Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    28

    Theoretic lightest weight fat bike with Manitou Mastodon

    Bike weights are often notoriously hard to sort out. Otso lists their premium Voytek build at 21.4 pounds (rigid fork, 26 x 4.0 tubeless). I'm curious folks think this same bike, with a Mastodon and 26 x 4.6 would with in at. This would seem like the lightest Manitou snow bike setup. Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,835
    Probably 25-26 lbs? Pretty light I guess for a fatty

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    914
    I have an Otso and just put a Mastodon on it. The Mastodon Pro added about 3 pounds. 4.6 tires are a squeeze on the back. (D5 will not fit without some jagging around)

    My bike is an XL and has XT/XTR with Whisky rims. Tubeless and rigid fork it tips the scale at about 25#. A good bit of weight is in the Sunrace cassette. 28# with the Mastodon is still 4-5 pounds lighter than my old alloy, rigid fork, Mukluk.
    Last edited by BlueCheesehead; 2 Weeks Ago at 08:04 AM.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    I have an Otso and just put a Mastodon on it. The Mastodon Pro added about 3 pounds. 4.6 tires are a squeeze on the back. (D5 will not fit without some jagging around)

    My bike is an XL and has XT/XTR with Whisky rims. Tubeless and rigid fork it tips the scale at about 25#. A good bit of weight is in the Sunrace cassette. 28# with the Mastodon is still 4-5 pounds lighter than my old alloy Mukluk.
    What tire and what size?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    939
    I have the XL echo with a Bluto, and dueling Bud's (4.8'' tires) and with pedals & cages (complete, ready to ride, not the way manufacturers weigh them), it is 28.5lbs....and that is with Hed rims, the plastic ones. When you consider the Mastodon is heavier than the Bluto, and you probably aren't building it with plastic Hed's...I just don't see how the bike you're talking about is going to come in under mine...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by scottyferrari View Post
    What tire and what size?
    I currently have a Dillinger (not studded) on the back and Vanhelga front, both 4". Rims are Wisky 70's. For winter I will switch to Mulfuts with studded Dillinger 4 on back and studdded D5 on front. For the Fat Bike Birkie I will put the rigid fork back on.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,773
    If we're armchair racing you should check out LaMere.
    https://www.lamerecycles.com/fatbike
    Their lightest is 21.8lbs. Their 150mm fork is 700g. Mastadon lists at 2210g. The difference adds 3.32lbs.

    Click on their google doc and they have a weightweenie tab that shows 19.38lbs.

  8. #8
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,835
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    If we're armchair racing you should check out LaMere.
    https://www.lamerecycles.com/fatbike
    Their lightest is 21.8lbs. Their 150mm fork is 700g. Mastadon lists at 2210g. The difference adds 3.32lbs.

    Click on their google doc and they have a weightweenie tab that shows 19.38lbs.
    Edit..n/m...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,257
    And the Lamere weights are without pedals, so we are talking about 26lbs bikes at best. Not to mention they were probably measured without sealant and with HuskerDu light tires.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    914
    Worrying about weight and tossing on a fork nearing 5# on for snow riding is kind of funny in and of itself.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    Worrying about weight and tossing fork nearing 5# on for snow riding is kind of funny in and of itself.
    So, the snow I end up riding is often melted and re-frozen snowmobile tracks (on rental fatties) and based on that I'm thinking I'd want a suspension fork in the winter. But I could have asked the question a lot of ways--I'd intend to ride the bike year round, and ideally I'd have really fat tires and a carbon fixed fork for snow (assuming I ride different routes) and a bouncy fork and plus tires for the other three seasons. I was just trying to fix enough variables to get some handle on what actual weights would be. The Lamere website (specifically the Google doc) was extremely useful in terms of sorting weight out.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    And the Lamere weights are without pedals, so we are talking about 26lbs bikes at best. Not to mention they were probably measured without sealant and with HuskerDu light tires.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The Google doc gives actual weights. On the front page of the website they do have an asterisk stating the weights they quote are with HuskerDu light tires--I don't think the make a comment about sealant, but they do estimate the weight of sealant at 300 grams, and they also have the weight of the rim tape and Schwalbe tires.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    914
    ^^^

    Okay, gotcha. My fork was purchased for the same reason, summertime plus wheels.

    While I did not buy my Otso for light weight, I quickly realized how much more responsive it was compared to a Muk that was 7-8# heavier.
    Last edited by BlueCheesehead; 2 Weeks Ago at 02:36 PM.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    28
    Interesting, as the weights between the Lameres and Otsos seem similar. Gotta decide between the lower Q-factor advantage of the Otso, vs what is I assume the ability to fit wider tires to the Lamere. Anyone know the Q factor difference between the two?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    ....... and with HuskerDu light tires.
    Juggernaut Pro's actually
    Quote Originally Posted by scottyferrari View Post
    ........ The Lamere website (specifically the Google doc) was extremely useful in terms of sorting weight out.
    There are a lot of tabs with tons of info, if nothing but placeholders until you can narrow down your choices and then verify manufacturer specs.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    754
    4-5 pounds makes a noticeable difference with a fatbike. I happen to have two near-identical Rocky Mountain Suzi Q's at the moment. One carbon around 26.5 pounds, one aluminum around 31 pounds. Besides the obvious picking them up test, you do notice the lighter weight quickly when riding. You suddenly feel like you are riding a regular mtb again, just with fatter tires. The heavier bike feels like a "fat bike". Once you get hauling, and after 10 minutes, you get used to the weight more or less.

    But I was surprised I'd notice the weight like I did. And both bikes have identical wheels and tires, only frame and components are lighter between the 2 bikes.

    Just hammering on the pedals as if going up a hill, the carbon 26.5 pounder feels much better.

    So a light weight fat bike is still a noble goal, even with a 4+ pound fork on it!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by scottyferrari View Post
    Interesting, as the weights between the Lameres and Otsos seem similar. Gotta decide between the lower Q-factor advantage of the Otso, vs what is I assume the ability to fit wider tires to the Lamere. Anyone know the Q factor difference between the two?
    LaMere has two different frames, one with 177 and one with 197 rear spacing. I am not sure the Q factors.

    You should look at geometry too. LaMere has steeper head tube and longer chain stays.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    LaMere has two different frames, one with 177 and one with 197 rear spacing. I am not sure the Q factors.

    You should look at geometry too. LaMere has steeper head tube and longer chain stays.
    I'm 57 and ride a ton but I have concerns about my knees, so the Q is important. But so is the geometry, and I appreciate your comments. Have to fold that into the mix as well.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by scottyferrari View Post
    Interesting, as the weights between the Lameres and Otsos seem similar. Gotta decide between the lower Q-factor advantage of the Otso, vs what is I assume the ability to fit wider tires to the Lamere. Anyone know the Q factor difference between the two?
    The Otso has the lowest Q factor of any fat tire capable bike on the market @ 183mm if you use the Race Face Next Crankset. It’s a few mm wider if you use rhe Aeffect. The Lamere at its narrowest is 203mm, which is pretty common for a 170 spaced rear fat bike. That being said, you can fit a lot more tire on the back of the Lamere.

  20. #20
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    767
    My ''skinny bike'', with Juggernaut Pros mounted on 100s (casing width approx 4.5'') weighs 7.8kg (17.2)lbs (w/o pedals as per industry standard) and 17.5lbs with pedals (Bebob Ti). That is with a 520g carbon fork. The Mastodon in my basement would add 3.7lbs, so the new weight would be approx 20.9lbs / 21.2lbs (with pedals).

    (My Bluto would shave approx 3/4lb and the 1450g (3.2lbs) full carbon suspension fork that I have (but never tested as it is 135mm) would save 1.8lbs over the Mastodon, so approx. 19.4lbs with suspension fork (and Bebops)

    The bike is the (further lightened) prototype of this one, and it sits on 100s vs the 80s on the production model.
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    My ''skinny bike'', with Juggernaut Pros mounted on 100s (casing width approx 4.5'') weighs 7.8kg (17.2)lbs (w/o pedals as per industry standard) and 17.5lbs with pedals (Bebob Ti). That is with a 520g carbon fork. The Mastodon in my basement would add 3.7lbs, so the new weight would be approx 20.9lbs / 21.2lbs (with pedals).

    (My Bluto would shave approx 3/4lb and the 1450g (3.2lbs) full carbon suspension fork that I have (but never tested as it is 135mm) would save 1.8lbs over the Mastodon, so approx. 19.4lbs with suspension fork (and Bebops)

    The bike is the (further lightened) prototype of this one, and it sits on 100s vs the 80s on the production model.
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/
    Wow, that is crazy light. There is nothing like riding a mountain bike with a 520g carbon fork and brakes that cannot stop you. I don’t even want to think about the wheels. ☺️

    I have seen a video of a rigid “team edition” 9Point7 at 19lbs, a pig compared to a 17.5lbs fat bike. 😳
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    My ''skinny bike'', with Juggernaut Pros mounted on 100s (casing width approx 4.5'') weighs 7.8kg (17.2)lbs (w/o pedals as per industry standard) and 17.5lbs with pedals (Bebob Ti). That is with a 520g carbon fork. The Mastodon in my basement would add 3.7lbs, so the new weight would be approx 20.9lbs / 21.2lbs (with pedals).

    (My Bluto would shave approx 3/4lb and the 1450g (3.2lbs) full carbon suspension fork that I have (but never tested as it is 135mm) would save 1.8lbs over the Mastodon, so approx. 19.4lbs with suspension fork (and Bebops)

    The bike is the (further lightened) prototype of this one, and it sits on 100s vs the 80s on the production model.
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/
    Boom, mic drop.

    It looks like Diamant may now be a Trek affiliate. Are they still making the F1 or did they abandon fatties?

  23. #23
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,119
    There are a few things I've learned with my fat-bike. One is that even on a fat-bike, Race Face Next cranks are not reliable. Another is that a very wide bar is nice for leverage-similar to single speeds, to help get the massive tires up to speed from a standstill or lower speeds. Lightweight rotors work fine if your ground is mostly level and your descents are short, but they heat up extremely fast on steeper sustained stuff, so beware. And then there's the accessories, being able to take the bike into places not normally ridden by mountain bikes requires a bit of extra gear and preparedness. I still try to keep my bike as light as I can for rideability and racing, but there are a few places where some extra weight on a fat-bike helps.

    Suspension forks is another area where I want the part to perform, regardless of the weight, so I'd rather take a heavier fork that performs significantly better, than a damper that spikes or blows through travel.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  24. #24
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    It looks like Diamant may now be a Trek affiliate. Are they still making the F1 or did they abandon fatties?
    (German) Diamant is a Trek affiliate, while Norwegian Diamant is not.
    I think they have discontinued fatbikes, though. (I left the company last spring)
    Looks like they are dumping some remaining 2017 models, like this one with 2XLs and room for 5.5's for $920 (plus tax):
    https://www.gsport.no/206453-diamant...engsykkel-2017

Similar Threads

  1. Manitou Mastodon?
    By Dnek1999 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1436
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 12:55 PM
  2. Manitou Mastodon for sale.
    By mikesee in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-09-2017, 01:51 PM
  3. Manitou Mastodon for sale.
    By mikesee in forum Classifieds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2017, 07:36 PM
  4. Manitou Mastodon review.
    By mikesee in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-12-2017, 09:51 AM
  5. Sneak Peek at the Manitou Mastodon
    By Dougal in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-06-2017, 11:18 AM

Members who have read this thread: 123

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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.