[Closed] Fat bikes pros and cons please

.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.

a lightish build 650+ would be the best compromise

Sorry forgot to answer the OP's question.
If moneys not a barrier just buy one and ride it and make your own mind up.
It's just a bike. You've not got to stick with it for ever.

Who wants a compromise? I like riding different bikes. Fat's good, 26 HT was ace today. CX type thing will be ace next week.

Who wants a compromise?

I like riding different bikes

Fatbikes, well, its a bike. There are no cons to riding bikes.
You can get round a velodrome, down a dh World Cup track, Xc course, across the frozen wastes of Greenland or even to the pub on a bike.

There may of course be specific bikes that do specific things a little better, but I doubt you will see another do as well in all disciplines.

Get one, love it, ride it and appreciate its brilliance and foibles, then come back and share your adventures.

Most of the pros have been mentioned.. Not all fat bikes are the same but my Pugsley is comfortable, versatile, faster than people think, great on most terrain, simple to maintain, tough and yes it is great fun. I have ridden it for two years now for all kinds of riding - commuting, touring/bikepacking, trail centres, beaches, the Beacons in the snow.... Not sure how far as I don't have a milometer - but it is on its third set of chainrings.

In terms of cons... Well I can't really fit suspension forks so even thought it's a fat bike it is still rigid and at some point you will run out of cushioning up front IF you try and go really fast on rocky decents. This won't apply to fat bikes with Blutos, etc. As a result a Pugsley is awesome at say Brechfa, which is pretty smooth and sweepy, but not so good for say the Wall final decent. I have gone off trail centres anyway so that's not an issue for me. On rocky decents that have to be taken slowly it's amazing.

Another con is that an old 26 inch normal hardtail feels so puny and crap that riding my Pug has killed my hardtail for me.

Myths: they aren't slow on most terrain off road. I swapped with a friend and going straight from the Pug to his Stumpjumper, I found the latter draggy on anything surface that wasn't rock hard and smooth.
They aren't too slow on Tarmac either for me.... I have commuted on one with no problems for a while.
In terms of mud; firstly it depends on tyres. As with all bikes. Secondly, on some kinds of greasy slimy mud they may slip a bit more, but on most types of mud they are great and overall they beat my experience of normal hardtails on mud.

Q factor.... I thought it was going to be a problem. Knees hurt a little for the first few rides... Maybe because I was thinking they would. Then I got used to it and now I almost think I prefer it and have taken the varus wedges out of my shoes as I don't need them.

In short, I really enjoy my Pug. It has changed my riding habits though and I would really like to complement it with say a Wednesday with Blutos for trail riding.

I think we can sum up by saying a fatbike is not a trail centre bike although they can do ok there.

In many ways it's the perfect bike for Nth of Scotland riding.

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.

Each to their own, but I've been riding a (27.5) plus bike for six months and am still struggling to see the point. Compared with a 29x2.25 wheel the 27.5x2.8 has a smaller diameter, but is still heavier. So, worst of both worlds really.

The plus wheels seem to be heavy enough to feel sluggish, without giving the bonkers levels of grip and float that you get with a true fatbike.

To be fair, it does work pretty well for my particular bike (Solaris) as it lowers the BB, which was a bit high with 120mm forks and gives the hardtail a bit more float and a bit more grip. It is actually a better trail bike (for me) as a plus than it was as a 29er. The problem is that I've also got a Transition Smuggler (long, low, slack, short-travel 29er) and that's better everywhere: up, down, wherever. The only reason I keep reaching for the Solaris is that I don't mind getting it covered in mud and chucking it back in the shed.

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

I think this may be the key. If the better bike for you is the faster bike then it's unlikely to be a fatbike (unless you are in the snow). As far as I can tell a fatbike is great in situations where you have to go slow; snow, sand, bogs, steep, technical sections (up or down), but it is rubbish at blatting through rough stuff at warp speed.

I think this may be the key. If the better bike for you is the faster bike then it's unlikely to be a fatbike (unless you are in the snow). As far as I can tell a fatbike is great in situations where you have to go slow; snow, sand, bogs, steep, technical sections (up or down), but it is rubbish at blatting through rough stuff at warp speed.

There's a bit more to it than that, I'm sure (without getting geeky and doing back to back runs, just from Strava times on different bikes and different rides) the fatty is faster through a lot of trails. Now it's also possible that I've got faster since having a fat bike, but the bonkers levels of grip definitely help at speed too.

The limiting factor is a lack of suspension, but that's not part of the 'fat' bit of the bike. I wouldn't use my rigid 29er as the basis to write off 'thin' bikes either.

Difficult to generalise fat bikes in the same way as it is any other category DH bikes for example.

Each has some important characteristics but they're all a bit different and at the extremes very different

Mine is dead on 14 kg and blindingly fast everywhere except pasty skaty mud and sustained gnar-tech. Someone else's is probably really good through swamps and snow but there you go such is life's rich tapestry

Can only recommend some test rides. Ignore the spec sheets if it feels ace from the first turn of the pedals you've found a keeper otherwise keep looking