winter does.

  8. #8
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,941
    Stephen has touched on something. How much are you wanting to carry along with you and how far are you going? I've loaded down the Surly with racks front and back and it weighed well over a hundred pounds. The Borealis loaded down using the lightest of everything and utilizing bar, seat, and frame packs is less than eighty pounds.

  9. #9
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    26,601
    For a 30 day trip? I'd go steel. For an overnight to about a week, anything will do.

    I do find it hard to believe the fatty selection in WA is as bad as you say it is. I live in Indiana, and of the two shops I visit frequently, there's a better selection of fatbikes than that. Add in the rest of the shops in town and no doubt the selection improves. Granted, nobody carries brands like Borealis or 9:zero:7 that only make fat bikes. But the bikes are out there.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    Run to your favorite LBS, ask about the titanium Mukluks on close out, the last I checked there were a couple small and large ones left. Likely in your price range, a nice value, and very much expedition worthy.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  11. #11
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31,693
    It would have TPMS with pressure adjust, a compressor built in, the top tube would be filled with scotch, the downtube with trappist ale, there would be a built in bail-out motor and battery, clipless pedals would have contacts that connect to the cleat, which serves as a heating element, also generators in the hubs that could charge up the batteries and lights/i-phone during heavy braking, ABS and traction control, wireless shifting and seat dropper, fully enclosed drivetrain, 3lb suspension fork, sat phone and spot tracker, blue tooth camera for posting pictures and videos on mtbr, wireless, laser-beam strobe light, bear-spray nozzle out the headtube (w/aiming laser) and it would all weigh 22lbs with 5" tires.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    182
    Based on some of the information that has come out of this now, I have to agree with a couple of others here - a Ti Mukluk would be a great bike with respectable components. You could slowly mod it if you like, but there's nothing offered on those bikes that wouldn't serve you well for several years.

    Don't get a carbon frame, not for what you've described you want to do. A Ti frame will be strong loaded and light unloaded.

    Best of luck. . .

  13. #13
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    929
    Many dealers in WA

    Just one of many Trek stores that should have a chris farley Trek Bicycle Store | Southcenter Tukwila/Seattle, Washington (206575-1996 Bontrager Electra
    Kona Wo at Bicycle Sherpa - A directory of Bike Manufacturers and Biking News/Info
    REI Charge bikes and Surly REI ? Top-Brand Clothing, Gear, Footwear and Expert Advice for All Your Outdoor Adventures
    Specialized at Gregg's Cycles :: Voted Seattle's Best Bike Shop

    you are welcome.

    animal-bike-man could you help me find a stocking hat in Alaska, I want a wool light green one with a big pom on top. None of the stores in Girdwood have one, and Anchorage is well far.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    579
    FYI: Salsa's slogan is "Adventure by Bike".

  15. #15
    slow:biker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    189
    There is nothing light about a titanium Mukluk frame. I emailed Salsa and this was their reply:

    "The 2014 LG Ti Mukluk frame weight is 2040g. The Bearpaw fork which comes with the frame and is painted to match weighs 1191g with an uncut steerer . Together you are looking at 3231g."

    That is over 7 lbs. No way is it worth the MSRP. On sale, maybe. But don't think you're getting a light bike.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    It would have TPMS with pressure adjust, a compressor built in, the top tube would be filled with scotch, the downtube with trappist ale, there would be a built in bail-out motor and battery, clipless pedals would have contacts that connect to the cleat, which serves as a heating element, also generators in the hubs that could charge up the batteries and lights/i-phone during heavy braking, ABS and traction control, wireless shifting and seat dropper, fully enclosed drivetrain, 3lb suspension fork, sat phone and spot tracker, blue tooth camera for posting pictures and videos on mtbr, wireless, laser-beam strobe light, bear-spray nozzle out the headtube (w/aiming laser) and it would all weigh 22lbs with 5" tires.
    Booyah,
    thinking of some of these features, but settled for a wheel driven compressed air bottle and air bag that would inflate at night into 200 sq ft Bedouin tent with nice air bed and carpets on the floor.

    Seriously, there are actually now three or four LBS in the state that carry fat bikes, and only one with any stock over one lone demo. Methow cycle and Sport should get a shout out for stocking fat bikes, and sell all'over the state, but they are a 4 hr drive away. One shop in Seattle carries one Ti Mukluk and another has one trek. That seems to be about it.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by eastman115 View Post
    There is nothing light about a titanium Mukluk frame. I emailed Salsa and this was their reply:

    "The 2014 LG Ti Mukluk frame weight is 2040g. The Bearpaw fork which comes with the frame and is painted to match weighs 1191g with an uncut steerer . Together you are looking at 3231g."

    That is over 7 lbs. No way is it worth the MSRP. On sale, maybe. But don't think you're getting a light bike.
    As a repressed weight weenie, I'm enjoying thinking about this ultimate bike. The Ti Mukluk seems to be a reasonable weight for a bike designed for its job. My race specific Ti 29er frame is 1,703gms, so it's only 337gms more.

    I've only ever thought of Titanium as being light in comparison to steel, ie if I wanted an ultralight steel bike, I'd also consider Ti. Both metals have the virtue of potentially infinite life if stressed within their limits. Ti can also save the weight of a paint job, so it will always look good.

    Aluminium alloys will make a much lighter bike in the hands of a good builder.

    But the champion is always going to be carbon fibre.

    A carbon fibre frame and fork could be built beefed up to handle adventure/touring bike duties and still be lighter than a light metal frame. It could well be that current CF fatbikes are strong enough already because they are not exactly at the bleeding edge of lightness for a CF frame, but they just lack the attachment points for heavy luggage. Who wants to be the pioneer with a broken frame 100 miles from darkest Wheretheheckami?

    I suspect it's just the matter of an extra layer or so at the stress points (perhaps an expert could comment). One appeal to me of such a carbon frame is field repairability. A bit of spare epoxy and CF cloth and you can bodge a repair - it wouldn't look pretty, but it would work. (I've built small boats out of fibreglass so I'm quite happy playing with sticky stuff .) ).

    But at the end of the day, common sense crushes my inner WW. Once you've loaded 40lbs or more onto your bike, a difference of a pound or so in the frame weight becomes a very small percentage of the total.

    I'd settle for a bargain Ti Mukluk.

    Plus the inflatable 200 sg.ft. bedouin tent of course.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  18. #18
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,564
    Quote Originally Posted by AnimalBikeman View Post
    Aside from heavy steel bikes, is there an ideal 'lite' fat bike build for adventure touring - singletrack, forest trails across mountain ranges, sand, dirt, gravel roads, maybe 25% off trail cross - country, 30 day rides etc, UNDER $4500. In other words, a good all around riding adventure bike, but A Fat build, for people who are NOT going to the South Pole, or financially supported by some rich outdoor marketeer.
    I'm curious whereabouts your adventure will be taking you.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fat_tires_are_fun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    520
    I just re-read the original post...I completely overlooked the fact that you were looking for lightweight. The wheels and extras are more important in the overall weight than simply the frame, however, carbon is the answer if you are truly counting ounces.
    I recommended Ti because of ride quality and corosion resistance....may not be the lightest ride, but it rides the best in my opinion,
    - MOOTS Mooto X
    - Salsa Fargo
    - Niner RLT9

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    So, in reply to several people who have asked very good questions about Basic stats and useage:

    I am 5'11", 225#, medium reach (frame) and wide ish shoulders (44cm handlebar). I like mountain drops, but have learned you can't shift with bar end shifters whilst careening up and down mountain ledges. Also 69 Y.O. This summer with various body parts starting to break apart and fall off; also missing some necessary aerobic capacity and motivation to train like a mad man year round.

    USAGE: climb like a mountain goat and ride over stuff without thinking about it to much, such as creeks, deserts, rocks sticking out o'mountains, and the yappy little dogs on the GDMBR. Like well, there's another somptin on the trail up ahead, so jes bump overt and keep on going - fat bike style. Now, other bike types will undoubtedly do most of these things, but when you pedal up to deers or Eddie Baurer wilderness hikers standing there dumb struck like that you just passed em by standing there in the dark, tall Forrest, with your enormous all terrain tread and such, well, that's the kind of places Iam interesting in biking.

    So far my ideal build starts out with:

    Water bottle cages on a carbon fork. Is this to much to ask? Apparently so. Manufacturers build these forks for the Iditarod, Simpson Desert Challenge, and various western trail races where the riders pedal so fast they cross the finish line without ever getting thirsty. I, on the other hand, drink water occasionally, so require water bottle mounts. Think I will make my own and epoxy them to the frame.

    Frame with Mountain Geom- likely to be steel or Ti in that order, with tubeless CCF rims. Touring geoms create many hike a bike opportunities in rolling, steep hills and turns. I think I want slacker head tube angles for the kind of terrain I would like to ride. I would prefer Carbon frame, particularity the Borealas; however I don't think they support Rolhoff drive, OR water bottles, at least where they count the most - leading the way on the fork. And we all know carbon frames are unsuitable for touring as it fractures and turns to dust after five days on the trail.


    RIMs - tubeless 90mm China Carbon Fiber Nextie rims at $320 each versus American imported CCF at $1000 - $1200 each. Hhhhmmm still up in the air on that one.

    DRIVECHAIN - thinking about a rolhoff 170 speed hub. With chain drive and steel gears, or alternatively, the SRAM 2x10 group set. I would love to be wrong on this, but no gates/carbon drive. Ive blown out to many gates belts to believe they are indestructible. ANY foreign material gets under the belt - snapo, you are out of business. They deform as well as dry pasta in the box. Gates is careful not to mention broken belts. On the other hand, why live with the risk/probability of back country broken derailers and chain idlers, when you can have a Rolhoff, if I've got enough money in the bank. Ideal maybe.

    Gear setup - a combo of Frame bags, panniers, and handlebar harness. lightweight bike packing gear off my Salsa Fargo - good to go.

    Except I will replace my really nice mail order Frame bag with an extra large custom one that actually can hold stuff. I want one with minimum 6" width to maximize what I carry in the triangle. Not one skinny little pull over, a rain jacket, and a few snack bars. The frame bag should approximate the center of mass of the universe, carrying your vital heavy weight items or quick to get at bulky stuff low down where the bike can dance like a bee and sting like a wasp as you whip around that endless desert sage or backcountry singletrack laid out in front of you!

    So that's my ideal fat bike dream state, so far.
    Last edited by AnimalBikeman; 09-27-2014 at 04:52 PM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bigwheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,383
    Quote Originally Posted by AnimalBikeman View Post
    Booyah,
    thinking of some of these features, but settled for a wheel driven compressed air bottle and air bag that would inflate at night into 200 sq ft Bedouin tent with nice air bed and carpets on the floor.

    Seriously, there are actually now three or four LBS in the state that carry fat bikes, and only one with any stock over one lone demo. Methow cycle and Sport should get a shout out for stocking fat bikes, and sell all'over the state, but they are a 4 hr drive away. One shop in Seattle carries one Ti Mukluk and another has one trek. That seems to be about it.
    Transition in B'ham has a nice one looking lonely on the floor.
    A bike by any other name is still a bike.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigwheel View Post
    Transition in B'ham has a nice one looking lonely on the floor.
    Good to know! any idea what make or model?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    126
    Man if you are going to spend $4500 on a bike for bike packing, skip the fat bike, skip what everyone here is saying. Either get out your phone and call Jeff Jones or wander over to Jones Bikes and get you a real bike.
    Drink beer. 'Merica!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: Ideal Adventure Fat Bike

    Why would an extra pound or two of frame weight even be on the radar of someone who is interested in remote, unsupported bicycle touring, where you'll be carrying many many more pounds loaded up on frame bags and packs? Does not compute.

    http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Why would an extra pound or two of frame weight even be on the radar of someone who is interested in remote, unsupported bicycle touring, where you'll be carrying many many more pounds loaded up on frame bags and packs? Does not compute.

    Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist
    Frame weight itself isn't that important, Overall just trying to keep the bike weight at or under an initial 30 pounds, more or less. Do not want to go start adding bike packing gear to a 40+ # bike. Cost, weight, and durability all come into to play at some point.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by eastman115 View Post
    There is nothing light about a titanium Mukluk frame. I emailed Salsa and this was their reply:

    "The 2014 LG Ti Mukluk frame weight is 2040g. The Bearpaw fork which comes with the frame and is painted to match weighs 1191g with an uncut steerer . Together you are looking at 3231g."

    That is over 7 lbs. No way is it worth the MSRP. On sale, maybe. But don't think you're getting a light bike.
    Hiya Eastman115,

    I checked several Ti frame builders and found most come in around 6-7 pounds, frame and fork, more or less. carbon forks weigh the least, mostly, and some are cheap, but have no mounts for bottle cages or anything cages, so not sure how suitable they might be for load balancing and carrying stuff.

    I wonder if the same welding shop in Taiwan builds all the imported Ti frames? Same tubing, similar specs etc...

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: Ideal Adventure Fat Bike

    Quote Originally Posted by AnimalBikeman View Post
    Frame weight itself isn't that important, Overall just trying to keep the bike weight at or under an initial 30 pounds, more or less. Do not want to go start adding bike packing gear to a 40+ # bike. Cost, weight, and durability all come into to play at some point.
    Then you should choose a frame and fork based on suitability for touring rather than weight, then build it up with light componentry. With a budget of 4,500 you shouldn't have a problem building up a reasonably light bike with even the heaviest fatbike frameset.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Welnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    883
    I've got a Mukluk Ti that I built up with an expedition mindset. The main things different from a pure play bike are titanium bars instead of carbon and mechanical brakes. It does have a dropper post though. It is 28.5 lbs with pedals.

    Your Latest Fatbike Related Purchase (pics required!) - Page 87- Mtbr.com

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    131
    At a local REI last night. Wasn't expecting much fatbike related activity there. Was looking at some rubber and a phone call came in. The caller was inquiring about the warranty status of a cracked frame Pugs. The associate talked to the passing manager and he had heard nothing new. The associate then procceded to tell the caller about how those guys like Cannondale and Surly aren't the quickest to get these things resolved.

    I was stunned to hear this of Surly. Say it ain't so!

    So I went home and looked up the max load capacity of the Salsa bikes only to find there is none. No rider weight and cargo capacities listed. A specific FAQ answer stating so.

    I'm used to seeing these being tested for and listed. I think it trumps common sense that ain't always so common these day. The Fatboy for instance, hardly a Mack truck by anyones standards, has a max total weight load of 275 with 55lbs of that being cargo weight.

    Not saying to go Fatboy at all here... not even close.... but it's limits are clearly defined.

  30. #30
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256

    This Thread Is Worthless Without Pics

    Ideal Adventure Fat Bike-p1070700.jpg

    29+ wheels on a 2011 Mukluk. I call it the "MukTruk" Frame bags courtesy of Bike Bag Dude. 2X-10 drive train, but I'd love a Rohloff. Someday.....

    Couple of things worth noting- If I were doing mostly non-snow adventuring, this would be my set up, however, it should be noted that stock Alternator drops on this model year Muk barely clear the seat stay brace. (Knards on Duallys tubeless, by the way.) There is a local Iowan who custom machined new, modified design Alternator style drop outs that give me ample clearances. So, going 29+ on a titanium Mukluk of this vintage may not work well for everyone. I cannot speak to the Taiwanese made titanium Mukluks. This is a Lynskey made one.

    Secondly- Putting Knards/Duallys in the 29+ format on a Mukluk will raise your bottom bracket significantly. The diameter of these wheels is right about 31", give or take a hair. That's a lot more than the almost 29" diameter of most 3.8-4.0 fat bike wheels which the Mukluk is designed for. I would be getting a 27.2mm dropper post for this sometime, if I decide to live with this idea long term. Mostly just to get on and off the durn thing!

    Ride Quality of the titanium Mukluk vs the aluminum one, (which I also own an example of) is noticeable. The titanium is well worth the money just from that point, not to mention the ease of frame maintenance and corrosion concerns. The titanium post makes it that much better. Both things I want in an adventure bike. At least in my view.

    Hope that sheds some light on the discussion, especially concerning the use of a Mukluk as a 29+ rig.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Kunkel View Post
    At a local REI last night. Wasn't expecting much fatbike related activity there. Was looking at some rubber and a phone call came in. The caller was inquiring about the warranty status of a cracked frame Pugs. The associate talked to the passing manager and he had heard nothing new. The associate then procceded to tell the caller about how those guys like Cannondale and Surly aren't the quickest to get these things resolved.

    I was stunned to hear this of Surly. Say it ain't so!

    So I went home and looked up the max load capacity of the Salsa bikes only to find there is none. No rider weight and cargo capacities listed. A specific FAQ answer stating so.

    I'm used to seeing these being tested for and listed. I think it trumps common sense that ain't always so common these day. The Fatboy for instance, hardly a Mack truck by anyones standards, has a max total weight load of 275 with 55lbs of that being cargo weight.

    Not saying to go Fatboy at all here... not even close.... but it's limits are clearly defined.
    When you can show me a Fatboy that has done anything like the expeditions that have been done on Pugs and Moonlanders, that will have more credibility.

    We're getting to the stage where opinion trumps actual proven performance.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    When you can show me a Fatboy that has done anything like the expeditions that have been done on Pugs and Moonlanders, that will have more credibility.

    We're getting to the stage where opinion trumps actual proven performance.
    Exactly what will have more credibility?...

    What did I say above that lacked credibility?

    I think maybe you were reading something that is not there.

    So, whatever....testing and specs are there for a reason. You and I may not like it but there it is.

    Edited: Or maybe I was the one who misunderstood here, Velobike. Is it that you mean the Fatboy is over spec'd? I thought the load spec was pretty whimpy myself at only 275lbs. Relatively speaking. Maybe you are right to opine it is far lower than that?

    But I doubt Specialized would say it' is okay to overload their frames.
    Last edited by Stephen Kunkel; 09-28-2014 at 03:23 PM. Reason: Maybe I misunderstood

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Kunkel View Post
    Exactly what will have more credibility?...

    What did I say above that lacked credibility?

    I think maybe you were reading something that is not there.

    So, whatever....testing and specs are there for a reason. You and I may not like it but there it is.
    In this case you have on one side a prediction based on manufacturers tests, on the other you have documented performance by actual users. Now it is entirely possible the Fatboy will be equally good, or even better, but if it's my neck on the line, I'll pick real world performance any day.

    Sure, testing etc is there for a reason. It is an attempt to predict performance in the field. It is not a substitute for knowledge of actual performance.

    I suggest you take a look at some of the epics done by some of the regulars on this forum and look at how they have loaded their bikes and what bikes they used.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    In this case you have on one side a prediction based on manufacturers tests, on the other you have documented performance by actual users. Now it is entirely possible the Fatboy will be equally good, or even better, but if it's my neck on the line, I'll pick real world performance any day.

    Sure, testing etc is there for a reason. It is an attempt to predict performance in the field. It is not a substitute for knowledge of actual performance.

    I suggest you take a look at some of the epics done by some of the regulars on this forum and look at how they have loaded their bikes and what bikes they used.
    I edited my post above. I added just that too. So it is your opinion that the Fatboys may not even be suitable for their own load specs.

    Now I understand. When I read your post I interpreted it to say that I somehow was recommending a 275 max load weight bike to a 225 lb rider with 30 days of supplies....or that the Pugs frame did not crack.

    All is right in the universe now... heh

    Glad I'm only 175# now too.

    I have seen the epics. I think they are a marvel to behold. Some with frames other than steel and Ti too. But far fewer and not as a aggressive Id say.

    But come to think of it, I don't recall ever seeing a cracked Fatboy frame posted either? Anyone else?

    Apologies for the thread drift. Just trying to learn here.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Kunkel View Post
    I edited my post above. I added just that too. So it is your opinion that the Fatboys may not even be suitable for their own load specs...
    No I am not saying anything adverse about the Fatboy at all.

    It has specs that suggest it would be able to handle the job, but it has not been proven in the field (to my knowledge). If you want to be their beta tester, go for it, and more than likely all will be fine - there's very few dud bikes being built by established manufacturers these days.

    But if you intend to head out into the middle of nowhere go for a bike with a proven performance.

    BTW it is well known that some Pugsley frames have cracked. There is a thread on here somewhere and on the UK fatbike site. AFAIK almost everyone concerned was satisfied with how quickly the company handled the issue. It is probably a good example of what I am saying. They made a slight change to the design, and no doubt the figures looked good, but in use it failed for some people - beware old white Pugsleys.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    163
    This Twenty2 Cycles Rohloff titanium has to be close to perfect. Swap the forks if you want but has to be 170mm Rohloff for such a bike

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

  37. #37
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,686
    Quote Originally Posted by keyhavenpotterer View Post
    This Twenty2 Cycles Rohloff titanium has to be close to perfect. Swap the forks if you want but has to be 170mm Rohloff for such a bike

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater
    Not for $4500 though.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Not for $4500 though.
    Ok, keep with 170mm Rohloff and work out best that can be created for $4500. On offer TI Mukluk frame?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    163
    29+ with 4" tyres and Rohloff can be done with 73mm BB.

    Titanium 29+/4?fat/Rohloff drive | AMPeirce Cycles

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Welnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    883
    I'm excited about trying out 27.5+ tires on my Mukluk once I can get a hold of one that is at least 3" wide. Mid fat with the same diameter sounds like a good way to go.

  41. #41
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Welnic View Post
    I'm excited about trying out 27.5+ tires on my Mukluk once I can get a hold of one that is at least 3" wide. Mid fat with the same diameter sounds like a good way to go.
    +10000000000000000000000000

Similar Threads

  1. Ideal Bike Quivers
    By evandy in forum Surly
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 12-21-2014, 05:39 PM
  2. Is the Surly LHT the ideal adventure bike?
    By cruzmissle in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-10-2014, 06:14 PM
  3. Ideal adventure touring bike
    By cgries in forum Bikepacking and Bike Expedition
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 03:09 PM
  4. Ideal bike for La Ruta
    By tefloncat in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 01:26 PM
  5. Your ideal bike for...
    By bank5 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-16-2011, 06:18 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

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.