[Closed] Fat bikes pros and cons please

pro/con
once you've ridden one for a while it's hard to go back to an ordinary bike

[i]it needs to be a fat bike[/i]

It'll be her bike and presumably her money so let her buy what she wants 'just because'?

I've never really tried to justify any of my bike purchases in terms of pros/cons until I've already paid for it and then I always find the pros outweigh the cons 😉

Tyres aren't useless in the mud you need that in the Pro's, once you get the right tyres.

How can you have faster than you think in pro's then slow in the cons?
They aren't "slow" on some downhills they will be quicker on some they won't.
And some climbs you won't touch a fat bike.

If she wants one go buy one or go test ride one, me thinks your over thinking it.

I guess it depends where you ride and what you compare it to, but... Strava tells me my fat bike is consistently as quick or quicker than a Scott Spark around Brechfa. So I'd remove slow from the cons (definitely for me).

I'd add knackering to the cons. They're much more physical to ride on fast/rough descents than a suspension bike.

You need the 3 Funs to have their own lines on the Pros list 😀

Pro's - epic

Con's - everyone assumes it's

Slow
Uncontrolled suspension rebound
Tyres useless in mud
What is the point we live in NW England not alaska
Marketing hype

And you have to keep justifying it to everyone who asks............

Slow - not really, it's as fast as your legs will go.

Uncontrolled suspension rebound - nope, you can only really squish about 1" of tyre on flat ground, yes they're at 10psi, but they're 2x wider and considerably longer than normal, so area x pressure = force, they're about as firm as normal (26x2) tyres at 40psi. Except when riding over small stuff relative to the tyre, a 1-2" stone that would force a normal wheel to move get's absorbed.

Tyres useless in mud - all tyres are useless in mud, fat tyres just do it in a different way. Sideways, accompanied by "BAAAARRrRRrpppppppppp" and a roost of mud whilst your mind's eye imagines a low down shot of your rear tyre in slow-mo. Cool hu?

What is the point we live in NW England not alaska -wasn't aware this was a preclusion to fun, we live in the UK, a 1600m hillock in Scotland is considered a dangerous mountain. It's been newsworthy this yeas because a girl climbed it in shorts in March, and the OS re measured it and found it was 1m taller than they previously thought. Gnarrrr..............

Marketing hype - I don't think I've ever actually seen an advert for a fat bike.

Categorically her cash...hard earned, so she is very keen on pro and cons list, actually for everything,....
Slow and quick is also about perception of how fast bike is going, she bought a dog of a bike last time and is trying to avoid mistake (but qint we all been there)

My money would be on a 29 plus but that is me pondering on my nplus...not her...

Having now owned two (a Puffin and a Trek Stache) I think you might need to ask yourself a couple of fundamental questions about how you ride, where you ride and how sensitive you are to certain aspects of biking.

5 principle things I didn't like about my full fat bike were: 1. the Q factor on the bottom bracket, despite the fact that the Puffin only has a 170mm rear end, it still hurt my knees and felt odd; 2. The cadence induced bob from the rear really irritated me; 3. The energy required if the trail demands cyclical acceleration and deceleration; 4. Going back to 26" wheels - even with 4 inch tyres they were still smaller in diameter than my 2.4 29ers and it made it feel like I was on top of, rather than in the bike; 5. it felt rather long and cumbersome and didn't provide as much traction or float as I was hoping for over sodden ground...I just got muddier and then got stuck.

On the Stache however, it has a normal BB and Q factor, fairly conventional rear end, lighter wheels and tyres (much) has properly huge diameter tyres and, thanks to shorter stays, seems more chuckable. It's also (despite having front suspension, which I believe IS still required on Fat) substantially lighter at 26lbs vs 30lbs for the Puffin.

29+ all the way.

Slow and quick is also about perception of how fast bike is going

They feel slow if you're unfit is about all I can say as an unmitigated -ve.
They need a different type of fitness to a lightweight bike, much more standing and heaving on the pedals out of corners to gain speed, then you just need to keep it topped up, if you haven't got that 'sprint' it can feel like really hard work trying to constantly accelerate it. It's even more pronounced if you ride with people on normal bikes. Very much like riding a single speed in a group is hard work if the guy with gears keeps slowing down and speeding up in front of you. It needs a mix of momentum and fitness to get the most out of it.

The flip-side to that is that going back to a 135mm rear end lightweight XC bike feels like a really flexy rocketship!

[quote It needs a mix of momentum and fitness to get the most out of it.

So why at most trail centres do imsee mainly middle aged men with middle age spread on these bikes?

She has a good level of fitness and strength but is light and slight so could be a consideration...

They feel slow if you're unfit is about all I can say as an unmitigated -ve.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
They feel slow if you're unfit is about all I can say as an unmitigated -ve.
They need a different type of fitness to a lightweight bike, much more standing and heaving on the pedals out of corners to gain speed, then you just need to keep it topped up, if you haven't got that 'sprint' it can feel like really hard work trying to constantly accelerate it. It's even more pronounced if you ride with people on normal bikes. Very much like riding a single speed in a group is hard work if the guy with gears keeps slowing down and speeding up in front of you. It needs a mix of momentum and fitness to get the most out of it.

See, I don't understand that argument. I'm not unfit, I ride over 200 miles a week both commuting (my average speed over my 10 miles of cyclepath with junctions and lights and what-not is 28.5kph over 1700 miles so far this this year, so I'm not hanging about) MTBing and Road, and I can keep-up with a group on SS without too much effort, but doing the same (admittedly at a trail centre with the Puffin, which isn't ideal...) was just utterly knackering and left me with a very sore back...some of this was perhaps caused by having to manhandle the fat ****er around the twisty stuff and my arms are like wet pipe-cleaners, so not up to much of this.

Pros...
Excellent traction
Do it all flat bar bike
Getting increasingly suitable for the UK's potholed roads
Street cred with the new generation

Cons...
Replacement tyres are typically £40+ each
Complete strangers expect you to hand over the bike for a quick try
Paranoia about having a wheel nicked and their replacement cost
Tyre pressure for commuting on tarmac is much higher than for off-road

What's her budget?

For me fat biking is about fun and riding when and where you couldn't normally and balls to the rest of it

vondally - Member
[i]It needs a mix of momentum and fitness to get the most out of it.[/i]

So why at most trail centres do imsee mainly middle aged men with middle age spread on these bikes?

...because they have the momentum aspect of it "covered" quite nicely in perhaps a 70:30 ratio. 😉

You both know all the pros and cons already. You won't find out whether the pros outweigh the cons for her on the trails you ride unless you try one.

Pick one up second hand, if she doesn't like it, sell it on for little/no loss.

That's what I did. I'm not selling it!

Most middle aged men have middle aged spread whatever they ride at trail centres. Better to embrace that on a fatbike than be an enduro wannabe. 😉

I can see the benefit of a fat bike on a trail centre, heading out to the dark peak for eg or any XC ride, a bike with more gears and suspension would be much more suitable.

I can see the benefit of a fat bike on a trail centre, heading out to the dark peak for eg or any XC ride, a bike with more gears and suspension would be much more suitable.

But, don't forget Fun, Fun, Fun.

Again I have to separate what I feel and think as I agree with daffy on the 29 plus debate, and I think that is where I will look

But she wants something cheap and daft for a laff... Which a fat bike could be, yes second hand will be the route.

So why at most trail centres do imsee mainly middle aged men with middle age spread on these bikes?

to be fair that's 95% of all bikes at a trail centre

most fat bikes are owned by those who've been mtbing for years & are a refreshing change/antidote to the norm, back to basics if you will without all the comfy sofa-ness of a modern bike.

I rode the first half of the London to Brighton off-road yesterday on my "Adventure" bike.

It was a gloopy mess in some places and I couldn't help thinking "I'd be having more fun on a fat bike..."

jekkyl - Member
I can see the benefit of a fat bike on a trail centre, heading out to the dark peak for eg or any XC ride, a bike with more gears and suspension would be much more suitable.

I guess it depends on the trail centre, but for most valley based trail centres, my experience was that a full fatbike was great in sweeping bermy singletrack, but rubbish for [b]everything[/b] else. In tight singletrack I found it damn near impossible to maintain momentum as the length of the bike and it's own inherent gyroscopic effects of its wheels meant that I had to slow down MORE to tackle the corners, you need a very different line to make it work well. Also on the ups, there's not really much technical climbing which flatters a fat bike (roots, wet rock, etc) and switchbacks are just a ballache.

Open country for me was MUCH better on the FB. Hardpack just tends to induce cadence assisted seasickness.

man made stuff on a fat bike isn't great, natural trials is where the fat bike makes sense. If all she rides are man made trial centre stuff then don't bother

Experiences vary, I ride around the Peaks on a carbon forked rigid on-one fatty, I have so much more traction going uphill, the only thing that stopped me cleaning Pindale was running out of legs quite a long way up it, the only time time I've ever cleaned Cavedale going down was on said fatty, the riding is different for me and I'm genuinely in love with the experience.
It's not pleasant in the slimy mud but that'd be the maxxis mammoths tyres I've got on at the minute. The simplicity (gods that word!) of it is also a much more compelling argument. Also it's a giggle machine, fun as a fun thing is fun.

as nick says I find my fat bike superb for natural rocky trails bit dodgy when you hit wet grass and mud but you learn to adapt !
Rode a Trek Stache 29 plus and it was a great bit of kit something like that would be my next bike packing bike

Pro's great fun and a better more capable ride than you would think.

cons, the Haterz who have never owned one but love to comment 😆

Lol @ johnnystorm! 😆

Until I look down, breathe in and agree 🙁

Diet time.

What is the point we live in NW England not alaska

Snow is not the only benefit.

My mate fatbikes, and has posted plenty of pictures of riding on those crappy boggy messy ROWs that you never went on before because they were unrideable. Plenty of them all across upland Britain.

Oh and not to mention the loose rocks common in sandstone areas.. mind you they area all part of the challenge on normal bikes 🙂

we live in the UK, a 1600m hillock in Scotland is considered a dangerous mountain

It might not be high but that doesn't make it insignificant. There's an area of Scotland classified as 'arctic' on climatology maps, and for good reason.

4 rides in on mine and oh boy is it faster than it looks! previous bike for 2 years was a carbon singlespeed which feels loads faster,but according to GPS isnt?! Fatbike is loads more fun and looks ace.
As stated Tyres are a con!

See, I don't understand that argument. I'm not unfit, I ride over 200 miles a week both commuting (my average speed over my 10 miles of cyclepath with junctions and lights and what-not is 28.5kph over 1700 miles so far this this year, so I'm not hanging about) MTBing and Road, and I can keep-up with a group on SS without too much effort, but doing the same (admittedly at a trail centre with the Puffin, which isn't ideal...) was just utterly knackering and left me with a very sore back...some of this was perhaps caused by having to manhandle the fat ****er around the twisty stuff and my arms are like wet pipe-cleaners, so not up to much of this.

That was kinda the point, riding any other bike get's you fit, but it's not necessarily transferable to keeping a fat bike upto speed.

So why at most trail centres do imsee mainly middle aged men with middle age spread on these bikes?

See also - MAMIL's, Enduro is the new Golf, singlespeeders drink beer and eat pies, gravel riding (road bikes for those too ashamed to wear lycra in public) etc, etc, etc. Cycling in general is a low impact sport for middle aged people too chubby to take up running.

Pros, every ride is like being a kid again.
Cons, makes my normal bike feel rubbish.
They may be heavier and a bit slower but really who cares!

Going to add my say here, im riding a semi fat of 3.2 tyre so not the full on fat but the pros are simple ,, a fairly light weight, simplistic bike , loooadds of grip and silly knee down lean overs ,just as fast going down the sketchy stuff as my full sus , and not to slow on the road , and as others have said lots of fun , tbh ive not touched my other bikes since I bought it 5 weeks ago and already 300 miles on the clock

Cons going to cost a small fortune getting boost hubs from Hope

Just get a go on one!!!!!!!!!!!!
There must be someone in your area that will let her have a demo,where are you?

Main negative for me is spending more time riding my 400 quid fat bike than my 4000 quid mountain slayer.

The perfect n+1, as posts in this and hundreds of other threads have said, a cheapish rigid fat bike is back to basics silly but surprisingly capable fun.

If you have to ask why, then it's not for you. I saw one, realised it was the most stupid, pointless bike ever, bought one as soon as I could afford it 🙂

And like everybody else, I cry now when I have to ride a normal bike.

Cons going to cost a small fortune getting boost hubs from Hope

Mine were £158 for a pair of nice(ish) Pro4 Boost (110/15 148/12) hubs from Swinnerton's.

rOcKeTdOg - Member
most fat bikes are owned by those who've been mtbing for years & are a refreshing change/antidote to the norm, back to basics if you will without all the comfy sofa-ness of a modern bike.

For me, this^ was my reasoning behind buying one. Very happy I am with it too.

a 1600m hillock in Scotland is considered a dangerous mountain. It's been newsworthy this yeas because a girl climbed it in shorts in March, and the OS re measured it and found it was 1m taller than they previously thought. Gnarrrr..............

Fail!

At Daffy £158 + build is a happy place to be ,cheers

At OP just buy one !

Indeed, I gave it an extra 250m 😆

a 1600m hillock in Scotland is considered a dangerous mountain. It's been newsworthy this yeas because a girl climbed it in shorts in March, and the OS re measured it and found it was 1m taller than they previously thought.

Two bodies were recovered from the Ben two weeks ago. 😐

Pro: Best climbing bike ever, on just about everything; slippery, sandy, gravelly, steep rock, roots.
Teaches you to corner properly by carving, not steering; much more fun.
Rewards an assertive riding style where you use the leverage of a wide bar to direct that gyroscoping front wheel.
Deals with mud almost arrogantly; will float straight across muddy puddles in a way that simply dismisses every other bike you've ridden. The big footprint doesn't sink into soft ground the way that smaller tyres do.
Steep, wet grass is no longer dangerous.
You can ride one literally anywhere, from the Cairngorm plateau to the beach and everything in between.
Doesn't have a fork to demand servicing every 1-200hours.
The fastest bike out there on a loose or gravelly downhill; will drop everyone else, easily.

Con: usually quite heavy, so a pain to lift over fences & gates.
It can take a little time to learn the new 'body English' required to really get the most out of one.
Once you've fitted that 810 bar, you may occasionally whack knuckles on trees.

I've been lucky, having not had the Q factor problem with mine.

Fatbikes are great for people who want to go places on their bikes, especially off the beaten track.

All other mtbs are really road bikes with lumpy tyres. 🙂

.All other mtbs are really road bikes with lumpy tyres.

Lol,.....really good....alas untrue

nedrapier nailed it. Give it a try and leave the polarised opinions alone and reach your own conclusions. If it doesn't work there are lots of people looking to give it a go so you should move it on.

I tried and I've been bitten. It's a different sort of riding and I found it dull on sand. Grip uphill is good and floats through mud easier. More spray and muck from larger tyres. Rolls nicely on natural stuff. Taken it to the red at Glentress and Innerleithen reds and Spooky Wood had me giggling like a 5 year old but the next trail down was really harsh. Inners just about gave me carpal tunnel syndrome. But berms are a whole lot faster!

Depending on the bike, you can get a little or a lot more weight but I reckoned it would help get fitness better quicker. However, I've already buckled and am going Bluto fork and drilled wheels to take a bit of the aches and pains off my old body.

Two bodies were recovered from the Ben two weeks ago.

Plenty of bodies recovered from canals too, doesn't make them white water.

The point was not pedantry over whether a hill in Scotland is dangerous, it was that dismissing fat bikes because there's not a chairlift and piste outside your door is like dismissing mountainbikes in general because we don't have any real* mountains.

*Compared to say North America, where I tried to find a list to see where Ben Nevis would sit, but no one seems to compile a list that long, the 200th tallest major peak, so already excluding secondary peaks with a prominence below 500m, is still 2.8x taller than Ben Nevis.

It's 1988 all-over again.
I'm old enough to no longer worry about what everyone else thinks and can make up my own mind on whether I like it or not.
Q-factor problems and undamped rebound are a product of someone else's over-active imagination.
My legs are stronger and if losing 30 minutes to a lightweight 29er over 12 hours is 'slow' then I'm happy with that.
Haterz gonna hate

Much like the iPhone. Fatbike ownership seems to turn the owner into an insufferable bore who must mention the thing at every possible opportunity.
Pro? Con? Let's just leave that for you to decide.

Doesn't have a fork to demand servicing every 1-200hours.

You make good points except this one is bobbins. Fat and think bikes are both available rigid and suspended.

Much like the iPhone. Fatbike ownership seems to turn the owner into an insufferable bore who must mention the thing at every possible opportunity.
Pro? Con? Let's just leave that for you to decide.

Note the OP doesn't own a fat bike.

I have never gone up to a group and told them about my bike.

I have however politely laughed at all three original fat bike jokes about 500 times, and nodded patiently after being informed of the tellers opinion of the bike I'm riding, which usually ends with "I would like to have a go on one at some point though", folowed by a quick spin on mine and "it's not as heavy/slow/undamped/hard to turn as it looks".

dovebiker - Member

I'm old enough to no longer worry about what everyone else thinks

Good for you, but the OP asked for opinions and you failed to deliver one.

Q-factor problems and undamped rebound are a product of someone else's over-active imagination.

And apparently arrogant enough to deride others EXPERIENCE as figments of their [i]demented[/i] imaginings.

With physical evidence of my heels hitting the chainstays of the full-fat bike, and having both experienced and witnessed pedal induced bob (4 friends with fat bikes and I'm on my second), I believe my opinion is as valid as your own and completely relevant to the OP.

Deals with mud almost arrogantly; will float straight across muddy puddles in a way that simply dismisses every other bike you've ridden. The big footprint doesn't sink into soft ground the way that smaller tyres do.

.. can depend on what sort of mud. The difference between even a 3" tyre and a normal 2.3" mixed-condition tyre locally (edit - in the clay+chalk mud) here is huge - really fat tyres just don't work as well as all-rounders imo. Great at times with downsides to balance that out.
That's my 'Con' for fat bikes, circumstantially or based on riding preferences rather than anything else.

Pro, well big tyres do good thngs for bikes in general. There's always trade-offs, there's no free lunch otherwise we'd all be fat.

Easier to battle it out on here as usual than be pro active and get a demo. 🙄

hoke - Member

Fatbike ownership seems to turn the owner into an insufferable bore who must mention the thing at every possible opportunity.

Surprising that, especially since the OP created a thread was looking for some balanced views on the subject rather irrelevant sniping...

Back on topic, I did find there to be a bit of an annoying bob when running lower tyre pressures but this has been remedied by an oval chainring. No difference really to modifying any other bike to suit riding style and feedback.

nickgti - Member

man made stuff on a fat bike isn't great

I love it tbh, great fun. OTOH muddy offpiste can be pretty arse-twitchy, even with a knobbly tyre fatbikes are just undeniably bad at this stuff. The question is, badly bad or goodly bad? For me, generally bad in a good way, it's challenging and daft and makes trails feel drastically different. Probably that last one is the most important

thisisnotaspoon - Member
...we live in the UK, a 1600m hillock in Scotland is considered a dangerous mountain...

It is surprisingly easy to put yourself in mortal danger on Scotland's puny mountains.

For a non-dangerous mountain, it seems to claim a lot of experienced mountaineers lives...

Possibly insufficient respect?

BTW fatbikes are crap in mud, but of course, that's mud that swallows skinny bikes.

The q-factor is interesting. If anything I prefer it, but as I'm on the upper end of the scale that probably makes sense. Presumably anyone at the other end of the scale may suffer. I guess women may be less susceptible though.

Fatbike ownership seems to turn the owner into an insufferable bore who must mention the thing at every possible opportunity.

pros: everyone wants a go on it, without fail they come back laughing

cons:the 15th "oooh, big tyres, i bet that's hard work" comment of the day starts to get tedious when they want you to stop and explain it to them

3 of us are doing a 10m TT on fat bikes next week 🙂

I ride with a narrow stance and slightly duck footed and get crank rub on my normal bike, so was a bit worried about the increased Q factor causing knee issues. It's noticeable when I first get on it, and my cranks aren't going to stay black, but it quickly feels normal and my knees have been fine.

The point was not pedantry over whether a hill in Scotland is dangerous

I get what your point was. I just thought it was ill judged and rather undermined by recent events, not to mention all the deaths every year on lesser hills the Ben Nevis. But carry on, I'm sure you've definitely convinced that other guy about the merits of fat bikes.

I have a 27.5" rigid fat bike brought it as a mud plugger yes its great in mud and over tree roots but it is no way as fast as a 29er+ but it wont be as its rigid but to say its the only bike you will ride I think that is crap rode my remedy the other day first time in 6months great over jumps and downhill runs never going to do the same thing on a fat bike horses for courses.

Vorlich +1

A bit of a silly comment.

Cons: smart alecs. People lumping fatbikes together like they did 29ers for years,

Pros: Smashing it round the man made berms of Swinley out of the saddle for 90% of the time on my Bucksaw. It is just a great mountain bike.

I just like the way it rolls over everything and makes most off roading easier. If racing and speed are the main goals then a fat bike probably isn't the way to go.

Been said a million times before but they make you smile and you tend to forget about speed and enjoy the ride.

But please try one before buying!!

CONS. Mud , you will get plastered . Or maybe it's just me. I see plenty of pictures of fat bikes with no mudguards and clean riders. So double your mud quota for any given ride.
If you are coming from a full sus, you will will have to adapt your pedalling to stop you bob,bob,bobbing along. You soon do but everyone notices it on their first ride.
I can't ride up a set of steps that I can do on my full sus.
On entering quagmires at high speed the front end can do that slideways thing.You need to put your weight well back on entry. It is better now Ive swapped my front Floater for a Hodag. To be fair all my bikes have done it until I put Bonty Muds on.
PROS. You will love everything else. Every time I park it up I think I'll ride another bike tomorrow and put that on top of the pile. Since I've had my fatty I've had to reach behind today's bike and take the fatty again.

I bought one, a really nice used pugsley. It was okay, but just okay. Kept it for 6 months, didn't really get the love, sold it for much the same as I paid for it.

I'm glad I tried it tough, but not for me.

Pros: You can have massive tyres in bright pink/orange/white/green 😀

Cons: Apparently they come in 'standard' black too 😐

Nobeer - after a wet week now in Aviemore riding with locals I'm quite glad I didn't buy the Tarn 20 ! Have used Soul and Anthem and settled on 2.3 tyres !

EDIT - I didn't bring them both, but broke fork on Soul so went home one night and swopped for Anthem 🙂 Still got legs ripped off by locals !!

It's like driving a Mini. Not for everyone but difficult to ride without grinning.

Fat bikes are all about the tyres / wheels (well ok not all about but a very high percentage).

Light tubeless rim are great. Carbon ones fantastic. But not cheap.

Traction and ride in clay / sticky mud / sodden grassland laughs at skinny (I've 3" or less) tyres.
In slick mud however, think Mercedes in snow. Ouch.

It's my normal ride in the UK, but for the Alps I prefer 6" to fat.

And finally it's the perfect cheeky trails bike. The typical busybody conversation goes "you know you're not allowed to... what is that? Is it hard to ride? Where did it come from?" etc.

nickgti - Member
man made stuff on a fat bike isn't great

I love it tbh, great fun. OTOH muddy offpiste can be pretty arse-twitchy, even with a knobbly tyre fatbikes are just undeniably bad at this stuff. The question is, badly bad or goodly bad? For me, generally bad in a good way, it's challenging and daft and makes trails feel drastically different. Probably that last one is the most important

My problem with the man made stuff is they are generally faster running with man made rock sections or full of braking bumps. My full sus handles that well and I can carry on at speed, however the fat bike is full rigid and when I try to ride it at the same speed as the full sus it can't keep up bounces all over, shaken to bits etc etc. So I just avoid them as I know I can go as quick as I'd like or can.

On steep muddy natural stuff however I think it's a hoot not so much "bad in a good way" but just good fun and some bits I'm quicker on the fatty.

Yes in deep horrible mud the fat bike finds it limits, but you wouldn't have even got close to those deep horrible mud sections if it weren't for the fat bike to start with.

Based on my extensive experience (OK, one 3-hour demo ride), I'd say:

PROS: Different to all your other bikes

CONS: Different to all your other bikes.

In my experience of a number of them (from £4k worth of carbon to 700 quid jobbies and suspended steel ones) the only time I thought 'this is a good idea' was in the Arctic circle in February. Every other time, once I'd got past the 5 mins of 'haha this bouncy tyre is funny' I've been wishing for a bike which rode better...

I've ridden a fair number of them with different tyres at different pressures on different trails/conditions and can safely say I'd never choose to buy one. Bouncy, uncontrolled, draggy, slovenly things, in my experience.

Plus bikes, on the other hand, are worth a look.

In my experience of having fat bikes for two years now and riding them on everything I could I absolutely love them. carbon everything and its light fast and nimble. I have recently bought a Trek Stache 7 with some nice upgrades and its an awkward , ponderous long bugger of a bike that my beargrease would leave in its dust. Plus bikes are not like fat bikes, they don't ride like them in almost any way and are not substitutes for the best of fatties and the best of skinnies together but more like the worst of both and it was a waste of nearly two grand for me.

Like arseholes, everyone had their own opinion 🙂

I'm lucky to ride dozens of bikes each year from 650, 29, plus and fat - for me, I'd never choose to ride fat unless I went back to the Arctic. Fastest hard tail I've ridden (timed runs) is a plus bike - with the right tyres and geo they're flipping rapid.

fd3chris -

I have recently bought a Trek Stache 7 with some nice upgrades and its an awkward , [b]ponderous long bugger of a bike that my beargrease would leave in its dust[/b]. Plus bikes are not like fat bikes, they don't ride like them in almost any way and are not substitutes for the best of fatties and the best of skinnies together but more like the worst of both and it was a waste of nearly two grand for me.

That's funny as size for size, the Beargrease is longer than the Stache. You also must admit that you seem to be in a significant minority with respect to the Stache.

I found mine to be significant improved by tubeless, a lower stack height and a slightly longer than normal stem

Probably a lightish build 650+ would be the best compromise but I'm finding 29+ at around 31 inches to be too tall and unwieldy. I've gone tubeless with the stache and swapped bars and stem and slid the rear wheel in tight and it is better . But me and the purple monster just aren't gelling.I would love to find that sweet spot as I really wanted to like the bike.

a lightish build 650+ would be the best compromise

You also must admit that you seem to be in a significant minority with respect to the Stache.

I found mine to be significant improved by tubeless, a lower stack height and a slightly longer than normal stem

My Stache 5 is set up tubeless, stock 80mm stem and Jones loops. Works for me. I experimented with tyre pressure in Cairngorms last week and settled on 7-9 psi in the front. I find it climbs particularly well.