On-One Fatty trail- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 286
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    106

    On-One Fatty trail

    In case you folks dont know yet.. Fatty trail Alu frame from On-One is now available.

    On-One Fatty Trail Frame | Planet X

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,083
    Seems a bit short on spec info. Spacing/BB/etc..

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    119
    Does anybody know if this will be good to handle switch backs and single track? Its what I ride my fatty one and looking to make it more nimble.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    213
    wheres the full specs does this frame take a lou or bud rear ...weight ect

  5. #5
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,645
    I emailed On One about the frame and they replied that it shares geometry with the Park wood. No other details
    No moss...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rain100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    35
    I also emailed On One, and recieved a little more info. Their response is attatched. I'm guessing that it doesn't have clearance for bud and lou as it is a 170mm frame. I am also guessing that the seatpost size is 31.6, same as the parkwood.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-fatty_trail.jpg  


  7. #7
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,645
    I wonder if it really has 435mm chainstay. The Fatty is 445.
    No moss...

  8. #8
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Man, that's a relatively short reach. The large is only 419. That's what new Medium AM bikes are trending towards.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    250
    Interesting, I like the geometry of it.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    106
    Wonder how much it would add had they opted with sliding drop outs?

    This will be a nice frame to set up 27.5+ 50mm nextie rims.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    59
    That standover can't be right. 32.6" for a small??

  12. #12
    try anything on a bike
    Reputation: blue_biker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    484
    Doesn't seem much different from regular fatty. Little bit shorter stays. But same HTA, probably same bb height. But shorter reach. I think the fatty as is makes an outstanding trail bike as is.
    The most freeride like fat bike I could make with available parts...

  13. #13
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Yeah, kinda disappointed.

    No thru-axle rear. No long reach and slack HTA. Not that much of an improvement on chainstay length.

    I hate to say it, but, yawn.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Yeah, kinda disappointed.

    No thru-axle rear. No long reach and slack HTA. Not that much of an improvement on chainstay length.

    I hate to say it, but, yawn.
    My thoughts exactly. I would've loved to see a 197 rear hub or at least a sliding dropout.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    I've been wanting to move a size up from the 16" Fatty frame I'm currently on, and the trail was similar geo but about $140 cheaper so I pulled the trigger (16" Fatty frame, carbon fork for sale - $450 - PM for details).

    Unfortunately the frame arrived like this:

    On-One Fatty trail-img_2740-768x1024-.jpg

    On-One Fatty trail-img_2742-768x1024-.jpg

    So I'm waiting for them to pick up the damaged frame and ship it back to the UK before they will then ship me a replacement (interesting customer service policy).

    I did however pull it out of the box and throw it on the scale. The 18" Fatty Trail comes in around 4.2lbs, and for comparison my 16" Fatty (with headset cups) is around 5.2lbs.

    So aside from shorter chainstays, you're probably dropping a pound or more with this new frame.

    I'll update this in a week or two when I finally get my frame.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    354
    Geometry chart is up on the link to Planet X. A bit of conflict with the Parkwood values. I'm not sure either chart is accurate.

    I had thought a rep from On-One had said this would fit the larger tires.

    Also raising my eyebrow over the standover height.

    And finally that their new frame is less expensive than the older one, but I guess that's aluminum vs steel?

  17. #17
    Trail Rat
    Reputation: devans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    92
    It's not to do with the fact it's technically a newer frame design, it's the fact it's not got 2 top tubes and it's less material

    Shame that you received it in such bad condition!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Anyone happen to know how to get things done with Planet X? Been waiting for over a week going back and forth with their customer service.

    They refuse to send a new frame before retrieving the old one and they keep telling me the carrier will be in touch with me.

    I ordered 2 weeks ago and I have a feeling nothing is going to happen this week either.

    Starting to feel like I'm getting screwed.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by skibumnh View Post
    Anyone happen to know how to get things done with Planet X? Been waiting for over a week going back and forth with their customer service.

    They refuse to send a new frame before retrieving the old one and they keep telling me the carrier will be in touch with me.

    I ordered 2 weeks ago and I have a feeling nothing is going to happen this week either.

    Starting to feel like I'm getting screwed.
    Looking at the pictures it appears as if their boxes are too small therefore they are inviting damage. Don't they use FedEx or UPS? If not, good luck, you are in for a rough ride.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by AZINGER View Post
    Looking at the pictures it appears as if their boxes are too small therefore they are inviting damage. Don't they use FedEx or UPS? If not, good luck, you are in for a rough ride.
    I believe they used DHL UK->US.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by skibumnh View Post
    I believe they used DHL UK->US.
    If they used DHL I'm surprised it arrived in that good of condition.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I ordered an 18" last weekend and got it yesterday. It weighed in at 4.7 lbs.

    I bought the FSA C-40 No. 42 Headset from the on-one web site based on the info on the web page. It's a caged bearing headset. I would suggest avoiding it. I bent one of the cages and spilled the bearings all over the floor. I ended using the race, bearings, and top cap from another - its and external headset but I set it up as internal and luckily the bearings fit. I am assuming that the head tube supports internal headsets (meaning no headset cups), but I could be wrong. I am basing this off of the parkwood page. Can anyone confirm?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Yes it's an IS headset. I went with the cane creek 40 series IS upper and lowers on my dirty disco which calls for the same FSA spec as the fatty trail and it's less expensive and fully sealed. Good value and I recommend it.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    14
    I'm super excited to start seeing some build pics. I'm hoping that On One addressed the chain stay and bottom bracket junction design issues that make it impossible to make the jump from fatty to 29+ on the original fatty. Love my 6fatty, but I'm thinking that 29+ or 27.5+ are intriguing options.

    Also wondering why On One is not offering a full build yet. I bet they are waiting for a container of Bluto forks or something...

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    • 18" On-One Fatty Trail Grey on Black Frame
    • Snowshow XS (4.7) on Mulefuts - Tubeless, Surly Blue rim strips, 1 wrap of gorilla tape (2.8" wide), Stans (I think 4 Oz each wheel)
    • Turbine Cinch with 26 tooth Chaining
    • BB7 Brakes with Avid Levers (7's ? - they have the extra adjustment), 200 Front, 185 Rear
    • Set up SS with old XT Rapid Rise derailleur used for chain tensioner at the moment
    • Headset is the bearings from an external Gusset Headset I had lying around (EC34 Upper, EC44 Lower). I used the bearings with no cups, the existing race, and the original top cap
    • Stem is a Bontrager Race 90mm with about 6 degrees of rise (I think)
    • Bars are UNO 6061 Alloy risers - (I'll probably swap out for an Easton EA50 riser I have)
    • Bontrager Race Seat Post
    • Cheapie WTB saddle
    • Fork Bluto 120 - Stock with Slick Honey, No tokens
    • Pedals are Speedplay Drilliums
    • Cables are Jagwire Brake Cables
    • ESI Chunky Grips


    On-One Fatty trail-imag1413.jpg
    Weight 30 lbs even

    I have only tooled around in the neighborhood on it.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Does anyone have any idea what the real specs are on this bike? After a month of back and forth with PX, I finally got my new frame (the original they sent being damaged in shipping). I just went to throw my X9 FB cranks on and they are hitting the chainstays.

    The bike is spec'd with a 100mm BB and a 170mm RR hub spacing which are 4" specs, but the chainstays look like they could clear 5" tires.

    WTF is up with this frame? I am starting to think this is a 100mm shell, 190mm spaced cranks with a 170mm rear hub.

    I'm about to return it (Which I am sure this will take another month+) and just part out the rest of my bike at this point.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Probably no coincidence this frame has been de-listed from their website...

    On-One Fatty trail-capture.jpg

    It can still be found but you need to search for it specifically.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    What Cranks do you have? I have the 170 Spaced RF Cinch Turbines, and when I first put the cranks on, one side did hit the chain stay. However, after I adjusted the bearing pre-load they are now close but the cranks clear both stays.

    On-One Fatty trail-picture3.jpg

    On-One Fatty trail-picture4.jpg

    Measuring the outside drive-side CS to out side non-drive-side CS at the point where the pedals are on the crank shows 18 cm.

    The picture below shows a wood working clamp used as a caliper. The 18 cm mark is right at the edge of the clamp.

    Hopefully this helps.

    On-One Fatty trail-picture5.jpg

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59

    Upset

    Here are some X9 GXP100 Cranks torque'd to spec. Rubs on the drive side and way off on the non-drive.

    Drive:
    On-One Fatty trail-img_2872.jpg

    Non-Drive:
    On-One Fatty trail-img_2874.jpg

    If your measurement puts the outside of the chainstays at 180mm, the 176mm inside measurement that SRAM specs will definitely not clear.

    On-One Fatty trail-capture.png

    I guess you get what you pay for with OO/PX.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-img_2873.jpg  


  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3
    Hi!!

    I tried to install the following cranksets:

    Sram X9 100mm Fatbike version

    RaceFace Ride Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    Race Face Chester Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    The 3 models collide in the chainstay...

    I installed the "Race Face Ride Fatbike 100mm for 190 rear hub spacing" and not collide but the chainline is very bad

    Do you know any cranksets for 170 rear hub spacing, compatible with this frame?


    Thank you and sorry for my bad english...

  31. #31
    Mr.Green
    Reputation: Lars Thomsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    77
    Hi, I’ve found that the Surly Mr.Whirly, with a standard Spider and the 100mm+ Spindle (Moonlander version, the ‘Super Mondo’ ( with the 2x7mm spacers)) works fine.
    But it's not a crankset for 170 spacing!
    Quote Originally Posted by biftalatodepotasio View Post
    Hi!!

    I tried to install the following cranksets:

    Sram X9 100mm Fatbike version

    RaceFace Ride Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    Race Face Chester Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    The 3 models collide in the chainstay...

    I installed the "Race Face Ride Fatbike 100mm for 190 rear hub spacing" and not collide but the chainline is very bad

    Do you know any cranksets for 170 rear hub spacing, compatible with this frame?


    Thank you and sorry for my bad english...
    Mr.Green

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    My advice would be to return the frame set because someone screwed up in design. It's completely illogical for a 170mm spaced frame to need a 190mm spindle. Maybe someone over there thought it would be cool to run 5" tires with a 170 spacing but there is a physical reason why no other manufacturers have done that - it doesn't practically work.

    Planet X pulled the frame from the market within a couple weeks of its release, which indicates to me there was a problem they don't want to own.

    Between the first frame I received being damaged and this, It took me three months of pleading and finally some threats for a formal dispute to get them to honor their return policy. I still don't know if I'll get a full refund at this point.

    I've got two bikes from OO/PX that I like (original fatty and a dirty disco) but I consider myself lucky and hope to never have a customer service issue. I'll never buy from them again - no amount of savings is worth the risk or hassle.

    Quote Originally Posted by biftalatodepotasio View Post
    Hi!!

    I tried to install the following cranksets:

    Sram X9 100mm Fatbike version

    RaceFace Ride Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    Race Face Chester Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    The 3 models collide in the chainstay...

    I installed the "Race Face Ride Fatbike 100mm for 190 rear hub spacing" and not collide but the chainline is very bad

    Do you know any cranksets for 170 rear hub spacing, compatible with this frame?


    Thank you and sorry for my bad english...

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I am running the Race Face Turbine Cinch with the 170 mm spindle. The pictures of the clearance between the pedals and the chain stay are earlier in the thread.

    I got these cranks last November.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    The part number is

    CK14TUR100A175BLK

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3
    Thank you guys for all the responses!!

    @krapper, What is the size of chainring you use?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3
    Thank you guys, for all the responses!
    OnOne has contacted me and told me the following:


    "I can confirm that this frameset has actually been recalled. We were in the process of contacting customers to recover the frame.

    I have made a case handler aware of your order, and should have further information early next week."

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I have a 26 tooth.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    101
    Seems like they are gonna give Fatty Trail another try:

    (from instagram)

    On-One Fatty trail-11820593_769150476527154_699257282_n.jpg

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,152
    And now they have it on their site: On-One Fatty Trail SRAM X5 Fat Bike | On - One for $1,700 or the X01 version for $2,300: On-One Fatty Trail SRAM X01 Fat Bike | On - One

    Tim

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    66
    Does anyone know if the "relaunch" of the fatty trail has remedied the CS/crank clearance issue? Also, does anyone have feedback about the standover on this frame? Is it really 32"+ for a small? That seems pretty tall...

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    Trying to bring this thread back......Anyone know if they resolved the crankset/chain stay clearance issue? Frames are $213 right now.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by jekyll2003 View Post
    Trying to bring this thread back......Anyone know if they resolved the crankset/chain stay clearance issue? Frames are $213 right now.
    I think they have. Where do you see $213 though? I only see $412 on both the UK and US sites.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    You have to go to Planet X US and go to menu, frames, mountain, and then scroll down and you will see it for $213. For some reason if you google the frame it comes up priced at $427. Shipping is $90 though, but still good deal if they have resolved the crank issues. Wondering if the sram x5 crankset they include on the full build will work with the frame only purchase. In theory any 100mm fat bike crank should work, but apparently weren't working on the original offering of this frame. I just don't want to place an order for a crankset only to find it doesn't fit.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    Also...anyone know what headset will fit this? P

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by jekyll2003 View Post
    Also...anyone know what headset will fit this? P
    Site says FSA C-40. The race is machined into the head tube so its going to be an IS42/IS52 in Cane Creek Speak. Easy install - no press needed, just drop the bearings into the races and go.

    FSA C-40
    FSA Orbit C-40-ACB 1.5 Headset (No.42-ACB) | Chain Reaction Cycles

    Short cap
    40-Series | Tapered IS42|IS52/40 Short Top Cover

    Tall cap
    40-Series | Tapered IS42|IS52/40 Tall Top Cover

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    Thank you. Big help.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by jekyll2003 View Post
    Trying to bring this thread back......Anyone know if they resolved the crankset/chain stay clearance issue? Frames are $213 right now.
    They have fixed that issue. I emailed them asking the same thing. They said the first batch wasn't built to spec but the new ones are fine. I also asked what the standover was for a small frame, and they said they had it listed as 32.6". I replied back asking if that was right and if they could possibly remeasure, but got no response. I really like the look (and price) of this frame, but that's way too tall for me to fit on it. That's about 6" taller than a lot of other size small fat frames. Apparently you need really long legs to ride this bike?

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by versplatch View Post
    They have fixed that issue. I emailed them asking the same thing. They said the first batch wasn't built to spec but the new ones are fine. I also asked what the standover was for a small frame, and they said they had it listed as 32.6". I replied back asking if that was right and if they could possibly remeasure, but got no response. I really like the look (and price) of this frame, but that's way too tall for me to fit on it. That's about 6" taller than a lot of other size small fat frames. Apparently you need really long legs to ride this bike?
    I've got a feeling they measured it really close to the head tube or something.

    You could compare the frame diagram with a bike off a known stand over and get a good idea of what the actual is.

  49. #49
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Is a 4" On-One Floater tire the max this frame will clear in the rear?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    I've got a feeling they measured it really close to the head tube or something.

    You could compare the frame diagram with a bike off a known stand over and get a good idea of what the actual is.
    Thanks tfinator. I'll see what I can figure out. Anybody with this frame have any real world standover measurements?

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I get 29" where the top tube bends. 36" at the head tube. It's around 32+" at the midway point which is the standard place to measure stand over. This is on the new frame size medium with 120 mm bluto - no sag, and Vee snow shoe 4.5 inch tires (the original snow shoes).

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    I've got a feeling they measured it really close to the head tube or something.

    You could compare the frame diagram with a bike off a known stand over and get a good idea of what the actual is.
    No way its 32.5" for the small - they are being lazy.

    This is my rough geometry calc for a medium (18") 15" from top tube to axle line +14.5" (assuming roughly 29" wheel diam) puts you at a 29.5" standover.

    On-One Fatty trail-rough-geo.jpg

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Is a 4" On-One Floater tire the max this frame will clear in the rear?
    If its anything like the original fatty you will have room to spare. Its also hugely dependent on the rim size. I am running floaters on an 82mm Rolling Darryl that measure 97mm. I wouldn't want to stuff anything bigger than 100-103mm in there to allow for mud clearance.

    That being said if you were running a 65mm rim, you could probably fit some narrowing measuring 5" class tires because the narrower rim keeps the profile rounder.

    For example check out 45 Nrth's geo chart

    http://45nrth.com/files/pages/13193_..._Update_V3.pdf

  54. #54
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by krapper View Post
    Vee snow shoe 4.5 inch tires (the original snow shoes).
    How's the clearance with the Vee 4.5 Snowshoes?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by krapper View Post
    I get 29" where the top tube bends. 36" at the head tube. It's around 32+" at the midway point which is the standard place to measure stand over. This is on the new frame size medium with 120 mm bluto - no sag, and Vee snow shoe 4.5 inch tires (the original snow shoes).
    Thanks krapper. That's really helpful. It sounds like it might be less standover than they're claiming, but still on the tall side.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    70
    I can confirm a Ground Control 4.6 on a BR710 rim clears well. Tried a Lou and it was a no go. Running a Nate at the moment as I was disappointed with the GC traction in mud, but plan to try a Dunderbeist in the future.

    They are very nice frames for the money and have a roomy top tube and modern trail geometry, love mine on muddy British singletrack. Resonable weight as well, 4.7 pounds for the large.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    70
    On-One Fatty trail-20160106_144615.jpg

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by tim.johnston View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20160106_144615.jpg 
Views:	2300 
Size:	153.1 KB 
ID:	1040608
    That looks AWESOME! Please let us know how the Dunder fits (if you go with the full combo).

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    70
    Will do Griffin32, have the Dunderbeist turning up next week. Fingers crossed it fits, will post pics either way.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    70
    So the Dunderbeist fits nicely, almost identical size to the Ground Control. Here it is at 25psi while sealing...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-20160112_171740.jpg  

    On-One Fatty trail-20160112_171539.jpg  

    On-One Fatty trail-20160112_171607.jpg  


  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    139
    Can someone please confirm whether these new frames (the trail and-or white v2 fatty) can fit 170mm-specific cranks such as the Sram xx1 or 170mm Next Sl? Alternatively, can someone provide the width of the chainstays as shown in the pic?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-crank-clearance.jpg  

    Last edited by Estuche; 01-30-2016 at 09:25 AM.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Estuche View Post
    Can someone please confirm whether these new frames (the trail and-or white v2 fatty) can fit 170mm-specific cranks such as the Sram xx1 or 170mm Next Sl? Alternatively, can someone provide the width of the chainstays as shown in the pic?
    I'm running 170BB Race Face turbines on my V2. Both bikes use the 170 QR rear end, no reason the 170 cranks shouldn't work.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  63. #63
    I’ll be at Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by tim.johnston View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20160106_144615.jpg 
Views:	2300 
Size:	153.1 KB 
ID:	1040608
    Good looking fatso
    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Josh Homme

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69tr6r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    791
    I see that Planet-X USA has the X5 complete bike for 25% off using the code on their site.

    PXLIQUID25

    I added one to the art and it's legit. Total cost is $1422 shipped, ($1237 before ship).

    I like how they are building the bike as a custom, so you can add items during the build like ordering from a menu. Not all items have options, but still nice, for example to upgrade the rear shifter from X5 to X9 for $13.

    Now, I must go and NOT click buy. This is tempting...

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    I see that Planet-X USA has the X5 complete bike for 25% off using the code on their site.

    PXLIQUID25

    I added one to the art and it's legit. Total cost is $1422 shipped, ($1237 before ship).

    I like how they are building the bike as a custom, so you can add items during the build like ordering from a menu. Not all items have options, but still nice, for example to upgrade the rear shifter from X5 to X9 for $13.

    Now, I must go and NOT click buy. This is tempting...
    Yeah, I built one with the dropper post. Figured I could swap out the nicer drive train bits from the current bike. Then I quickly closed the window before doing something hasty.....
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  66. #66
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,589
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    I see that Planet-X USA has the X5 complete bike for 25% off using the code on their site.

    PXLIQUID25

    I added one to the art and it's legit. Total cost is $1422 shipped, ($1237 before ship).

    I like how they are building the bike as a custom, so you can add items during the build like ordering from a menu. Not all items have options, but still nice, for example to upgrade the rear shifter from X5 to X9 for $13.

    Now, I must go and NOT click buy. This is tempting...
    Add another 10% of your purchase price on top of that; you will pay an import duty fee on a frame or bike from On-one.
    ****

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69tr6r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    791
    Even from Planet-X USA?

  68. #68
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,589
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    Even from Planet-X USA?
    Don't know. I used the on-one website e-mail contact function to ask them this question. It was my impression that frames and full bikes were shipping from the UK. They were the ones who told me that Duty would be charged.
    ****

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Planet X USA store burned to the ground a month or so ago. All orders come from the UK for now. I've bought two frames from On-One, I don't recall seeing the extra duty.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  70. #70
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,589
    I found two different pages at On-one's website regarding Duty; one said that there would be no Duty fees for the frame I was looking at, the other reference said there would be, and then the customer service rep who answered my e-mail said there would be a fee. I have never purchased from On-one, but I have purchased from Chain Reaction, and I had to pay a fee for that purchase.
    Your mileage may vary, I guess.
    ****

  71. #71
    Clears
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    90
    I bought a v2 fatty off of Planet X site. no duty fee.

  72. #72
    I’ll be at Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    707
    Me too. V2 Fatso last month with no duty fee from the UK as Planet X USA burned down
    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Josh Homme

  73. #73
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Technically, US Federal law requires import duty on complete bikes or frames in value over $500 (or $600?).

    Whether or not that actually gets levied to the recipient every time, dunno?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    For those that got the complete bike, what is your impression of the El Guapo hubs? Are they really 72 POE? Seems like they are built similar to Hope Pro2s, I'd really like to know if the bearings are the same in the 170 QR and the 197x12, but I'll have to ask On-One for that info I'm sure. Impressions on the Emmental rims as well to please, are they tubeless ready?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dietz31684's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Impressions on the Emmental rims as well to please, are they tubeless ready?
    x2..

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11

    wheels

    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    For those that got the complete bike, what is your impression of the El Guapo hubs? Are they really 72 POE? Seems like they are built similar to Hope Pro2s, I'd really like to know if the bearings are the same in the 170 QR and the 197x12, but I'll have to ask On-One for that info I'm sure. Impressions on the Emmental rims as well to please, are they tubeless ready?
    I got the R 170qr, F 150x15mm El guapo+emmental wheels, not really impressed, but I think they will do the job for now. Rear hub may well be 72POE, firm ratheting sound but not as loud as Hope. I would not want to do trailside flat repair too often for front wheel as end caps are popping out too easily and get lost and it has loose inner pipe rattling inside the hub shell between the bearings. It's quite difficult to push the axle in while it hits the ends of the pipe.

    Emmental rims appear to be basic Weinmanns similar to his post: http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/fat...l#post12357515

    So not tubeless ready. But since that guy had some luck with Fattystrippers, I thought to give it a try but wanted something even cheaper and hopefully a solution that will last several tire changes.

    I bought a roll of 50mm 3M 764(i) strechy vinyl tape and did one continous run over the trimmed original rim strip. Then foam rods fitted taped both sides over once more and taped one run in middle cavity to finish it off. The new rod tire shelves needed some lubing to get both sides seated with inner tube, so I felt quite confident. Visited local gas station to use the free compressor and after removing the valve core (these are schrader valve drilled rims) tire popped on nicely. Put in 120ml of Contineltal Revosealant as it's supposed to be safer for tape glue than stan's. Tire was left at some 15psi over night and yesterday did a short 20km ride dropping the pressure gradually from 12psi to 8psi. I'll have to go lower stilll as we have some snow to ride now, but so far so good. This was for front wheel, tape and strip added 155g + sealant, so not superlight but not too bad if it proves to be a solid setup. Pictures here: http://1drv.ms/1mOxW1B


    Otherwise I'm really liking the Fatty Trail, fast and agile... (no former true fat experience)
    On-One Fatty trail-kuva0471.jpg

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11
    OK, tubeless solution above does not work past 8psi, when lower sealant starts to leak a little between tire and rim sidewall and its easy to to burb the tire just by pushing with fingers, it needs more support between tire bead and rim bead seat. Like a slit tube or latex strip I'm ok with that frontwise but rear tire needs to be lower pressure for comfort and traction, quess I'm going to order some Fattystrippers

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by tim.johnston View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20160106_144615.jpg 
Views:	2300 
Size:	153.1 KB 
ID:	1040608

    I've been shopping around for Fat bikes and was looking for more info on the On-One fatty Trail. i haven't heard any reviews from anyone who actually had one yet. its about a $1k less than some of the big name bikes like trek farlely or specialized fat boy and seems to come with great specs. Could you let us know how you like it, what terrain you ride it on, or any other Pros/Cons you have with the bike or overall spec. appreciate it. Bike looks great!

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by bostonsr5 View Post
    I've been shopping around for Fat bikes and was looking for more info on the On-One fatty Trail. i haven't heard any reviews from anyone who actually had one yet. its about a $1k less than some of the big name bikes like trek farlely or specialized fat boy and seems to come with great specs. Could you let us know how you like it, what terrain you ride it on, or any other Pros/Cons you have with the bike or overall spec. appreciate it. Bike looks great!
    I built mine up from a frame only so I can't comment on the other parts. It's a great little frame, quite light and perfect for blasting round trail centers in the UK. The Treks look good to me as well, with good angles, but the Specialized is a bit old fashioned for my tastes in the geometry department. Depends where and how you ride obviously, but I can say for sure that the Fatty Trail lives up to it's name, it makes a good trail bike on hardpack, singletrack mud roots and all.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    2
    T.J., thanks for the quick response. As you said the geometry seems great for the fatty trail and looks to be a capable bike at much better price point than the farley. was wondering what hubs/Wheel set you went with and if you have thru axles or quick release? i don't know about and couldn't find much info about the el guapo hubs that come on the trail fatty. aside from what info was on the Planet X web site, prob slightly biased. The bike they ship has the "el Guapo" hubs and are quick release axles. those were my only points of contension. Im not sure if they could be converted to thru axles as I'm fairly new to the "modern" mtn biking scene. also keep in min I'm not going to Bombing down hill or tearing to pieces single track. I'll go down hill and see. So maybe the stock quick release axles and El Gluapo hubs are fine for me? let me know what you think. anyone else with some experience on this bike feel free to chime in, i welcome your opinion and any more info. Thanks.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by bostonsr5 View Post
    T.J., thanks for the quick response. As you said the geometry seems great for the fatty trail and looks to be a capable bike at much better price point than the farley. was wondering what hubs/Wheel set you went with and if you have thru axles or quick release? i don't know about and couldn't find much info about the el guapo hubs that come on the trail fatty. aside from what info was on the Planet X web site, prob slightly biased. The bike they ship has the "el Guapo" hubs and are quick release axles. those were my only points of contension. Im not sure if they could be converted to thru axles as I'm fairly new to the "modern" mtn biking scene. also keep in min I'm not going to Bombing down hill or tearing to pieces single track. I'll go down hill and see. So maybe the stock quick release axles and El Gluapo hubs are fine for me? let me know what you think. anyone else with some experience on this bike feel free to chime in, i welcome your opinion and any more info. Thanks.
    I wouldn't get hung up on the quick release personally for stiffness. I have both on different bikes and on a stiff 26" fat wheel I'm hard to pushed to feel a difference. If you upgrade your frame at a later date then it would be good to know more about the Hub adaptability though. I went with Hope Hubs and BR710s, light and plenty of end caps for compatability.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    I have a neighbor with the Tomac Hesperus which has the El Guapo hubs. I think I saw somewhere on here that they were possibly Novatec? He seems to like them just fine, but thinks they could be heartier. The rear for the Fatty Trail is 170 with vertical dropouts, so it's a QR and it may not be convertible to thru axle. Even if you could drill out the end caps it's nigh impossible to find a 170x10mm thru axle. The 190 is thru axle and may be a slightly different design besides the additional width. If the cartridge bearings are the same there should be room for a 12mm axle to fit, but again the drops are for 10mm. With 72 POE, seemingly easy to maintain/work on, and at the pricepoint they seem worthy of giving them a chance. The frames do look nice, I'm debating picking up a frame and swapping over parts.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  83. #83
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Welp... Don't shop at work, b/c you'll end up doing impulse buys...

    A pair of Floaters and a Fatty Trail frame are now soon to be headed my way
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  84. #84
    I’ll be at Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    707
    MTB Tools Mtn Bike 12mm x 170mm thru Axle to Standard 5mm QR Wheel Adapter | eBay

    I found this on eBay and have one on the way to me. My Fatty wheelset came with removable end caps and is thru bolt adaptable, the only problem is that On One/PlanetX doesn't have one. This axle looks like it will help to stiffen up the rear quite a bit. 12mm X 170mm that tapers down to 10mm at the ends to fit into normal drop outs. I'm gonna just slide my Hope skewer thru this and I'm sure I'll be set. I have the same type of axle on a SunRingle wheelset and it worked beautifully. I asked PlanetX about a thru bolt when I was building my Fatty, and they said that there wasn't one for my hub, but there was one for the Guapo hub if I wanted to go that route. Good luck!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-image.jpg  

    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Josh Homme

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    I'm running Novatec 4 way hubs on my Fatty, they came with 9 and 10mm skewer/axle. It's basically a cross between a thru-axle and a qr. You can switch end caps to run a regular QR or a full on 15 or 20 mm thru axle. http://www.amazon.com/NOVATEC-Bicycl.../dp/B00K1TK1XQ

    On the front, I use the skraxle on the rigid fork, 15mm thru axle with the suspension.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69tr6r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Welp... Don't shop at work, b/c you'll end up doing impulse buys...

    A pair of Floaters and a Fatty Trail frame are now soon to be headed my way
    Congrats Hokie, what are your plans for this bike?

  87. #87
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    Congrats Hokie, what are your plans for this bike?
    Still working on that. Debating between a beat around snow bike with a 2nd set of wheels for urban use; an AM hardtail with 4" tires; or something in between.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  88. #88
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    And tracking info was here before lunch. That was fast.

    Estimated Delivery: Monday, April 04, 2016 By End of Day

    That's even faster!
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    43
    Congrats on the bikePlease post some pics of it when you will have it build up.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Anybody put a rigid fork on the Fatty Trail? Perhaps a carbon one, 483 a-c, 150mm axle?

    Other options for a rigid fork that would work?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    impulse buys...A pair of Floaters and a Fatty Trail frame are now soon to be headed my way
    Well I thought about it for 2 months and decided to try. I figure for now I'll swap things over from the Framed MN and let it roll. On-One is having a sale with 15% off everything except bikes. Even though it cost me 35 dollars more than a few days ago I jumped after I ran some numbers and presented the case to the wife. I had a lil' money from my gma that my lady is allowing me to spend on myself, since I've been constructive with the rest. I didn't really need a bike project, but at the price I felt like I had to give it a chance. I'm also gonna start with a rigid fork, thinking I'll just go with something corrected for 100mm because availability. It will steepen the HTA a bit, but don't have the rest for the sus quite yet. Eager to see that blue frame, electrified to roll those Floaters.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Anybody put a rigid fork on the Fatty Trail? Perhaps a carbon one, 483 a-c, 150mm axle?

    Other options for a rigid fork that would work?
    I would like to know this as well. Particularly the On One Fatty steel fork (which I currently have) or the On One Fatty Carbon fork. How much would it screw up geo and handling as this was designed around 120mm suspension fork? Going from 67.5 to a bit steeper head angle would be fine with me looking at this from a very simplistic perspective.

    I found these photos online a while ago and saved them, but did not find any more info at the time.

    On-One Fatty trail-8db1acf5-2ce8-4a8a-be6d-45ac4c99069e.jpgOn-One Fatty trail-10d48304-2599-4597-804b-2dd82e3a0d3b.jpgOn-One Fatty trail-cab2bf06-4849-4f13-8360-4ce947625104.jpg
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  93. #93
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Well I thought about it for 2 months and decided to try. I figure for now I'll swap things over from the Framed MN and let it roll. On-One is having a sale with 15% off everything except bikes. Even though it cost me 35 dollars more than a few days ago I jumped after I ran some numbers and presented the case to the wife. I had a lil' money from my gma that my lady is allowing me to spend on myself, since I've been constructive with the rest. I didn't really need a bike project, but at the price I felt like I had to give it a chance. I'm also gonna start with a rigid fork, thinking I'll just go with something corrected for 100mm because availability. It will steepen the HTA a bit, but don't have the rest for the sus quite yet. Eager to see that blue frame, electrified to roll those Floaters.
    Bought it already?

    Thinking I might sell my blue, Medium (more like a Large) frame and pair of Floaters.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  94. #94
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Anybody put a rigid fork on the Fatty Trail? Perhaps a carbon one, 483 a-c, 150mm axle?

    Other options for a rigid fork that would work?
    The steel Surly ICT fork is 150mm T/A and 483mm a2c.

    A 120mm Bluto has a static a2c of 531, so a sagged a2c of 501mm (25% sag)

    (Remember kids, unlike F/S, a hard tail gets steeper when you sit on it)

    So running the ICT fork will steepen the 'felt' HTA by about 1* (18mm shorter a2c)
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Bought it already?

    Thinking I might sell my blue, Medium (more like a Large) frame and pair of Floaters.
    Why sell? Stupid price on the Fatty trail right now as of this morning.

    As far as the fork, I'm looking at the 150mm 485a-c fork from carbon-cycle. I figure the HTA will steepen, but I'm ok with that. I think for every 20mm less travel you increase the HTA by a degree. So if I go for the 100mm sus corrected fork I should be increasing the HTA by a degree or so. Honestly I'm ok with that.


    .....and I see you already mentioned the HTA change in your next post.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Why sell? Stupid price on the Fatty trail right now as of this morning.

    As far as the fork, I'm looking at the 150mm 485a-c fork from carbon-cycle. I figure the HTA will steepen, but I'm ok with that. I think for every 20mm less travel you increase the HTA by a degree. So if I go for the 100mm sus corrected fork I should be increasing the HTA by a degree or so. Honestly I'm ok with that.


    .....and I see you already mentioned the HTA change in your next post.
    Are these you are looking at?

    http://www.carboncycles.cc/index.php...=fork_selector

    Aren't all the fat forks on carbon-cycle 468 a-c?
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    ^ pm sent.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    354
    I'm thinking of jumping on the frame deal, but the fork is giving me worries. I too want a rigid fork, and prefer the steel, but I fear it would be a hideous combination. Thinking even a Surly fork would be a better match, say an ICT one.

    Also, anyone know if 29+ fits, and if so how tightly?

    Also, anyone know how narrow a Q-factor these can work with? I'm one of those folks who needs minimum Q. I have a square taper 135mm BB and a number of cranks to try out to get the best spacing, but I'm looking to see how far I could physically take that with the frame.

    Would a regular fatty be better in that regard?

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    I don't disagree, it's difficult to find the right rigid fork. I haven't seen anything that is 120 sus corrected, only 100. However, I don't think a degree steeper HTA will hurt for the riding I would intend. Also, the Surly Wednesday fork is 468?mm I think, but you can put a 100mm sus on it as mentioned. The rigid is 17mm shorter than the sus corrected a-c of 485mm. Surly even goes so far as to say there is no advantage to running a longer rigid fork. So if it's good enough for the Wednesday then I'm ok with running the frame with a fork of 485, like the ICT fork for example. I'm still thinking carbon and may get it painted to match the frame.

    Can't speak for the other questions you have, but I am anxious to see a b+ in the frame. I have the 170 Turbine crankset now on my MN fatty, doesn't feel too wide, which is one reason I prefer the 170/177 rear hub vs the 190/197. I would be more worried/annoyed about heel strike with the 190/197 too since I've had some scrapping with boots in the winter.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Just picked this up on the last frame sale. Size large. 4lbs 11oz. Can't wait to build it up.


  101. #101
    I’ll be at Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    707
    Have fun with it! Congrats
    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Josh Homme

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Agreed, have fun with it.

    That being said, check your rear dropout alignment and frame alignment... I've been chatting with them about my frame and have yet to have any sort of resolution.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    What is off alignment wise with your frame dbhammercycle?

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    My rear wheel sits perfect between the stays. I am just waiting to get a bluto and new front hub before I transfer everything over

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    My rear wheel sits perfect between the stays. I am just waiting to get a bluto and new front hub before I transfer everything over
    If your rear wheel is good, don't worry about me, get out there and have some fun!

    That said, the rear dropouts are not aligned, the frame alignment tool shows that NDS is a little longer than the DS from the HT to the inside of the dropout, and the DS chainstay has a little less bend and a higher path than the NDS chainstay. I had a reputable LBS look the frame over, not me, and took pics with the alignment tools to show and communicate the issues. The mech, who I have known for years, told me that it might be possible to pull the DS over but that I would be placing extra stress on the hub bearings and axle as well as the frame. The recommendation of the LBS was to inquire about a warranty frame swap. Sent On-one the pics and had a brief conversation in which I asked them if I needed to measure something specifically, if the frame was within tolerances or if they had any other suggestions. They told me they would pick it up June 7th, their offer not my suggestion, I packed it up and took the morning off work to wait for the pickup which never happened. Since then I've had some minimal communication with them, they said they were talking to the manufacturer and that was 2 weeks ago. Honestly, I don't understand why they would need to consult the manufacturer since my assumption is that this frame was their design and they should have the schematics and tolerance allowances somewhere on hand. So, I'm in limbo as I wait to hear anything from them. Their answer could be any of the following: the frame is not aligned and we'll get you one that is and sorry for the trouble, the frame is not great but within spec so let us know if you have issues with the rear hub or if the frame cracks, or muck off you toad. I've had the frame for quite a while now and am anxious for any answer.

    That said, get out there and ride, because I would do the same.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    How did you notice it was out of alignment

  107. #107
    Why so uptite?
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    How did you notice it was out of alignment
    This is a good article to read. Many of us were mechanics when we were younger and own the tools. If you can find a 'good' shop they will have the tools, but you need to find someone that knows how to use them...

    Frame Alignment | Park Tool
    Collection of fun carbon & titanium bikes

    @tgi_cycling

    .

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    How did you notice it was out of alignment
    I noticed the difference in the chainstays when inspecting the frame after delivery and then went to the LBS to check further. If the dropouts were aligned, it would have been built by now. Just playing the waiting game atm, thankfully I have other wheels to keep me occupied.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    I guess that is good for me. I have looked it over pretty closely and it looks spot on. I building it up this weekend with the on one carbon fork

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    9

    Should I get one of these frames?

    Hi,

    I keep seeing the on-one fatty trail frames going so cheap I feel I need to get one.

    I have tried to exact info from on-one but the customer service is a bit slack (I have had numerous dealings with them they should really sort out there staff). But there are a couple things I would like to ask you guys, the actual users of this frame.

    1. Does the rear skewer keep slipping like the on-one fatty. I had a V2 I really liked the bike but slipping was very annoying. I tried al sorts of things in the end I would use a ring spanner to get it tight, but it would still loosen after 3 rides. So I gave the bike to my brother.

    2. Is the seatpost really 30.9mm? On-one staff can't seem to tell what it is.

    Thanks for your time

    Jono

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    It is really a 30.9 seatpost, but I haven't finished building it so I can't speak to the rear skewer loosening

  112. #112
    I’ll be at Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by LurkerJono View Post
    Hi,

    I keep seeing the on-one fatty trail frames going so cheap I feel I need to get one.

    I have tried to exact info from on-one but the customer service is a bit slack (I have had numerous dealings with them they should really sort out there staff). But there are a couple things I would like to ask you guys, the actual users of this frame.

    1. Does the rear skewer keep slipping like the on-one fatty. I had a V2 I really liked the bike but slipping was very annoying. I tried al sorts of things in the end I would use a ring spanner to get it tight, but it would still loosen after 3 rides. So I gave the bike to my brother.

    2. Is the seatpost really 30.9mm? On-one staff can't seem to tell what it is.

    Thanks for your time

    Jono
    The threaded end cap on the drive side of the V2 rear hub is what causes the rear wheel loosening. Not sure if the hubs that come on the Trail's wheelset are also made by Chosen, but if so, the end cap needs locktite to keep everything tight.
    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Josh Homme

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    18
    I literally just picked up my Large Fatty Trail frame, I am so excited to start building it. What are you guys using for wheelsets and headset?

    So far I am going to purchase:

    Bottombracket: Truvativ GXP Team 100
    Crankset: SRAM GX1000 170mm arm length
    Rear Derailleur: SRAM GX 1x11 x-horizon
    Trigger: SRAM GX 11-speed
    Casette: SRAM XG-1150
    Fork: RockShox Bluto RL Solo Air OneLoc Fatbike Fork 120mm Tapered MaxleLite15 2016

    This is pretty much as far as I have gotten.
    Do you have any recommendations or changes?

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    I have a RF Turbine crankset, 175mm crank length for a 170mm rear wheel. RF Turbine seatpost, Promax seatpost clamp w/ guide for sus post (if I go for a hydraulic seatpost later), Nukeproof hbar, Funn Tron stem, ODI Rogue grips, FSA C-40 IS42/ IS52 headset (would prefer CC 40 but price was too good), Shimano FD, RD and shifters, Sram PG990 cassette 11-36 and chain, On-one floater tires and a carbon fork with 485mm a-c to start. I picked out some yellow housing, but the yellow doesn't quite match so I may go back to black. I have a rear wheel picked out that has a Novatec D102SB hub with a 10mm axle instead of QR. Going either 9 or 10 spd, not sure if I want to go 10 and have 9 spd parts in the bin so trying that first. The parts you picked should be good ones, the gx line is bit more affordable but should be quality, I've seen it on 2K+ builds. Have fun with your build!

    If you have a large frame, my assumption is that you would want longer crank arms... unless this will get nothing but downhill duty.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Here is my build. Finished itlast night. Ride it around the driveway. It feels great. I will get it out on the trails this weekend. It weighed in at 32 lbs 5 oz.

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    Here is my build. Finished itlast night. Ride it around the driveway. It feels great. I will get it out on the trails this weekend. It weighed in at 32 lbs 5 oz.
    I am currently working on my build for one of these also! Do you mind sharing your spec list?

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by LeAstrale View Post
    I am currently working on my build for one of these also! Do you mind sharing your spec list?
    Sure.
    Surly rolling darryl rims custom drilled
    DT Swiss competition spokes
    Sarma rear hub
    DT Swiss front hub
    Sram X5 cranks with race face 32 tooth narrow wide ring and custom spacers to correct chainline.
    Sram bb7 brakes 200mm front disk 180mm rear
    Sunrace 11-42 10 speed cassette
    On one twelfy seat post
    On one 50mm stem
    Azonic world force riser bars
    Sram X9 rear derailleur
    Sram X7 shifter
    On one lock on grips
    WTB Volt saddle
    45nrth Vanhelga tires with bontrager 2.8 tubes
    Rockshox 120mm Bluto
    FSA headset
    VP pedals

    This bike is so much fun. I have been out twice this weekend. I really like how it handles.

  118. #118
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Novatec D102SB hub with a 10mm axle instead of QR.
    Donde?

    I can only find that hub in 36h
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  119. #119
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    BTW: I just emailed Carver about these hubs...

    Bikeman Carver Bikes Fat Bike Rear Hub, 170mm Thru Axle

    Bikeman shows 170QR, 170Thru and 177x12... hopefully the 170Thru is a 10mm thru axle that simply 'sits' in the drop outs.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    The listings I've seen recently for that Novatec hub alone have been 36 hole, so the difficulty is finding the rim. There are still a couple of listings out there for a full wheel with the 32 hole. Fatback import hubs have a 170 thru axle, but I don't know about availability. Unfortunately you have to buy them as a set (170,135) but the price is good. Hope rear is possible but have to get the right endcaps and find a thru axle. Novatec axles sell as a set on Amazon, Fatback doesn't sell the axle individually afaik, both 170,135. I have seen a listing for the Novatec rear axle on alone on fleabay. Another option is to have an axle made simply, with either nuts or bolts to secure it to the frame. Supposedly, the Salsa/Formula? convertible hub is 177/12 that just replaces the endcaps for QR. So another possibility might be to drill out the QR endcaps for 10mm or cut/file down the extra 3.5mm 177 endcaps to use a 12-10mm conversion axle and use a QR skewer. I honestly wouldn't recommend the last suggestion.

    Thanks for the suggestion about Carver, hadn't considered it before.

    Good luck!
    Last edited by dbhammercycle; 08-14-2016 at 06:27 AM. Reason: spelling error
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  121. #121
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Wow, Carver responded quick! (and on a saturday)

    No dice on the 170x10 thru :/
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    3
    K


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    400
    The GEO chart for the Trail Fatty lists a BB drop of 35mm. This seems really high in comparison to most fatbikes that have drops in the range of 55mm to 65mm.

    Can someone with a Trail Fatty confirm the BB drop? I'm wondering if it is a missprint and should have been 53mm.

  124. #124
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    Here is my build. Finished itlast night. Ride it around the driveway. It feels great. I will get it out on the trails this weekend. It weighed in at 32 lbs 5 oz.
    Where'd you find the yellow rim strips? I found blue, but after seeing yours, I like the yellow flair!
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Where'd you find the yellow rim strips? I found blue, but after seeing yours, I like the yellow flair!
    They came with my motobecane Boris X9 as a spare. You might want to check with bikesdirect

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    18
    So I finally finished my fatbike build, took a few months.
    I will provide a picture once its daylight and cleaned!

    My build is like this:
    Wheels:
    Halo Tundra Fatbike rims
    Hope Pro 4 Fatsno Front Hub
    Hope Pro 2 Evo Fatsno rear hub
    DT Swiss spokes & DT Swiss brass nipples pro-lock
    Kenda Red rimtape
    Kenda Fatbike tube (proved to be a huge mistake at 580g each)
    Schwalbe 26x3.0" Freeride tube (180g each - a lot better)
    Kenda Juggernaut Pro 4" (850g each)

    Frame Accessory
    Shimano OT-SP41 shifting housing (if this is not what you're using you should consider upgrading it immediately)
    Sixpack menace 725 Riser Bar (Nugget Gold)
    Sixpack Menace Seatclamp (Nugget gold)
    Sixpack menace seatpost (nugget gold)
    Rockshox Bluto RL 120mm
    ESI Chunky grips (Blue)
    Shimano Combi SPD M324
    Token 60mm Stem (considering shorter soon)
    Hope 170mm QR (Blue - almost matches frame)

    Gear
    SRAM GX1 group:
    SRAM PC-1130 chain
    SRAM GX Casette XG-1150 10-42t
    SRAM GX Rear Derailleur 1x11 Type 2
    SRAM GX 11spd trigger

    Brakes
    SRAM DB5 calipers
    Avid HS1 discs (160mm and 180mm)
    Shimano SM-MA PM-to-PM adaptor (for 180mm front disc)

    Overall I am very satisfied with the bike even though it got more expensive than I had Initially planned. It looks sweet with the Nugget Gold colored parts, now I just need to find yellow rim strips or perhaps try a true tubeless on the Halo rims (even though internet says its really hard)

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    Here is my build. Finished itlast night. Ride it around the driveway. It feels great. I will get it out on the trails this weekend. It weighed in at 32 lbs 5 oz.
    Very nice looking! I just finished building and mine ended up on 14.2 kg but my guess is a difference in the weight of the tires.
    Any suggestions to where I can find the yellow Rim tape?

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by LeAstrale View Post
    Very nice looking! I just finished building and mine ended up on 14.2 kg but my guess is a difference in the weight of the tires.
    Any suggestions to where I can find the yellow Rim tape?
    I got mine with a motobecane Boris x9. Otherwise you can get yellow reflective ones from fatty stripper.

    http://fattystripper.com

  129. #129
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by LeAstrale View Post
    So I finally finished my fatbike build, took a few months.
    I will provide a picture once its daylight and cleaned!
    Pics or it didn't happen!


    Quote Originally Posted by LeAstrale View Post
    Overall I am very satisfied with the bike even though it got more expensive than I had Initially planned. It looks sweet with the Nugget Gold colored parts, now I just need to find yellow rim strips or perhaps try a true tubeless on the Halo rims (even though internet says its really hard)
    Mind me asking ballpark what your build came in at, price wise? It seems you did a great job of buying high value, lower cost components.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,833
    What is the correct headset size to mate with the On One Carbon Fork?

    I just got a Fatty V2 which I think is the same headtube as a Fatty trail. I believe it is 1 1/8 upper and 1.5" lower but the steerer tube of the carbon fork is straight not tapered.

    Any recommendation of part number in a Cane Creek 40 would be appreciated.
    thanks

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by ashwinearl View Post
    What is the correct headset size to mate with the On One Carbon Fork?

    I just got a Fatty V2 which I think is the same headtube as a Fatty trail. I believe it is 1 1/8 upper and 1.5" lower but the steerer tube of the carbon fork is straight not tapered.

    Any recommendation of part number in a Cane Creek 40 would be appreciated.
    thanks
    I run a lefty and it has a 1 1/8" steerer as well. I use the Cane Creek 44ZS/49EC.

    Cane Creek 40 ZS44 EC49 Headset > Components > Headsets > Complete Headsets | Jenson USA

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    On-One Fatty trail-imag0878.jpg

    Some progress is better than no progress. I have to remove a small amount of material from the rims, there's a barb at the spot where the valve stem hole was drilled in the rim. The 10mm thru axle on the rear hub fits very tightly, kinda snaps in place and took some paint with it when I removed the rear wheel. I may sand off a little paint, maybe. The fork looks pretty good, but time will tell how much abuse the cheap carbon will handle. Hopefully as long as a MN winter, or several. I also decided that the blue seatpost clamp really didn't match so I got a black Ragley one. I was also made aware that the Funn Tron stem may or may not be ok for a carbon fork. It is chamfered so I assumed it would be fine, but my LBS guru is trying to confirm via email. I had the LBS cut the steerer and check out the fork since I have no real experience with carbon. I'm anxious to feel the difference between the Fatty T and the MN 2.2 that I rode last year. Anyway, should be a blast to ride once I can finish the build.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    Looking great!!

    Are those Alex Blizzerk wheels? So these come with 10mm thru axle and should fit original Fatty if it fits Fatty trail, correct?
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Yes, they are the Blizzerk 80 rims with the Novatec D102SB 170*10mm rear hub and a Formula 150*15mm front. I got the pinned rims instead of the welded rims to save some money for this inital build but would like to upgrade to a tubeless rim in the future. So, to answer your question the rear hub should fit the original Fatty.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    There are two versions I believe, regular and PRO. Do you know by a chance if the PRO is tubeless ready or what are actually the differences between the two? I take it you have the regular then?
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    The "regular" is a pinned rim, the Pro is a welded rim. Neither is technically a tubeless ready rim, but I'm sure that someone has done the split tube method with them. I would like to eventually get a a Mulefat or the Surly MOBD tubeless rims. I bought the wheels because I wanted the 10mm axle and because I like to run the same rim front and back. Maybe someday I'll find another 170*10 hub, but there really isn't much out there. Also, the industry is going to 177*12 or 190/197*12mm axles, so the likelihood of finding that hub or just the skewer is more and more unlikely for the future.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    The "regular" is a pinned rim, the Pro is a welded rim. Neither is technically a tubeless ready rim, but I'm sure that someone has done the split tube method with them. I would like to eventually get a a Mulefat or the Surly MOBD tubeless rims. I bought the wheels because I wanted the 10mm axle and because I like to run the same rim front and back. Maybe someday I'll find another 170*10 hub, but there really isn't much out there. Also, the industry is going to 177*12 or 190/197*12mm axles, so the likelihood of finding that hub or just the skewer is more and more unlikely for the future.
    I have the Novatecs front and rear on Mulefuts. What's cool about the Novatecs is that you can swap endcaps and axles to TA. Very happy with them so far.

    On-One Fatty trail-12294711_10207196311333474_5665976584991029710_n.jpg
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  138. #138
    Norðwegr
    Reputation: Vegard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    The complete mulefuts are actually getting good reviews: Sun Ringle Mulefüt

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegard View Post
    The complete mulefuts are actually getting good reviews: Sun Ringle Mulefüt
    Had mine for over a year, no issues to report.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  140. #140
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    The fork looks pretty good, but time will tell how much abuse the cheap carbon will handle. Hopefully as long as a MN winter, or several.
    Cheap, chinese carbon fork? Been looking at the ICAN 150mm 485mm a2c fork that can be found on Amazon or Fleabay
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Cheap, chinese carbon fork? Been looking at the ICAN 150mm 485mm a2c fork that can be found on Amazon or Fleabay
    Yes, carbon cycle on ebay, straight from china. They also said they would paint for 50 more, but I think I'll do that locally so I can hopefully get the best match. I got the axle from them too. It's not the most impressive axle, but it'll do. They appear to have good ebay ratings, 2 outside party testers, max weight well above my own mass, and a warranty. Tried to get a used alu RM Blizzard fork but that fell through. The options are limited and I chose the seller I had the best communication with and had good seller ratings amongst the carbon options out there. The Ican forks look reasonable as well. If you go that option I'd be interested to read your opinion.

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    RSD Mayor carbon fork may work ok too for the Fatty Trail with 490mm a2c, but don't know what is the offset on this one. Alternatively, maybe even for the original Fatty, although that would be 490mm a2c vs stock 470mm a2c and maybe that is a bit much, or...?

    RSD 490mm Carbon Fork - RSD
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Good fork, but for the cost I could have gotten the Bluto used, which I still can't afford at the moment. Need to sell some more bike parts, or a bike... Still, a very nice lookin' fork.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Good fork, but for the cost I could have gotten the Bluto used, which I still can't afford at the moment. Need to sell some more bike parts, or a bike... Still, a very nice lookin' fork.
    Thinking about one of these (take off from new bike, so under msrp)

    RSD is: 490mm a2c, 15x150 and 51mm offset. I hope it is close enough to Fatty fork to not negatively affect ride and geo. (470 a2c, 55 offset stock) I guess it would be a better fit for Trail than orig Fatty.
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by kryten View Post
    Thinking about one of these (take off from new bike, so under msrp)

    RSD is: 490mm a2c, 15x150 and 51mm offset. I hope it is close enough to Fatty fork to not negatively affect ride and geo. (470 a2c, 55 offset stock) I guess it would be a better fit for Trail than orig Fatty.
    Those numbers are the same for the alu RMB Blizzard fork I tried to get before it fell through... after I paid for it and waited a month for delivery. Anyway, I think it would suit the Fatty Trail better than the OG Fatty, but it should only slack the head angle by a degree so it could work, the fatty trail would steepen about a degree. The 485/490mm is sus corrected for 100mm travel I believe. Also, with less offset the wheelbase may not elongate much either.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  146. #146
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Steel ICT fork or chinese carbon?

    Both are: 150mm t/a, 483-485mm a2c and around the same price all said and done

    Thoughts?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBLoCo29 View Post
    I have the Novatecs front and rear on Mulefuts. What's cool about the Novatecs is that you can swap endcaps and axles to TA. Very happy with them so far.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	12294711_10207196311333474_5665976584991029710_n.jpg 
Views:	1660 
Size:	165.2 KB 
ID:	1097073
    Interesting, curious about your setup with the Novatec hubs. Since you have Fatty carbon fork, you must be using rear spaced 135mm x 9mm hub. So is this convertible to 150mm x 15mm to support Bluto?
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Steel ICT fork or chinese carbon?

    Both are: 150mm t/a, 483-485mm a2c and around the same price all said and done

    Thoughts?
    Well, you already know what I picked. I dismissed the ICT since it was steel, but it is certainly a nice fork. I saw a listing on ebay for a purple 907 fork that would work, but I couldn't reconcile the purple with a yellow handlebar. Yes, I recognize that I am in MN and the football team colors are purple and gold. It just didn't synch for the picture in my mind of the finished bike. Anyway, the RMB Blizzard fork would work but I don't believe they sell aftermarket. I think the 907 fork is available to be purchased separately.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by kryten View Post
    Interesting, curious about your setup with the Novatec hubs. Since you have Fatty carbon fork, you must be using rear spaced 135mm x 9mm hub. So is this convertible to 150mm x 15mm to support Bluto?
    I don't believe the hub is convertible to 150*15.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  150. #150
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Thanks for your thoughts. I went with the carbon fork.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    On-One Fatty trail-imag0892.jpg

    Waiting on cables. Tires seated nicely on the rims. All black wheels look pretty badass, I wasn't sure if I would like them as I tend to like a little color for contrast. Reach is certainly better than the MN 2.2, but there's no real surprise there considering the difference in the ETT. I'm getting anxious to throw a leg over and get it muddy before the snow.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    250
    looks good. Curious to see how your framed tires wear. Mine have worn pretty quickly and have always leaked stans through the sides. They seal up nice and hold for many months before I need to top off again, but the seeping is a little annoying.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by blowery View Post
    looks good. Curious to see how your framed tires wear. Mine have worn pretty quickly and have always leaked stans through the sides. They seal up nice and hold for many months before I need to top off again, but the seeping is a little annoying.
    Thanks, it's been too long to sort it all out but I'm glad for the progress. I've got a couple months riding on those tires from the MN, perhaps a couple hundred miles total on the trail and snow with very little road miles and they don't have much wear as a result. That said, the rubber is grippy so I expect they would wear quickly. I have a pair of On-one white Floaters that I thought would go better with the white'n'blue MN 2.2. Part of me wants to attempt a magic gear SS and get out there, but the other wheels will sit over the winter so I'm gonna stay skinny for the moment.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMAG0892.jpg 
Views:	1552 
Size:	100.7 KB 
ID:	1099055

    Waiting on cables. Tires seated nicely on the rims. All black wheels look pretty badass, I wasn't sure if I would like them as I tend to like a little color for contrast. Reach is certainly better than the MN 2.2, but there's no real surprise there considering the difference in the ETT. I'm getting anxious to throw a leg over and get it muddy before the snow.
    Looks great. Any chance you could measure the BB height with the rigid fork? I'm thinking about building a similar bike and am wondering what the shorter fork does to the GEO.

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    Looks great. Any chance you could measure the BB height with the rigid fork? I'm thinking about building a similar bike and am wondering what the shorter fork does to the GEO.
    Hey there Bob, I measured the BB at approximately 12.5" (317.5mm). I would have posted a pic but the garage at night has terrible light and they didn't turn out very well. I did get the cables and housing so I'll post a pic with a ruler, once I have everything put together, for you. It looks pretty tall in the pic, it's the same for my B'ed MUSS actually. I'd be curious to see what is with 650b+, probably even taller with 700c+.

    Sorry guys, I know, it's 29+. It just bugs me that we bikers can't get along and use terminology as a tool of passive aggression. Probably just my mood this morning.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    On-One Fatty trail-imag0896.jpgOn-One Fatty trail-imag0898.jpg
    Well, not the best pics, but hopefully carry the point. The ruler is in the frame for the BB height question I responded to earlier, keep in mind the driveway slants away from the garage so that needs to be taken into account when looking at the height. I measured 12.5" previously on the flat garage floor. Also, you can see there is plenty of room for a bigger tire in the fork in the 2nd pic. I promise these will be the last pics I post, unless I retake them, in which case I'll swap them out instead of posting anew.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  157. #157
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    12.5" is actually surprisingly tall for a rigid fatty

    My Surly Instigator 2.0 is ~ 12.5 before sag and that's with a 25mm longer fork (a2c) than what it was designed around
    Last edited by 06HokieMTB; 10-13-2016 at 02:03 PM.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    I agree, my b'd MUSS is the same as well. I'm certainly not worried about pedal strikes. I suppose there will be some compression of the tires at low pressure that will lower the BB a little, but not that much. Maybe I should try another ruler...
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  159. #159
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Kinda makes me wonder if we should've used 460mm a2c carbon forks (say, On one Fatty) instead of 483mm...

    Also, makes me wonder if the fatty trail was originally designed with a shorter fork and then was "over forked" for a more Trail attitude?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  160. #160
    Trying to be helpful
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    12.5" is actually surprisingly tall for a rigid fatty

    My Surly Instigator 2.0 is ~ 12.5 before sag and that's with a 2m longer fork (a2c) than what it was designed around
    Maybe, kind of, sort of, depends, if you look at the 2017 Salsa Mukluk, Surly ICT/Wednesday or the RSD Mayor, all have a BB @ 12.5, doesnt seem that far off at all really. I guess given the 4" tires it would suggest possibly it's a little tall considering the Salsa Beargrease, also only able to fit 4" tires, has a BB @ 12" .
    #THELEGENDMTB
    2016 RSD Mayor
    2018 Diamondback Release 5CA

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Kinda makes me wonder if we should've used 460mm a2c carbon forks (say, On one Fatty) instead of 483mm...

    Also, makes me wonder if the fatty trail was originally designed with a shorter fork and then was "over forked" for a more Trail attitude?
    The bike doesn't look to me like the front end is too high. I'm not worried about it, but the proof will be in the ridin'. As far as the original design of the FT utilizing a shorter fork... who knows?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  162. #162
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Pedal'd it yet?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Of course!





    Oh, you probably want me to elaborate. I took it out last week for a little city riding and this past Saturday for about a 10 mile ride with a little non-maintained pump track action for another 1/2 hr maybe. It rode well but I need to remember to put a little blue locktite on the front axle. I got a couple looks followed by a thumb's up from a lovely looking lady on a cyclo-cross Scott, couldn't keep up with her though. On the pump track it's a bit long for some of the tight turns, but I think I can do a better job of anticipating the turn and start early. The bars are a little wider so I scraped up my hands a little, but some brush clearing is the answer there. I was smiling certainly. I do have some chain rub in the low-low where the chain is below the stay. I'm hoping a derailleur adjustment is all that is needed, but wonder if a traditional RD would solve it if I can't make the Shadow work. The chain clears above the stay just fine, I'm running a 2x9. I had a good time and intend on more good times.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  164. #164
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    slowly piecing the build together. I picked up a Vee Bulldozer 4.7 for the rear and a Bud 4.8 for the front. Mulefut 80SL rims. Everything I read says the Bulldozer is about the same size as a 4.6 GC and 4.6 Dunderbeist, which both have been shown to fit this frame.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    I think you will be fine as a 1x, I'm just running it with an FD since it has the block. I haven't decided if it's worth sawing off yet. ;P
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Kinda makes me wonder if we should've used 460mm a2c carbon forks (say, On one Fatty) instead of 483mm...

    Also, makes me wonder if the fatty trail was originally designed with a shorter fork and then was "over forked" for a more Trail attitude?
    I mocked mine up with the On One Fatty carbon fork. It was way too low in the front. It sits much better with the 120mm bluto. The bottom bracket height does not seem tall at all when riding. I haven't measured it though. I have had this bike built up for a while now and it rides great. I have ridden anything from easy single track to our local bike park downhill runs. Handles everything well.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    I mocked mine up with the On One Fatty carbon fork. It was way too low in the front. It sits much better with the 120mm bluto. The bottom bracket height does not seem tall at all when riding. I haven't measured it though. I have had this bike built up for a while now and it rides great. I have ridden anything from easy single track to our local bike park downhill runs. Handles everything well.
    I've been watching this thread for awhile. I have a V1 with cracked frame that I'm in the process of transferring parts over to my fatty trail frame. Anyway I have the on one carbon straight steer fork and was wondering what headset you used on your build?. Also seat post 31.6? Thanks

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by dezzrat1 View Post
    I've been watching this thread for awhile. I have a V1 with cracked frame that I'm in the process of transferring parts over to my fatty trail frame. Anyway I have the on one carbon straight steer fork and was wondering what headset you used on your build?. Also seat post 31.6? Thanks
    I used a fsa c40 with 1.5 to 1.125 headset lower cup when I mocked it up. I didn't like it so I went right to the bluto. The seatpost is a 30.9.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    63
    Cool thanks for the reply

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    400
    Built but not ridden. BB drop with 483mm fork is ~53mm. HA is 69.5 deg. STA is 74 deg. WB is 1170mm (size large). Frame weight (no headset or seat collar) is 2127 grams.

    Clearance in the rear is good enough for a Ground Control 4.6 but no bigger.

    Frame is a bit flexier in the rear compared to my old 2012 Mukluk.

    Nothing else to report until ridden.

    On-One Fatty trail-imag1894.jpg

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    What is that fork? Looks good, and you have some anything cage mounts too!

    I really liked this color scheme and had originally planned for this color, picked out an orange Funn Fatboy bar too. Unfortunately, at the time I could order the frame only the blue was left. How is the paint? The blue is quite chippy and I already have cable rub marks on the head tube after only a few hours of riding.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    What is that fork? Looks good, and you have some anything cage mounts too!

    I really liked this color scheme and had originally planned for this color, picked out an orange Funn Fatboy bar too. Unfortunately, at the time I could order the frame only the blue was left. How is the paint? The blue is quite chippy and I already have cable rub marks on the head tube after only a few hours of riding.
    Fork is a Salsa bearpaw fork. I found someone with a brand new post-recall replacement they were selling cheap.

    Paint looks good but durability TBD.

  173. #173
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    Just swapped the frame from a first gen. Fatty. Feels good so far, though need to tweak fit a bit. Only around the drive/yard so far. Should get it out on trail in a few days.







    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,592
    Who's bought a complete Fatty Trail in the US recently - do you get hit with any extra VAT charges - or does the cost of the bike plus shipping cover all the $$ you need to shell out to get one?

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    350
    Frame is on sale for $99.38 again looks like in both colors.
    2018 RSD Middlechild
    2010 Giant STP SS

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    That's lovely scrub. The blue Hopes look nice. Are those 65mm rims?

    @MMcG I'm not sure you can get a complete in the States since they closed the Cali warehouse. You may want to ask On-one directly.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  177. #177
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    That's lovely scrub. The blue Hopes look nice. Are those 65mm rims?

    @MMcG I'm not sure you can get a complete in the States since they closed the Cali warehouse. You may want to ask On-one directly.
    Yep, Marge Lites. Could go a bit wider, don't really need or want to though.

    This size/tire combo works pretty well for me. Tends to see more dirt than snow.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SundayRiverRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    153
    So, a 4.6 will fit in the rear of these? I have a Bluto 120 and another bike I could swap a bunch of parts from and put it on one of these.

    I think a set of 4.6's would work fine for most of the snow riding i do, and I could always drop down to 4's in the summer I guess.

    Thinking about ordering one of these today.

  179. #179
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by SundayRiverRider View Post
    So, a 4.6 will fit in the rear of these? I have a Bluto 120 and another bike I could swap a bunch of parts from and put it on one of these.

    I think a set of 4.6's would work fine for most of the snow riding i do, and I could always drop down to 4's in the summer I guess.

    Thinking about ordering one of these today.
    yesnomaybe.

    Floater on a 65mm rim fits with plenty of room, but I eyeballed the front wheel Bud 4.8/Marge Lite combo on the back and it's a no-go.

    Some sort of slightly smaller combo may be OK, but idunnomantryitandsee.

    But hell, at $100 for the frame, it's a cheap experiment. I feel it's certainly an improvement over the original Fatty Anything else I guess depends on what you are coming from/comparing to. If you are wanting it for mucho snow use (up in ME) then it may not suit the best.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    I feel it's certainly an improvement over the original Fatty
    would you elaborate? i'm in the market for a fatbike but can't stand the look of the large frame. i was actually considering buying a complete and an OG fatty v2 frame, dropping the fork to 100mm of travel and swapping everything over...

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    But hell, at $100 for the frame, it's a cheap experiment. I feel it's certainly an improvement over the original Fatty Anything else I guess depends on what you are coming from/comparing to. If you are wanting it for mucho snow use (up in ME) then it may not suit the best.
    Curious too as to why you feel it's an improvement over the original fatty? (thats not a snarky question, actually just curious)

  182. #182
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by blowery View Post
    Curious too as to why you feel it's an improvement over the original fatty? (thats not a snarky question, actually just curious)
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal View Post
    would you elaborate? i'm in the market for a fatbike but can't stand the look of the large frame. i was actually considering buying a complete and an OG fatty v2 frame, dropping the fork to 100mm of travel and swapping everything over...
    Will get back to you two in a day or so. Have had one decent ride, want to get another in before making more sweeping statements.

    Obviously "better" is a nebulous and possibly myopic statement. YMMV.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Pics or it didn't happen!




    Mind me asking ballpark what your build came in at, price wise? It seems you did a great job of buying high value, lower cost components.
    I am sorry about the late reply but here goes
    I have only a scenic pic from when I finished putting all the parts together and then this picture from my very first ride (I have yet to start filming my rides also)On-One Fatty trail-img_20160901_225957.jpgOn-One Fatty trail-img_20160902_072934.jpg
    The build ended in approx 2500 USD but we have 25% VAT so that accounts for some of it.
    It rides very well when its dry, but the Kenda Juggernaut Pro 26x4.00 isn't worth anything in mud, so I am currently waiting for some Specialized Ground Control 26x4.00 and a set of On-One Floaters 26x4.00 so i should be set for the muddy winter in Northern Europe.

    tbh. the bike ordered completely from on-one with all components is still a lot cheaper than my build ended up being, and I am torn between options if I would have built it from frame up if I was going to do it again.

    In the meantime between building the fatbike and and researching parts I almost ended up selling my regular Trek 8500 (2011) MTB, so soon its fatbike only!

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    18
    Love the yellow bar! (Couldn't find proper yellow parts to match the logo for my bike, so I went with Orange instead)

  185. #185
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    Fatty Trail vs original Fatty

    Longer WB, front end, and stays. Motors along once up to speed better, IMO, due mostly to those changes. And the HTA.

    Doesn't seem to have lost much, if anything, on tight twisty or low speed tech bits.

    Same setup as on the original frame but for the different headset.

    Only thing "off" was longer front end and reach. Just a hair longer and taller on the front end than I'd really like. Solved by going to a Syntace 44mms Flatforce stem to get the bar where I really prefer. More or less same spot as my other bikes.

    Obviously these are just my preferences for where and how I ride though. Grain of salt, etc. Overall better geo for more trail oriented riding over snow I feel. Should still be ok there though.
    Highly variable I suppose depending one what sort of winters one may have. Our snow sport's sucks for riding most years, but we get lots of iced over trail and super slick leaves. Not enough to where I'd want studded tires, but will take fatties at low psi. I don't think it'll be bad in snow by any means, but that wasn't my main priority for the bike.

    Any specific questions, will try to answer. Built up nice and smoothly, no issues.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    145
    Do you think a 4.8 maxxis minion will fit that on one fatty carbon fork? Thank you

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePodraza View Post
    Do you think a 4.8 maxxis minion will fit that on one fatty carbon fork? Thank you
    This question may not be answered well here considering the Fatty Trail is designed around the 120mm Bluto or a rigid fork with an A-C length of about 500. I don't think many of us have installed or tried the On-One Fatty carbon fatty fork with this frame. You may want to consider asking in the Fatty forum or doing an exhaustive google search.

    I've seen that Guitar Ted has fit the Surly Bud in the fork, perhaps start there with the search. I honestly don't know how that tire compares with the Minion, but that may be another searchable google adventure.

    Good luck!
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    230
    What size is this bike & could you tell me what the measurment of the top tube right where the stick is in the pic?

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    Fatty Trail vs original Fatty

    Longer WB, front end, and stays. Motors along once up to speed better, IMO, due mostly to those changes. And the HTA.

    Doesn't seem to have lost much, if anything, on tight twisty or low speed tech bits.

    Same setup as on the original frame but for the different headset.

    Only thing "off" was longer front end and reach. Just a hair longer and taller on the front end than I'd really like. Solved by going to a Syntace 44mms Flatforce stem to get the bar where I really prefer. More or less same spot as my other bikes.

    Obviously these are just my preferences for where and how I ride though. Grain of salt, etc. Overall better geo for more trail oriented riding over snow I feel. Should still be ok there though.
    Highly variable I suppose depending one what sort of winters one may have. Our snow sport's sucks for riding most years, but we get lots of iced over trail and super slick leaves. Not enough to where I'd want studded tires, but will take fatties at low psi. I don't think it'll be bad in snow by any means, but that wasn't my main priority for the bike.

    Any specific questions, will try to answer. Built up nice and smoothly, no issues.
    thanks scrubsy. i ended up ordering both a complete trail and a v2 frame to swap the parts over to. everything you said makes me feel okay with this decision: the trails where i've recently moved are mostly of the tight and twisty variety, so the v2 should be a good fit

    i couldn't tell if the headset would swap over but it sounds like not - what kind of headset does the fatty v2 take? info on the website is hard to parse

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by synnie View Post
    What size is this bike & could you tell me what the measurment of the top tube right where the stick is in the pic?
    I'm going to assume the question is directed at me. I looked at my original picture and the the yard stick is 28.25in or approximately 719mm at the top of the tube where the measuring stick is leaning. It is probably appropriate to subtract roughly 1/2 in or approximately 12.5m from those figures given the driveway slants away from the bike. If it helps further, I'm about 5'11" with about a 32" inseam from floor to crotch and the frame is a med. 18". Where I stand over the bike, in front of the bend, I still have some room in case of a hard dismount.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  191. #191
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal View Post
    thanks scrubsy. i ended up ordering both a complete trail and a v2 frame to swap the parts over to. everything you said makes me feel okay with this decision: the trails where i've recently moved are mostly of the tight and twisty variety, so the v2 should be a good fit

    i couldn't tell if the headset would swap over but it sounds like not - what kind of headset does the fatty v2 take? info on the website is hard to parse
    44mms upper 49mms lower.

    Bearing only, no cups. Bearings out of a Cane Creek unit I had kicking about popped right in. No issues so far.

    Wasn't sure either. Figured to order what was needed if none of my spare part box stuff would fit.

    Bearings from the stock complete v1 headset pulled from the cups *ought* to work.

    Built my v1 from frame up though. No stock headset to look at to be sure for you.

    To be fair, the v1 rides and handles pretty well. I just feel the v2 is a smidge better, particularly if meant more for general trail hoolganery than just snow.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    230
    I am about to order the On One Fatty Trail complete bike, are there any problems setting up the wheels tubeless, & any more issues or updates on the rear QR coming loose?

  193. #193
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    44mms upper 49mms lower.
    It's an Integrated stack headset. Thought it was an IS42/52?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,461
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    It's an Integrated stack headset. Thought it was an IS42/52?
    I think he was answering a question about the original fatty V2 specs for the headset. The Fatty Trail is an FSA C-40, IS42/ IS52.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    44mms upper 49mms lower.
    thanks mang

    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    To be fair, the v1 rides and handles pretty well. I just feel the v2 is a smidge better, particularly if meant more for general trail hoolganery than just snow.
    my frame and bike just arrived. i built the fatty trail up and, as predicted, just can't handle how it looks. i'm torn between at least riding it before swapping the parts over to the fatty v2, so i have a basis to compare; and tearing it down now so i can flip the frame in its current unridden condition. your sense that there isn't a big difference between the two is pushing me towards skipping the ride test and just committing to the v2

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal View Post
    thanks mang



    my frame and bike just arrived. i built the fatty trail up and, as predicted, just can't handle how it looks. i'm torn between at least riding it before swapping the parts over to the fatty v2, so i have a basis to compare; and tearing it down now so i can flip the frame in its current unridden condition. your sense that there isn't a big difference between the two is pushing me towards skipping the ride test and just committing to the v2
    The fatty trail has a much longer top tube and reach than the V2. Top tube on a large V2 is 610 and fatty trail is 642. I personally would be very cramped with a short stem on the V2. You may want to give the fatty trail a couple of rides.

  197. #197
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by boomforeal View Post
    thanks mang



    my frame and bike just arrived. i built the fatty trail up and, as predicted, just can't handle how it looks. i'm torn between at least riding it before swapping the parts over to the fatty v2, so i have a basis to compare; and tearing it down now so i can flip the frame in its current unridden condition. your sense that there isn't a big difference between the two is pushing me towards skipping the ride test and just committing to the v2
    agree with johnny5jz - give it a ride or two before deciding, maybe swap back and forth between the two a bit. not too terribly hard to do a quick swap.

    you won't notice when riding how the thing looks, so for sure go for whichever feels best, even if its the ugly one!
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  198. #198
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,994
    Strip the paint on the Fatty Trail?

    I've always wanted to do that on an alloy frame... I think the RAW look is awesome
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    I'm going to assume the question is directed at me. I looked at my original picture and the the yard stick is 28.25in or approximately 719mm at the top of the tube where the measuring stick is leaning. It is probably appropriate to subtract roughly 1/2 in or approximately 12.5m from those figures given the driveway slants away from the bike. If it helps further, I'm about 5'11" with about a 32" inseam from floor to crotch and the frame is a med. 18". Where I stand over the bike, in front of the bend, I still have some room in case of a hard dismount.
    Thanks I am waffling between a small & medium my inseam is 30.5, how does the fit feel for you tight, roomy?

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    334

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Strip the paint on the Fatty Trail?
    i don't mind the paint at all - its the gatelike profile of the frame, the awkward gap between the top and downtubes at the headtube, and the upward swing of the top tube at the seat tube that make me cringe (on the large frame - scrub's small is a looker!)

    this:

    On-One Fatty trail-%24_86.jpg

    vs. this:

    On-One Fatty trail-930487d1413077022-one-fat-bike-frame-20141011_153524.jpg

    no contest, imo

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny5jz View Post
    The fatty trail has a much longer top tube and reach than the V2. Top tube on a large V2 is 610 and fatty trail is 642. I personally would be very cramped with a short stem on the V2. You may want to give the fatty trail a couple of rides.
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    agree with johnny5jz - give it a ride or two before deciding, maybe swap back and forth between the two a bit. not too terribly hard to do a quick swap.
    i've run the numbers, and where it counts the two aren't actually all that far off

    On-One Fatty trail-screen-shot-2016-11-15-9.55.26-pm.png

    stock geo numbers with a rigid fork on the left, adjusted for a bluto at 100mm on the right. with the bluto, reach on the v2 is less than 10mm shorter than the trail, the bb is actually a hair lower, and while the sta is identical the hta is .5* slacker

    if i was home with access to my workshop i'd definitely switch back and forth to try things out - but i'm down to a toolbox and the kitchen floor; tinkering isn't really all that appealing under the circumstances

    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    you won't notice when riding how the thing looks, so for sure go for whichever feels best, even if its the ugly one!
    i'm a vain, shallow person; it would keep me up at night, picturing that jabberwocky lurking in my shed

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. On One Fatty and Baby Fatty, complete or kit
    By eugenemtbing in forum Where are the Best Deals?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 10:39 AM
  2. Trail fatty post Eurobike?
    By ubergn0men in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-02-2013, 08:42 AM
  3. On-One Fatty versus Crawler for Trail Riding
    By Venturewest in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-09-2013, 09:26 AM
  4. Choosing a Fatty for trail use.
    By MidNight_Rider in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-01-2013, 06:10 AM

Members who have read this thread: 95

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.