#!markdown
I apologize for the initial tone of my comment, however, I do stand by my
point. I'd also like to start out with thanking you for responding to my
comment and for writing this piece in the first place. Just being able to
converse about our great sport is a wonderful thing.
Your article definitely sounded like you where trying to not just define, but
constrain the segment of fat biking. But lets just go with this as a one line
summary for your article: "Marketing departments at bicycle manufacturers are
selling unrealistic or downright incorrect perceptions of fat bikes to the
public, and this will hurt the sport in the future."
This has been true for every product ever sold since the dawn of "marketing",
with few exceptions. Fine, you can argue that that doesn't make it right. But
it's exceptionally daft on your part because fat bikes are more versatile, and
inexpensive for that versatility, than any other off-road bike class before
it. For as little as $1k, you can get a bike that will go anywhere and put a
smile on your face. You may be getting there slower than that any one specific
bike for a specific purpose (other than snow and sane of course), but it will
get you there.
As cyclists, not of any specific sub class, we should be overjoyed that there
is a new class of bikes making seasoned veterans and new comers alike, filled
with 2 wheeled joy, regardless of weather they can do back flips on their fat
bikes or not.
Specifically to your correction point, I feel the manufacturers/suppliers have
been playing it cautious for while already. This years supplier situation, at
least here in Canada, has been the same as previous years. Not enough bikes to
meet demand. No supplier wants to be stuck with unsold inventory and I doubt
they will be racing to "fix" that.
Edit: And I mean look at this thing
<http://salsacycles.com/culture/introducing_bucksaw_carbon>
There are almost as many categories of fat bikes now as regular offroad bikes.
Jan. 22, 2015, 4:59 p.m. - Paul T.
#!markdown I apologize for the initial tone of my comment, however, I do stand by my point. I'd also like to start out with thanking you for responding to my comment and for writing this piece in the first place. Just being able to converse about our great sport is a wonderful thing. Your article definitely sounded like you where trying to not just define, but constrain the segment of fat biking. But lets just go with this as a one line summary for your article: "Marketing departments at bicycle manufacturers are selling unrealistic or downright incorrect perceptions of fat bikes to the public, and this will hurt the sport in the future." This has been true for every product ever sold since the dawn of "marketing", with few exceptions. Fine, you can argue that that doesn't make it right. But it's exceptionally daft on your part because fat bikes are more versatile, and inexpensive for that versatility, than any other off-road bike class before it. For as little as $1k, you can get a bike that will go anywhere and put a smile on your face. You may be getting there slower than that any one specific bike for a specific purpose (other than snow and sane of course), but it will get you there. As cyclists, not of any specific sub class, we should be overjoyed that there is a new class of bikes making seasoned veterans and new comers alike, filled with 2 wheeled joy, regardless of weather they can do back flips on their fat bikes or not. Specifically to your correction point, I feel the manufacturers/suppliers have been playing it cautious for while already. This years supplier situation, at least here in Canada, has been the same as previous years. Not enough bikes to meet demand. No supplier wants to be stuck with unsold inventory and I doubt they will be racing to "fix" that. Edit: And I mean look at this thing <http://salsacycles.com/culture/introducing_bucksaw_carbon> There are almost as many categories of fat bikes now as regular offroad bikes.