When will the Fat bike fad die?
- Thread starter veloman
- Start date
Yeah. Tire friction, weight, harder to find parts..
I don't see a lot of people with fatbikes using them as intended.
It's kinda like the truck or SUV of the bicycle world. There's some use to it, but most people like them for their looks.
I just do my offroading with 2.0 x 26" tires on a dual suspension bike.. works for me. 2.5's would be better of course.
I don't see a lot of people with fatbikes using them as intended.
It's kinda like the truck or SUV of the bicycle world. There's some use to it, but most people like them for their looks.
I just do my offroading with 2.0 x 26" tires on a dual suspension bike.. works for me. 2.5's would be better of course.
Drunkskunk
100 GW
Have you actually ridden one?
The fad part will die when something cooler comes along. It's likely to outlast the 29er fad, because it actually has some value. When the Fatty fad dies, the bikes will likely remain in production, since the benefit of a fat tire in most riding conditions means there will be a market for them until something better comes along.
The fad part will die when something cooler comes along. It's likely to outlast the 29er fad, because it actually has some value. When the Fatty fad dies, the bikes will likely remain in production, since the benefit of a fat tire in most riding conditions means there will be a market for them until something better comes along.
Tire friction? Do you mean rolling resistance? Has anyone published a number? Fat Tires have a wide contact patch and their carcass deforms less foe/aft, but I have no clue about actual measured RR. They do have an air resistance penalty at higher speeds.
Fads are fickle. Why are people still buying Harleys? I still say that market will collapse spectacularly and they'll be worth as much as when AMF was selling leaky Harleys.
Fads are fickle. Why are people still buying Harleys? I still say that market will collapse spectacularly and they'll be worth as much as when AMF was selling leaky Harleys.
Yes I've ridden a couple. They corner awful on pavement. The only good thing about them is if you run low psi, its a cushy ride on poor pavement, without suspension.
I think I'm turning into a retro grouch. I love the affordability and options of 26" wheels.
I think I'm turning into a retro grouch. I love the affordability and options of 26" wheels.
Icewrench
10 kW
Might take a while to die out if it does.
Saw a nice bright green e fatty cruise past my shop last week.
There are a few going by daily using pedal power as well.
Saw a nice bright green e fatty cruise past my shop last week.
There are a few going by daily using pedal power as well.
dual suspension is just better in every way, except grip in sand and on snow. For road riding, i'd take dual suspension with puncture proof tires over something with a big tire with no puncture protection that has a wide surface area in which to pick up puncturing things.. 
i think Fatbike business has almost started outside the US. Here in Europe more and more major sellers are adding Fatbike options and reducing prices. (You can't yet get one of those below 800$) Although the tires would make a little more resistance, the fact they are usually made solid forks, could even reduce train resistance on rough terrain purposes, all depends on how much pressure applied on tires. Or I missed something?
NeilP
1 GW
No more likely to die out than the fad for full suspension downhill MTM bikes as an every day road ride.
Actually the Fad for Full sus bikes for on road riding will probably die sooner than Fat Bikes
A full sus bike has, , generally , has less space for battery / controllers / dc-dc convertors/ electrics etc where as a Fat Bike frame can have a traditional triangle frame with big battery space and still give enough ride 'suspension' via the big tyres.
We have all seen some utter abortion designs over the last few year for battery placement on full sus bikes. Battery on handle bars, top of the frame, rear rack, front forks etc, etc
With a fixed frame, with big open triangle for all the electrics, and the "ride comfort suspension job" taken on by the tyres , a Fat tyre bike is far more usable for on the road bike riding.
Actually the Fad for Full sus bikes for on road riding will probably die sooner than Fat Bikes
A full sus bike has, , generally , has less space for battery / controllers / dc-dc convertors/ electrics etc where as a Fat Bike frame can have a traditional triangle frame with big battery space and still give enough ride 'suspension' via the big tyres.
We have all seen some utter abortion designs over the last few year for battery placement on full sus bikes. Battery on handle bars, top of the frame, rear rack, front forks etc, etc
With a fixed frame, with big open triangle for all the electrics, and the "ride comfort suspension job" taken on by the tyres , a Fat tyre bike is far more usable for on the road bike riding.
NeilP
1 GW
neptronix said:dual suspension is just better in every way, except grip in sand and on snow. For road riding, i'd take dual suspension with puncture proof tires over something with a big tire with no puncture protection that has a wide surface area in which to pick up puncturing things..
If you can find a decent full sus frame to take all the shit that goes with an e-bike.most of the full sus bikes don't have a frame shape suited for e-bike conversion.
Need a big open triangle or a monocoque frame to stick the batteries in
Over the past few years, and maybe 14,000 miles, I have tried batteries in all sorts of places, ...rear rack,top tube, side panniers, front and rear, bars etc...but each time ...physics wins ..any bike with a battery pack away from the CoG rides like a PoS.
I have yet to come across a converted bike that is full sus that rides as well as a fixed frame bike..simply because the fixed frame bike has a better option for the major weight components...batteries etc..
So a fixed frame bike with "road able suspension" ....hey what would that be ,a fixed frame with big tyres...or an alternative suspension system. which give a full frame triangle and suspension...my pet subject
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=59415&p=890498#p890498
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,903
one can put skinny tires on a fat bike..
but not fat tires on a skinny bike
but not fat tires on a skinny bike
Thud
1 MW
The fat bike was an answered prayer for me.....& more than a few in my area.
West coast of michigan....trails are mostly sand.....endless beaches, huge dunes....& more sand. I have to drive 40miles east to find clay or reasonable dirt.
From november to march its snow....& sand.
Add that I live on a dirt road, not gravel, honest to god turns into mud dirt...its a 1/4 mile before I hit pavement.
If I could only have one bicycle...it would be a fat bike.
My specilized hardtail is shod with 2" holy rollers & they are great, then I spent a day riding green machine's pugsly around socal. Phenominal bike....my Beast doesn't really compair, but is alright since I geared it down a little.
saving my pennys & waiting for a pugsly to show up on craigslist.
West coast of michigan....trails are mostly sand.....endless beaches, huge dunes....& more sand. I have to drive 40miles east to find clay or reasonable dirt.
From november to march its snow....& sand.
Add that I live on a dirt road, not gravel, honest to god turns into mud dirt...its a 1/4 mile before I hit pavement.
If I could only have one bicycle...it would be a fat bike.
My specilized hardtail is shod with 2" holy rollers & they are great, then I spent a day riding green machine's pugsly around socal. Phenominal bike....my Beast doesn't really compair, but is alright since I geared it down a little.
saving my pennys & waiting for a pugsly to show up on craigslist.
NeilP said:
I struggled with finding an appropriate frame for 4 years. Found that there are some pre-2005 bikes out there that you can find on ebay from time to time that still have triangles and plenty of space in them.
That being said, a midtail bike with a squishy front fork is a nice alternative since some of the rider weight gets soaked up by the front suspension when the rear gets hit.
I live where the roads are extremely torn up and bumpy.. even uncomfortable to ride on with a car.. finally having a full suspension is a godsend. A suspensionless fatbike would be low on my list of what i want to deal with the terrain here. And riding without rear suspension at such high speeds is really dangerous here.. almost had my rear wheel go off track at 30mph+ more than once when i had a hardtail.
Drunkskunk
100 GW
I tend to agree, that's why my fat bike is dual suspension.neptronix said:
As for the handling in corners, Yes, it's worse. No excuses. A Jeep is going to handle worse in a corner than a Lotus.
But the handling is more dramatically effected by the tire choice and pressure than a normal bike. Low pressure, or some of the cheap tires like are found on the Dolomite will make a Fat bike a Fat Pig in the corners. A good tire like the Fatback Sterling 4.0" running at 25lbs will out corner a Huffy on cheapass OEM Kenda nameless 1.75" tires.
Add a thudbuster seat-post to a no-suspension fatbike with 4.0-inch tires, and...the lack of suspension wouldn't be a huge issue. I still wouldn't take it to high speed on the street, though.
If you are talking about only going 20-MPH on a rough and slippery terrain, a 2WD fatbike would be the Jeep of the E-bike world. As a result, they will become (over time) something that real people will spend real money on in locations near the arctic circle. If you live in Canada/Scandinavia/Russia, and...don't go out when its snowy? you will be stuck indoors for six months every year.
We will see some of the current hype die down over time, when a new fad comes along. And...we will occasionally see fatbikes in the desert, or on a beach, but...the core customer base for fatbikes that will never give them up from now on is the snow-dwellers.
If you are talking about only going 20-MPH on a rough and slippery terrain, a 2WD fatbike would be the Jeep of the E-bike world. As a result, they will become (over time) something that real people will spend real money on in locations near the arctic circle. If you live in Canada/Scandinavia/Russia, and...don't go out when its snowy? you will be stuck indoors for six months every year.
We will see some of the current hype die down over time, when a new fad comes along. And...we will occasionally see fatbikes in the desert, or on a beach, but...the core customer base for fatbikes that will never give them up from now on is the snow-dwellers.
LockH
1 PW
"Are fat bikes just hype?"
Posted yesterday:
http://metronews.ca/voices/your-ride/1295537/are-fat-bikes-just-hype/
Posted yesterday:
http://metronews.ca/voices/your-ride/1295537/are-fat-bikes-just-hype/
Chalo
100 TW
I imagine-- and remember-- people asking the same question about MTBs when they went live in the mid-1980s.
The fact is, fatbikes are simple and versatile alternatives to suspension bikes, with capabilities no conventional MTB, suspended or not, can claim. In this age of disc brakes, they can be switched out in a minute to ride on normal MTB wheels or 29er wheels. Using modest width rims in the 45-65mm range, they can be ridden with fatbike tires or normal MTB tires on the same wheels.
I recently visited New Orleans, and I went to a funky little bike shop in the Bywater called Gerken's. They had a number of Sun Crusher cruisers for sale there. Those are fundamentally normal 26" cruisers, but built around fatbike tire clearances and equipped with 26 x 3.5" semislicks as standard equipment. To me, that seems like the ideal New Orleans bike-- simple, rugged, inexpensive, and capable of traversing the cratered and ravaged street surfaces of the Bywater without bucking off its rider or inducing extreme cussing.
At this point, I think the gap that needs filling in is the scarcity of tires between 2.5" and 3.7". Quality 3" street tires are the missing ingredient to make fatbikes the new-improved version of the versatile MTB.
The fact is, fatbikes are simple and versatile alternatives to suspension bikes, with capabilities no conventional MTB, suspended or not, can claim. In this age of disc brakes, they can be switched out in a minute to ride on normal MTB wheels or 29er wheels. Using modest width rims in the 45-65mm range, they can be ridden with fatbike tires or normal MTB tires on the same wheels.
I recently visited New Orleans, and I went to a funky little bike shop in the Bywater called Gerken's. They had a number of Sun Crusher cruisers for sale there. Those are fundamentally normal 26" cruisers, but built around fatbike tire clearances and equipped with 26 x 3.5" semislicks as standard equipment. To me, that seems like the ideal New Orleans bike-- simple, rugged, inexpensive, and capable of traversing the cratered and ravaged street surfaces of the Bywater without bucking off its rider or inducing extreme cussing.
At this point, I think the gap that needs filling in is the scarcity of tires between 2.5" and 3.7". Quality 3" street tires are the missing ingredient to make fatbikes the new-improved version of the versatile MTB.
markz
100 TW
Today, I rode around Walmart in the aisles in one of their fat bikes. The minimum wage workers did not care.
I did not like the fat bike. I dont know if I was too tall and the bike was too small or what.
I put down in my "To Do" notes, to go to a real bike store, near a park to test ride one, in a proper fat bike and see if I like it.
Everytime I see a person on a fat bike, I have mixed feelings because on one hand they probably bought it because of the fad, on the other hand, there is no need for a fat bike in a city. They are for sandy, snowy, muddy places. How often do people ride in those conditions? Not very often!
I think a good 2.5" mtb tire is sufficient, no need for a fat bike.
I did not like the fat bike. I dont know if I was too tall and the bike was too small or what.
I put down in my "To Do" notes, to go to a real bike store, near a park to test ride one, in a proper fat bike and see if I like it.
Everytime I see a person on a fat bike, I have mixed feelings because on one hand they probably bought it because of the fad, on the other hand, there is no need for a fat bike in a city. They are for sandy, snowy, muddy places. How often do people ride in those conditions? Not very often!
I think a good 2.5" mtb tire is sufficient, no need for a fat bike.
Chalo said:
Totally agree. Puncture proof tires sell me.. and there just aren't many available past 2 inches.
I pick this kinda crap up every ride here in Utah. Only high end puncture proof tires survive it. I wonder how quicker i could flat a non-puncture proof tire if it was two times as wide.. that's my thinking, lol.
Street tread fatbike tires are definitely desirable.. a 29 inch bike with 2.5's or beyond would seem to give you a similar, if not better overall diameter.. and that would kick button the street.
dogman dan
1 PW
3" tire cruiser should be more than adequate for street riding under 20 mph. Above that, I prefer a full suspension bike for that damn manhole cover you failed to see. Or at least a long bike, which is harder to stand on the front wheel at 30 mph.
I crack up on the fat bike riders I see around here. I'm surrounded by a few trillion square miles of sandy desert, yet continually see fat bikes riding on the street. I have yet to see a fat bike in the dirt, or even a track of one that was there yesterday.
Rolling resistance? I don't know, but one fat bike rider I see all the time is getting a hell of a workout trying to keep up with his wife. My guess it's just bike weight, plus his weight, rather than the tire per se. She's on a 30 pound bike, and weighs 120. He looks like bike and him weigh at least 50-70 pounds more.
Put a motor on one, and now a fat bike sounds like a great idea! Even a pussy motor like the storm will have. But a guy building a fat bike to do 50 mph is IMO, heading for the E room. At speed you need shock absorption, damping, not just springy ness.
I think a fat bike to do 25 mph would be great fun, especially in sandy deserts or beaches. But in the desert, might need 4 pounds of slime per tire.
One nice thing, the thorns would only go in the bottom of the tire, rather than in the bottom and out the top, as they sometimes do here. Note the length of the thorn in front of the lighter. And they get even bigger in TX or AZ.
I crack up on the fat bike riders I see around here. I'm surrounded by a few trillion square miles of sandy desert, yet continually see fat bikes riding on the street. I have yet to see a fat bike in the dirt, or even a track of one that was there yesterday.
Rolling resistance? I don't know, but one fat bike rider I see all the time is getting a hell of a workout trying to keep up with his wife. My guess it's just bike weight, plus his weight, rather than the tire per se. She's on a 30 pound bike, and weighs 120. He looks like bike and him weigh at least 50-70 pounds more.
Put a motor on one, and now a fat bike sounds like a great idea! Even a pussy motor like the storm will have. But a guy building a fat bike to do 50 mph is IMO, heading for the E room. At speed you need shock absorption, damping, not just springy ness.
I think a fat bike to do 25 mph would be great fun, especially in sandy deserts or beaches. But in the desert, might need 4 pounds of slime per tire.
One nice thing, the thorns would only go in the bottom of the tire, rather than in the bottom and out the top, as they sometimes do here. Note the length of the thorn in front of the lighter. And they get even bigger in TX or AZ.
The fingers
10 TW
I'm still waiting for the pencil-thin tire hipster/fixie fad to die. :lol:
speedmd
10 MW
Fat is here for good! No way to kill it when it is better / cheaper / simpler and more versatile. Hate to admit it, as I have a big dresser draw that is stuffed 100% in lycra, but it kills in winter off road as well as loose /sandy type riding conditions. A big chunk of the natural world. No turning back now! Enjoy the tire developments /progress my friends.
r3volved
100 kW
If the moto industry is any indication, fat tires are here to stay...and will probably get quite a bit fatter (at least in rear).
The fat rear-end chopper has been going strong since what, the 60's?
Right now it's a huge fad, so everyone wants one, irrespective of their actual need for one. Consumerism is generally backwards from design in that form precedes function.
The fat rear-end chopper has been going strong since what, the 60's?
Right now it's a huge fad, so everyone wants one, irrespective of their actual need for one. Consumerism is generally backwards from design in that form precedes function.
Similar threads
