Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307

    Thinking of getting a fat bike

    I'm considering getting a fat bike, we get hardly any snow over in the UK where I live and I'm miles from the coast so no beach riding.

    My little lad (he's 4) is mad on bikes and we spend quite a lot of time riding round the local forest (at the end of my garden), which is a mixture of rooty single track, typical fire roads and when it dries out it can be rather sandy, but when it's wet it's very muddy indeed.

    I currently own two very XC / Marathon focused bikes, a 29er HT and a 29er FS, and to be honest I think a fat bike might be fun for wandering round the forest with him.

    The one I'm considering is the KTM Fat Rat, it looks like a decent spec to me with an alloy frame & finishing kit, Rockshox Bluto TK, SRAM X9 2x10 transmission, Shimano Deore M615 Brakes and Hayes Mulefoot 80mm tubeless ready rims with Schwalbe Jumbo Jim TLR tyres, it's reduced in a bike shop near me from US$2480 to US$1750.

    I'd probably change the transmission for 1x11 with Shimano M8000 XT and put a 28t ring on the front as my other bikes are all 1x11.

    It looks like this

    What do you all think?

  2. #2
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,111
    Looks fine. The component spec is straight forward enough.

    Be prepared. Your little guy is gonna want one too.
    I like turtles

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    Looks fine. The component spec is straight forward enough.

    Be prepared. Your little guy is gonna want one too.
    He already thinks they're ace, although he's a bit short at the moment

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    Both On-one and Framed have mini fatties for kidlets.

    Fat Rat seems pretty good.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307
    Thanks guys

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishboy316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    429
    Looks good to me! I would also go 1X11. Fat is fun for sure. Trek makes a 24" also.
    Have fun with it.
    2013 Cannondale F29 1 Alloy
    2013 Cervelo S5 Rival
    2012 Trek X01 crosser
    2017 Trek Farley 7
    2017Trek Domane SLR 6

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    125
    For $1750 it seems a good deal; except the rear hub is 177 width?
    I wonder if that is a typo and should be 197?
    Fatbike - KTM BIKE INDUSTRIES

    Jumbo Jims, remote lockout, and internal cabling are highlights.
    If it isn't 197mm rear hub spacing I would pass on it.
    Totem KDS-D fatbike, Brompton M2L-X Ti, 6kg Dahon Dove, 1998 GT Forte Ti road bike

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307
    What's the significance of 197 over 177 for the rear hub?

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    24,710
    Quote Originally Posted by ttakata73 View Post
    For $1750 it seems a good deal; except the rear hub is 177 width?
    I wonder if that is a typo and should be 197?
    Fatbike - KTM BIKE INDUSTRIES

    Jumbo Jims, remote lockout, and internal cabling are highlights.
    If it isn't 197mm rear hub spacing I would pass on it.
    Why would 177 be a typo? What's wrong with 177mm rear end for a fatbike that will never (or very rarely) be ridden on snow or beaches?

  10. #10
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    24,710
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_b77 View Post
    What's the significance of 197 over 177 for the rear hub?

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
    All it does is provide more room in the rear triangle of the frame for bigger tires. Usually 5" class tires, though quite a number of 177mm frames will fit at least a 4.6" tire. Some will even fit 5" tires.

    The benefits of 177mm over 197mm include more heel clearance, for sure, and usually a narrower Q-factor, which some people are more sensitive to than others. I like to ride chunky, technical trails on my Bucksaw with a 177mm rear end, and find that on some trails, even that is too wide, and I have trouble fitting the bike through some narrow spots between rocks.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    941
    Wouldn't personally buy a fat bike without 197/12 spacing myself and wonder why anyone would, but at that price, and if you're really convinced you're never going to want to run real fat tires on your fat tire bike, it's a good value.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Wouldn't personally buy a fat bike without 197/12 spacing myself and wonder why anyone would, but at that price, and if you're really convinced you're never going to want to run real fat tires on your fat tire bike, it's a good value.
    I'm not planning on going yomping over snow fields, so I doubt I'll ever fit massive tyres.

    And as Harold up there says, you get more heel clearance - which is handy for me as I pedal heels in and clip the chain / seat stays on all my bikes, even my road bike occasionally when i get really tired.

    It's 177 x 12 so it's going to be plenty stiff and the spec is swinging it for me, as well as the price

  13. #13
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    24,710
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Wouldn't personally buy a fat bike without 197/12 spacing myself and wonder why anyone would, but at that price, and if you're really convinced you're never going to want to run real fat tires on your fat tire bike, it's a good value.
    Folks who don't care about 5" tires are the people who SHOULD have no problem with a bike spaced at 177mm. For the riding I do, there are no benefits to a wider rear hub spacing.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    If the Pugsley with 3.8 tires can accomplish so much in the snow and off beaten paths, I think 170/177 is fine for me. I agree with Harold, many 170/177 frames can fit a tire up to 4.8 as a 1x which is plenty good for me. I've got room on the MN for bigger in the rear and can fit a 5" in the fork where it really matters when cutting a new trail in the snow. Certainly, a wider tire can offer advantages in some situations, but so can the 4in tires in others. I also like the narrower q-factor and it's still plenty wide compared to a standard mtb bb shell. Bob Brown made a 1x fatty with an 73mm bbshell, sram x1 crank with 168 q factor and that fit's a 4" tire. He did have to offset the chain ring to get chain clearance, but it can be done. If Bob can do that, then others can find a way to a 5" tire on 100mm bb shell frame. Ride what you like, but 190/197 is not my thing.
    Last edited by dbhammercycle; 06-09-2016 at 07:46 AM. Reason: checked the fact book
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    330
    177mm rear spacing on the rear axel is great. I have that on my Surly Wednesday. By having 177mm rear spacing it allows the manufactures to use a smaller q-factor on the cranks.

    What this means is that the crankset will only be slightly larger than the width on a regular mountain bike. Therefore, you won't notice much of a difference in pedaling this bike versus your regular mountain bike (Your feet won't be much father apart).

    But truth be told, most people say they can only notice a difference for the first 30 seconds between the normal q-factor on a regular mountain bike and even the wider q-factor on a 197mm axel bike.

    I think that basically the q-factors are such that a 177mm rear axel would have about 20mm to 30mm wider than a normal mountain bike bottom bracket width. And, then a 197mm rear axel would be about another 20mm wider yet.

    If you ever want to run 5" tires on a bike with a 177mm that might not work, like it would on a 197mm spaced axel. But you should still be able run unto 4.6" tires on a 177mm axel bike depending on the brand.

    Another truth, there are a some bikes that do have 197mm rear axels that still can't take a 5" tire.

    I think you will have a lot of fun on that bike. Get a good analog low pressure gauge. They are only about $15. I like the Meiser ACCU-GAGE 15psi presto gauge. That is if your bike is set up with presta valves.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandman29 View Post
    Another truth, there are a some bikes that do have 197mm rear axels that still can't take a 5" tire.
    Like the Rad Grizz?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    48
    Just for information sake here 25 ish millimeters is one inch and 32 mm is the distance of theshelf adjustment holes in your cabinets. So when one crank shaft is bigger by one inch what you get is a half an inch each side or about two wood pencils side by side

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    I can handle decimels, 2.54cm = 1 in. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but since there are mm of clearance in the chainstays and 1 in can mean the difference in bar length. The small mm differences can matter. Perhaps some can't tell the difference, but that doesn't mean no one can.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    48
    Lol yeah I wasn't saying no one could but I work as a carpenter and you would be surprised how many people can't visualize measurements. And bouncing between metric imperial and s a e is very confusing to alot of people


    18 and 3 / 4 inch top tube
    4.8 inch tire on a 100 mm rim
    Using a 3/32nd chain to go to a 28 tooth ring
    With a n English bottom bracket.

    Dude to describe one bike we've just gone through every measuring matrix (except stones) and then invented a few.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    Honestly, it's sadly not surprising that a number of people lack that ability. I suppose looking at <5mm length hypocotyls in the dark under green safe light has trained my eye. Many don't have that experience, or yours, of looking at such small distances, or at least the ability to equate it to a known standard of measure. So I shouldn't be too harsh on them.

    Anyway, fat bikes, get one.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    48
    Sorry not to hijack this. I didn't mean to come off harsh. I was really attempting to be helpful and constructive. That's all.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,210
    You're cool. I probably jumped a bit to high and landed hard.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307
    It's always good to discuss the zillion different standards and measurements quoted on bikes.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_b77 View Post
    It's always good to discuss the zillion different standards and measurements quoted on bikes.
    So I collected it today, fitted a new set of Superstar nanos flats and moved the controls a bit.

    Next job is to ditch the double & front mech, fit my 28t front & 40t rear expander. Then tubeless the tyres and we're good to go



    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,111
    Very nice... And check out the Specialized Riprock for your son. I wish they made that when my son was small.
    I like turtles

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steve_b77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    Very nice... And check out the Specialized Riprock for your son. I wish they made that when my son was small.


    Now set up 1x10 with 28t up front and 11-40t out back.

    I will do when he's tall enough, won't be long the rate he's growing at.

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Similar Threads

  1. I'm thinking about getting a new bike
    By MX_Andrew83 in forum 27.5
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-09-2015, 07:56 PM
  2. Thinking of a new bike
    By Koin in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 05:00 PM
  3. Noob, and thinking about a BD bike
    By bloodninja in forum Motobecane
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-05-2012, 07:22 PM
  4. Thinking about getting my first fs bike
    By piratewake in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 09:43 PM
  5. Thinking about a new bike...
    By kalgatha in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-04-2012, 02:47 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.