The fat Stooge AKA R-Buckle is now available to pre-order for a limited time. Designed as a trail taming, super-agile blast of a bike, the fat Stooge takes my ethos of exemplary handling, fun and versatility and drifts it into the world of big rubber. Old standards reign here – 100mm threaded BB for a non ‘John Wayne’ Q-factor, 170 rear end with regular QR, optimised around 4? tyres because they offer the best of everything, though it will take bigger. Here are some numbers – 68 degree HA, 72 Degree SA, 60mm BB drop, 604mm ETT size 18, 630mm ETT in size 19.5. 440mm chainstays. Fork axle to crown 485mm.

Indeed I am in… 😀

So excited.

Looks like an OO Fatty, which is no bad thing as I love mine.

Out of interest where are you getting stooge updates – nothing changed on the website in a while, is it mostly on FaceBook?
cheers

That, is nice. 🙂

optimised around 4? tyres because they offer the best of everything

lol

Looks really nice.

The thing with fatbikes is that it’s really all about the tyres. There are some great 4.8″ tyres out there: Jumbo Jim in the summer, Bud/Lou or Minions in the winter, for example. Of course there are good tyres in 4″ as well, but take the JJs, for example. I can’t recall hearing of anybody who has ridden the 4.0 and the 4.8 who preferred the smaller one. I’m sure such people exist, but most folk who have ridden both seem to prefer the 4.8, so I’d be concerned about any bike that couldn’t take those. Looks great though 🙂

Update on stooge site.

That looks much better than the normal Stooge and also much better than a normal fatbike. I’d be in like a shot if I had money lying around looking for a use 🙂

These photos have been floating around for a while- looks fantastic.
Glad Andy has put it out for pre-order.
> Pre-order links: 18” and 19.5”

Molegrips, the new Stooge will have some of the features from the fatty;

So, 2 sizes – the current size with a 18″ seat-tube and a 23.5″ top tube, and a 20″ with a 24.8″ ETT and slightly taller headtube. 44mm headtube, tapered steerer steel fork, 15mm shorter chainstays (430mm + or – 7mm due to EBB), fatter downtube, slightly fatter top tubes. I’ve stuck with a 27.2 post because of the comfort, plus there are plenty of 27.2 droppers available now.This new one is optimised around B+ because i love the way it rides, but you can still run 29 rear/29+ front if you want.

Why a 44mm headtube? Couple of reasons really, a lot of people wanted to run a carbon fork on their MK2’s but couldn’t, and the axle to crown of the fork is the same as a sagged 120mm B fork or a 100mm 29er, so if you really wanted to you could.

My ‘issue’ with the normal Stooge is that it’s set up for more technical riding, but it’s rigid. Those two things seemed dissonant, for me. If I want to ride technical things, round here, I won’t want a rigid fork.

That’s why the Salsa is perfect for me cos it has steep angles and is great for road/gravel riding whilst still being able to take big tyres meaning I can push it over the rocks. It is definitely trickier on steep stuff but that’s the tradeoff I’m prepared to make for this usage.

Shame no-one seems to makes a steep angled 29er now though, I’d better look after it.

molgrips – Member
Shame no-one seems to makes a steep angled 29er now though

That is what I thought recently. So I grabbed a last of line Karate Monkey Ops while I still could. I guess the ‘uncool’ angles appealed to me. Fortunately that also meant a bargain imho.

Ah yes, the KM ops was the bike I had originally decided to buy until Charlie TBM flogged me the El Mar instead. Glad he did.

That’s just really nice, perfect proportions

Interesting to see this come out. Last year when we looked at getting a fat bike for my wife the Fat Stooge was an option but Andy wasn’t sure at the time that he’d actually do it.

oooooohhhhh Lovely 8)

I’d tend to agree with you to an extent molgrips, my rigid scandal is 71 degree HA and it feels much better for longer XC/gravel/mixed terrain, and happy to compromise on more technical stuff and it’s still fun. The Inbred 29er has a steep 72′ HA for those still wanting old skool geo.

I still really like the look of the stooge though and they do ride nicely.

to be fair, unless you are riding in deep snow or very soft sand, 3.8-4 ” rubber on a 50-65mm rim is all you will ever need and actually rides so much better than 5″ on 80mm+ for UK trail conditions.

Some folks like the maxium “look at meeeeeeee” quotient you can have with huge looking rubber, but the only guys I know who properly run massive rubber at low pressures are the guys who race the arrowhead,iditarod, rovaniemi 150 etc… and they go back to 4’s in the summer anyway.

the stooge looks a right laugh and would be mental with a 120mm bluto on given the way stooge usually ride

to be fair, unless you are riding in deep snow or very soft sand, 3.8-4 ” rubber on a 50-65mm rim is all you will ever need and actually rides so much better than 5″ on 80mm+ for UK trail conditions.

That’s a bold statement. Have you had much experience riding UK trails on 5″ tyres? As I said above, I don’t know anybody who has ridden 4.0 and 4.8 Jumbo Jims on trails who didn’t prefer the larger ones.

Personally the “look at meeeeeeee” aspect is what I like least about fatbikes. But since I tend to ride on my own, in the middle of nowhere and don’t see anybody all day, it’s not a big issue.

I am 4.0 curious, but I’ve never ridden my 4.8s and thought “I wish these were less fat”. Less comfort, less grip, less confidence ins[iring. None of it sounds like a plus. But, to answer my own question, I’ve not spent much time riding UK trails on 3.8″ tyres, so what do I know 🙂

That’s a bold statement. Have you had much experience riding UK trails on 5″ tyres

yep, bloomin loads, having cheerfully ridden all over the UK on fat bikes and fat front bikes for years, on everything from 3″ gazzas to double lou combos. Not just me though , loads of fat bike riding mates, and frame designer friends in america have also come up with similar conclusions from personal experience. Each to their own n that, but big rubber on wide rims is slow and draggy.

the other option that does work surprisingly well is something like a 4.8 on a a 52 as you get the comfort, but with far better cornering and seemingly endless traction when leaned right over.

to fair jumbo jims are pretty crap in both 4 and 4.8 so no wonder folks desperately want to eke some traction out them with a bigger carcass 😉

I guess comfort is a key point for me. As a former roadie I like the direct feel of a rigid rear triangle, but I’d never found a hardtail that I could get comfortable on until I tried a 5″ fatbike. That included a spell on a B+ hardtail.

Also, once you start down the road of thinner is better, don’t you just end up back on 2.4″ tyres? If 4.8 on 80mm is too draggy, why stop at 4″ on 50mm, why not 2.4″ on 30mm ?

to fair jumbo jims are pretty crap

Ahh, I think I see the problem here. You and I are clearly never going to agree on the definition of crap 🙂 Personally, I can’t wait to get the Bud/Lou off and get back to the JJs.

oh totally, its about finding the “sweet spot” and for different folks that will be different. Having ridden a good 3.8 on a 52mm rim down big rocky bits of the peak district and them done the same on 4.8’s on 90mm a week later, there was bugger all noticeable difference in comfort, but a hell of lot of noticeable difference in drag, acceleration and wheel weight on the flats and the climbs!

molgrips – Member
…Shame no-one seems to makes a steep angled 29er now though, I’d better look after it.

Yup, it’s sad that floppy slack bikes are the fashion. I can see the need for them on suspension equipped bikes because when you are in the working range of your front suspension, you have effectively a steep HA, but on a rigid bike you want to ride up steep hills?

Eventually some marketing genius will discover “Ultra-modern Direct Geometry*” and we’ll have proper bikes and steep HAs again.

*Should I trademark this? 🙂

…unless you are riding in deep snow or very soft sand, 3.8-4 ” rubber on a 50-65mm rim is all you will ever need and actually rides so much better than 5″ on 80mm+ for UK trail conditions.

*roll eyes*

the stooge looks a right laugh and would be mental with a 120mm bluto on given the way stooge usually ride

Like this one Tazzy 8)

ooooo *does a small sexwee*

Difference between 4 and 4.8 for me is pressure- in the JJs I run 6psi in the 4.8, but I have to run 9psi in the 4.0s to avoid flats and rim dings. And at 9psi under a 10 stone rider, a 4.0 just isn’t doing the job, there’s no point in a hard fatbike tyre.

Your riding may vary of course. In an ideal world I’d like replacable dropouts to allow different tyre sizes without chaning the BB so much, so you wouldn’t have to optimise for either. Choice is good.

Any idea on colours or is it only the one pictured? Please say original Stooge purple!

I do bow to the knowledge of roverpig ( some great insight on the surly) and tazzy who has a wealth of knowledge but for me 4 inch tyres seems pretty bob on for a bike that will have to mix road bridleways, moorlands and rocky tracks plus trail centres, I want something that still has a zip in acceleration.

The thing is the frame I think will take 29 or 27.5+ so it is really adaptable and as a Stooge owner with a half fat set up that appeals plus it can run a bluto or other suspension forks.

I do not want a ‘steep’ headangle my current stooge gets a fair old shift on going up and going down is a blast. It will quite happily chug across the road bits, it is supisingly rapid.

For the technical bits I have struggled going back to suspension forks, yes slower on some sections on a rigid but I enjoyed of knowing exactly what fork was doing ( badly worded).

PS no idea on colours

Fair point. You know what works for you, which is all that matters really. It looks pretty good in that colour too if you ask me 🙂 Look forward to hearing how you get on with it !

Doesn’t come with a steel fork, which is a shame. From my point of view at least!

The rigid Stooge is surprisingly quick on technical terrain with a 3.8 tyre up front. So much so that I no longer have a bike with any suspension which would have been unthinkable 2 years ago for me.
I’m torn on the fat Stooge. A bit of me wishes I’d held on for one as I love the handling of my Mk 2 so much, but I went with a Surly Ice Cream Truck because I wanted to be able to run HUGE tyres as this is far enough away from the Stooge which will already run 3.8″ up front and 3″ in the rear (in B+ form)

I’m just chuffed that Andrew went with my suggestion for the name! R-Buckle as in Fatty!

Happy days!

Sanny….Brilliant sublime and silly name.

After a recent Semi fat Stooge purchase I was torn between full fat and semi phat but after several lakeland rides I,m glad I went semi phat, seeing that I have a bike packing perversion going on. I,ve made the right choice and the frame will not show the bag wear! would love a Ti phat but will stick with the Puffin for now 🙂
That blue is a loverly colour