New posts

Anyone Ride Fat Bikes?

April 27, 2015, 11:28 a.m.
Posts: 5
Joined: July 7, 2007

It'll be another few weeks until I'm home again, but I'll be happy to take a few measurements then.

April 28, 2015, 1:55 p.m.
Posts: 5738
Joined: May 28, 2005

ahem

"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave

April 28, 2015, 3:13 p.m.
Posts: 2121
Joined: Nov. 6, 2005

ahem

Being stuck in the interior during the winter will sway you over to fatbikedom… worked for me.

April 28, 2015, 3:27 p.m.
Posts: 137
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

yeah, still can't say I'm sold.

April 28, 2015, 4:22 p.m.
Posts: 10077
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

(I was going to a link to pics of the bikes from our first ride but the links are broken for some reason, will have to fix that.)

Pic links are fixed now:
http://bb.nsmb.com/showpost.php?p=2853292[HTML_REMOVED]postcount=3

April 28, 2015, 9:09 p.m.
Posts: 5738
Joined: May 28, 2005

specialized weighs in on america's childhood obesity epidemic with 20" wheeled fat bike

"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave

April 29, 2015, 8:24 a.m.
Posts: 3518
Joined: May 27, 2008

ahem

Nice. Makes me want a fat bike even more, but I still don't know which one :dizzy:

Being cheap is OK. Being a clueless sanctimonious condescending douchebag is just Vlad's MO.

Aug. 28, 2015, 6:57 a.m.
Posts: 6449
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

so winter is (inevitably) around the corner and I'm pretty sure I'm going to blow some cash on a fatbike this year. Whats new in the fatbike world?

with the CAD dollar being so low, suddenly the Chromag Nice Dreams looks pretty sick and is almost comparable with the Surly Ice Cream Truck as a frame only price

Has the new breed of super fat 5" tires made frames that can only fit 4" rubber obsolete?

On the other hand the Pugsley is a pretty good value for frame-only but are 4" tires wide enough? Is the 70 degree head angle going to kill me if I try to actually ride it down a trail?

So many questions, so little knowledge of all things fat :(

Aug. 28, 2015, 7:19 a.m.
Posts: 689
Joined: Sept. 10, 2012

so winter is (inevitably) around the corner and I'm pretty sure I'm going to blow some cash on a fatbike this year. Whats new in the fatbike world?

with the CAD dollar being so low, suddenly the Chromag Nice Dreams looks pretty sick and is almost comparable with the Surly Ice Cream Truck as a frame only price

Has the new breed of super fat 5" tires made frames that can only fit 4" rubber obsolete?

On the other hand the Pugsley is a pretty good value for frame-only but are 4" tires wide enough? Is the 70 degree head angle going to kill me if I try to actually ride it down a trail?

So many questions, so little knowledge of all things fat :(

Here is Surly's latest fatty: http://surlybikes.com/blog/post/wednesday_new_bike_same_old_hump_day

- 170mm symetrical rear
- 150mm symetrical front
- 44mm HT takes a 100mm fork
- ICT-esque geo
- takes 4.6mm tires so not the biggest current rubber
- 100mm threaded BB

A lot of people don't need 5" fat tires. Some do. Where you ride, when you ride, how you ride and how much you weigh will all factor in.

I had a Pugs for 5-6yrs. Great bike. The geo is dated, but works just fine for general trail riding. As things get more rowdy the slacker geo on the ICT/Wed is better. Not everyone gets all that rowdy on their fatty. You'll have to decided where you fit in.

If I was buying a new fatty I'd get an ICT or Wed because I've got very little to no snow to ride in Victoria and lots of steep rocky trails to huck off. Plus they can be fit with modern forks.

Photos are all of a Pugs doing its thing. It can handle some trail riding and tech no problem. It's got a geo we've all used on our MTBs if we've been shaving for more than 10yrs. ;)

I know nothing about the Chromag fatty other than they build sweet bikes. :heart:

Aug. 28, 2015, 9:27 a.m.
Posts: 5738
Joined: May 28, 2005

i want to love the wednesday. the price, suspension fork compatibility, short back end, threaded bb and tire size are all appealing. but it's a step backwards geometry-wise form the ict, with less bb drop and a steeper hta. even if surly's ringers can make it look good for the camera, the bike will likely feel weird with more than 100mm of travel up front, and i don't think that will cut it on the shore

"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave

Aug. 28, 2015, 9:45 a.m.
Posts: 689
Joined: Sept. 10, 2012

i want to love the wednesday. the price, suspension fork compatibility, short back end, threaded bb and tire size are all appealing. but it's a step backwards geometry-wise form the ict, with less bb drop and a steeper hta. even if surly's ringers can make it look good for the camera, the bike will likely feel weird with more than 100mm of travel up front, and i don't think that will cut it on the shore

The Wed HTA is the same as the ICT with a 100mm fork. The difference in BB drop is 5mm I can't get excited about that given that the Wed is designed to run on smaller tires than the ICT so the actual BB heights aren't going to be that much different.

They are both designed for 100mm suspension forks.

I agree I wouldn't choose either of these bikes as my main ride for the shore.

Aug. 28, 2015, 9:47 a.m.
Posts: 5731
Joined: June 24, 2003

That Wednesday has enough braze ons to mount a toaster! I may rent one this winter in Whistler if we have one. I'm intrigued to see how it rides on the packed roads and trails near my house for getting the dog out.

Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.

Aug. 28, 2015, 10:02 a.m.
Posts: 5738
Joined: May 28, 2005

The Wed HTA is the same as the ICT with a 100mm fork. The difference in BB drop is 5mm I can't get excited about that given that the Wed is designed to run on smaller tires than the ICT so the actual BB heights aren't going to be that much different.

They are both designed for 100mm suspension forks.

you need to look a bit more closely at the numbers. the given hta and bb drop for the wednesday are based on a fork 20mm shorter than the one on the ict. running a 100mm fork, the hta will slacken but the bb drop number will be even smaller, so the bb will be higher. and tire size doesn't factor into bb drop - it's relative to the wheel axles, not the ground.

"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave

Aug. 28, 2015, 10:10 a.m.
Posts: 689
Joined: Sept. 10, 2012

you need to look a bit more closely at the numbers. the given hta and bb drop for the wednesday are based on a fork 20mm shorter than the one on the ict. running a 100mm fork, the hta will slacken but the bb drop number will be even smaller, so the bb will be higher. and tire size doesn't factor into bb drop - it's relative to the axle, not the ground.

The BB drop is only important relative to the ground because it determines where the BB ends up. You can run 3.8" or 4.6" on a Wed the BB drop is the same, but the BB height is different and the height is what matters.

Looking at the BB drop and not considering the tire size is meaningless when the tires are not the same.

I'd also consider the Surly folks have played around with lots of fatbike designs. If they decided that this BB drop was a good thing for the Wed considering the tires it was going to run and testing it would with a 100mm fork it may be worth actually waiting for some ride reports to come out before panning the bike. You are not going to ride a geo chart.

Aug. 28, 2015, 10:42 a.m.
Posts: 5738
Joined: May 28, 2005

The BB drop is only important relative to the ground because it determines where the BB ends up. You can run 3.8" or 4.6" on a Wed the BB drop is the same, but the BB height is different and the height is what matters.

of course height is what matters. but drop is what is important to consider when evaluating/comparing frames for the reason you note - it is a measurement independent of wheel size, and thus allows you to compare frames, not bikes and their stock spec.

i've ridden an ice cream truck on the shore with 4" tires, and the low bb/high bb drop and slack hta were super appealing. surly can say both bikes were built around 100mm travel forks, but the fact is the wednesday is going to have a higher bb and steeper hta than an ict with a fork of the same length - and i don't like that

Looking at the BB drop and not considering the tire size is meaningless when the tires are not the same.

only if you intend to run nothing but the stock tires/wheels. if you're looking at the bikes/frames as platforms for building/tweaking, bb drop is the only number that is relevant to consider

I'd also consider the Surly folks have played around with lots of fatbike designs. If they decided that this BB drop was a good thing for the Wed considering the tires it was going to run and testing it would with a 100mm fork it may be worth actually waiting for some ride reports to come out before panning the bike. You are not going to ride a geo chart.

i'm pretty damn good at predicting whether i'm going to like a bike and how it is going to ride/handle based on the geo chart. i may be wrong, but it hasn't happened much recently. regardless, these are my thoughts wrt to my interest in the bike and consideration of its merit, and i'm entitled to them

"Nobody really gives a shit that you don't like the thing that you have no firsthand experience with." Dave

Forum jump: