[Closed] Why don't Dirt like fat bikes?

You have read a copy of Dirt before, right?

i didnt realise dirt were obliged to like the same stuff as you do, damn them for having opinions!

unless of course you have any proof about advertising bias?

They answer that question in the article:

"someone actually riding one fast and looking fairly stylish"

Sorry guys, the kids don't think you look cool on a fatbike.

They are bell ends.

Why should they like them ?

*facepalm*

Ask yourself the same question and change "fatbike" for "caravan" and "Dirt" for "Topgear".

Really? Dh racers not liking fatbikes? Its not a surprise.

Maybe it's you they don't like, not the bike?

Really? Dh racers not liking fatbikes? Its not a surprise.

Fatbikes are fun rather than fast.

You have read a copy of Dirt before, right?

Articles in Dirt seem to be a random collection of words in no particular order with liberal usage of words like 'stoked', 'rad', 'shred' etc. Basically all the crap I spout when I'm taking the piss but I think they're being serious about it.

Because its not 650b or enduro, therefore Jones isn't interested.

But if it was an XL frame, he would probably be quite positive.

I'm not a fan of fat bikes. Do you 'have' to like them then or are other peoples opinions wrong because they don't like your fatbike?

I'm not defending dirt. Terrible mag and Steve Jones writing is a migraine to the eyes.

words like 'stoked', 'rad', 'shred' etc. Basically all the crap I spout when I'm taking the piss but I think they're being serious about it.

That sounds more like MBUK to be honest - Dirt is full of ramblings about frame size, suspension suport and how awesome big wheels are are. But all in a random order, font, colour and background.

Shirley [S]half[/S] most of the appeal of Fat Bikes is that their an [I]"acquired taste"[/I] and occupy a little niche where they only really appeal to a certain, specific subset of MTBists who, lets be honest, revel in being seen as a bit odd and not conventionally "Cool"...

It would be more of a disaster if Dirt liked Fat Bikes...

Everyone ridden one?

Its 'ok'. I wouldn't go much further than that. I thought it looked a novelty and it rode like a Novelty.

Every other Sunday locally a disabled and bicycle charity holds a weird and wonderful bike ride- with shedloads of weird and wonderful bikes to ride- from penny farthing-type, wheelchair carrying ones, hand-pedalling etc etc. Great fun around a athletics track. I see the fat bike(s) as more akin to this- abit fun to have a spin on but to commute or ride off road its a compromise.

[b]and yes anyone riding one is partly doing it for attention directly or inadvertently whether they admit it or not. [/b]

Same with the big-beard growing shit.

I started reading Dirt in 1997 when it was 'The only magazine dedicated to downhill racing.' Their problem quickly became apparent which was that there was only so much downhill racing you could write about and then you had to find something else to fill the rest of the pages with. They tried BMX, motocross, dirt jumping but eventually settled on enduro/tail/AM riding which I think was a good thing.

I've always liked the magazine. I know the writing annoys a lot of people but it works for me. However, over the last couple of years it feels like they're trying to shove the big wheel thing down my throat. I don't like big wheels. I'm small. No matter how much you like it it doesn't work for me. Stop telling me my opinion is wrong or at least have some differing points of view so that it feels like there is a debate.

What really bugs me about the article is the fact that they haven't ridden a fat bike. Or if they have ridden a fat bike they haven't felt the need to write about it and explain to me why, in their opinion, the concept doesn't work.

Maybe I'm wrong but the as far as I can tell the Nicolai is a genuine trail bike and the video they made wasn't just a piss take. If that's the case then I want Dirt to ride it and then give me their opinion about why it does or doesn't work. Otherwise all you're doing is stifling innovation by trying to paint fat bikes as uncool and reducing demand for them.

I gave up my subscription to Dirt a while ago and so far I don't feel the need to renew it.

DaveyBoyWonder - Member

Articles in Dirt seem to be a random collection of words in no particular order

It's actually much more comprehensible once you realise that every third word is invisible, as it's written in orangey yellow on a yellowy orange background. if you've got the right light filters suddenly it makes sense

[quote=cookeaa ]Shirley half most of the appeal of Fat Bikes is that their an "acquired taste" and occupy a little niche where they only really appeal to a certain, specific subset of MTBists who, lets be honest, revel in being seen as a bit odd and not conventionally "Cool"...
[quote=hora ]
and yes anyone riding one is partly doing it for attention directly or inadvertently whether they admit it or not.
Same with the big-beard growing shit.
That's funny, because where I mainly ride mine, I never see any other folk around.

Sorry to say it again, but (a) there are certain trails/conditions where a 4"+ tyre makes much, much more sense than any skinnier alternative and (b) folk are enjoying taking them aonm all sorts of trails because they are, actually, a lot of fun.

Some people really need to look beyond their very limited notion of what off-road cycling is all about.

(nae beard)

In the last issue I read a bike review, I read it TWICE and I still didn't understand what the writer was saying, I then remembered and scanned down to the footer and laughed out loud in WHSmiths at the author. Doesn't anyone proof read his pieces? Does he have ADD?

The only place where I'll read Dirt now is stood in the shop with 5mins to kill.

Thanks for clarifying NW - I'll remember to buy a UV light to read it with if I ever buy it again 😉

hora - you don't have speak some guff on here sometimes 😉

Your the one riding a filing cabinet and eulogising about it on FB 😉

Some people really need to look beyond their very limited notion of what off-road cycling is all about.

Doffs cap to a niche-professor of off road riding

Why do people have to like any particular type of bike anyway?

Fat bikes are fine where you need them I guess, 3 feet of snow or on a beach. Not much of either round our way, so I don't feel bad about not wanting one.

i have three very different bikes
ive got an ibis mojo hd which i use for mucking about on, pump tracks, small jumps and as my general trail bike.
i have a carbon beargrease fat bike which is 3 lbs lighter than the mojo hd and 4lbs lighter than the rockstar.
i also have a carbon rockstar 29er, which i bought to go faster than my other bikes, but i dont use it since i bought the fat bike.
there is a ten mile route outside my back door which is a mix of trail, singletrack and roads. these 3 bikes are very different but i take more or less exactly the same time to do the route on each bike.
The big difference is that on the fat bike there is always a grin on my face, im not worried about being overtaken or how fast im going, they are just out and out fun. The fat bike will also go uphill much quicker than either of the other 2 bikes, the grip is phenomemenal. There is a time for each bike but until youve tried one for more than a couple of hours, please dont say they are a waste of time because they truly arent

Some people really need to look beyond their very limited notion of what off-road cycling is all about.

Yeah OK I don't really see the need for fat bikes here in most of the UK, I'm not denying their benefits (in say Alaska, or crossing the Sahara) but over here they are bought mostly on novelty value with some vague pretext of "practicality" thrown in to keep the missus happy.

We're going to have to agree to differ. No fat bike evangelist is likely to convince me I will ever need or enjoy owning such a contraption living in Berkshire...

We're going to have to agree to differ. No fat bike evangelist is likely to convince me I will ever need or enjoy owning such a contraption living in Berkshire...

Seeing as to the north is the chilterns which spend 10 months of the year knee deep in mud, and south is sandy, Berkshire's probably actualy not a bad place for one!

Was it Dirt (or possibly Pinkbike) that when they finaly caught onto 29ers claimed they were faster XC as for every pedal revolution you went further without having to change gear?

There is no "need" for any type of bike except for transport surely? so that rules out the point of having most bikes.
Wanting a bike for something else is different, do you want a bike for
speed,tricks,trail,enduro,down hill,Xc,soft stuff and bumpy stuff, all have their merits. saying one is better for enjoyment is an opininion in the eye of the beholder.
i would say someone who discounts any other type of bike than what they like is stunted in their outlook and is dissing the other type of bike riders. Each to their own, and long live ALL forms of transport that you can use recreationally and get enjoyment out of

Dirt Magazine = Rad/Gnar (sorry if these words are superceded by something else now)

Fat Bike = Not Rad/Gnar (see above)

Ironic as they were all over Nokian Gazzaloddi's back in the day.

People in "liking different things" shocker.

After all that I didn't think the video was anywhere near as good as the one with the guy on the yellow single speed rigid fat bike they did a year or so ago.

but over here they are bought mostly on novelty value with some vague pretext of "practicality" thrown in to keep the missus happy.

Most people i know with fatbikes just bought them because they liked them.
Maybe they're wrong and should try weaving some hidden meaning into every bike they own.

Some people try to read far too much into the simple act of riding a bike. 😆

This

[quoteMost people i know with fatbikes just bought them because they liked them.

and [quoteSome people try to read far too much into the simple act of riding a bike.

If your happy to try and define me by the bike I ride, Im happy to let you... I'll just keep riding and enjoying myself thanks.

but over here they are bought mostly on novelty value with some vague pretext of "practicality" thrown in to keep the missus happy

I own a carbon road bike, a nice Cotic Solaris 29er and my Salsa Mukluk fat bike. The road bike i only ride on road (all be it at a good speed), the Solaris I ride off road on trails, in the mountains and anywhere a normal MTB will take me.

Last week whilst touring the Outer Hebrides with a couple of gents from this forum, I rode my fat bike 45 miles on tarmac one day, 40 miles in a day on wet sand, including 14 miles across the mouth of an estuary in sand so wet you couldn't stand on it with sinking, I then rode it in the Torridon mountains for two days, including an hour long portage on the Annat loop followed by a 6 mile descent including boggy patches and baby head sized rocks. I couldn't do all of that on either of the other bikes, so which is the most practical??

Whilst they look a novelty, the amount of grip you have climbing means you can really put some torque down through the pedals and the back wheel will stick, and downhill I was almost able to keep up with two guys who are better riders than me on 140mm travel full sus bikes on my rigid fat bike.

45 miles on tarmac one day, 40 miles in a day on wet sand

Looking at it another way the route doesn't sound great. Maybe the views are beautiful but the route? Hmm.

40 miles on wet sand in a day or no miles in a day reading and replying to singletrack forums?

I do enough healthy riding in the week both on and off road so I'm ok on that question thanks.

As plenty of people have stated on here, Dirt caters to the "riding fast/thrills" end of the MTB market. Typically a fat bike doesn't cater to that market, therefore they probably won't like it the same as a fast DH or Enduro bike.

Different interpretations and all that innit.

The 45 miles on tarmac was to get down through the islands of North and South Uist to get the ferry to Bara, we then worked our way back up from Bara going along the coastline, so straight line down then coastline/ beaches/ estuarys/ pubs all were traversed on the way back, I wouldn't normally seek to ride 45 miles on tarmac on 4inch wide tyres!

The road miles were worth minute for the remainder of the journey:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Looks hellish doesn't it??

In the last issue I read a bike review, I read it TWICE and I still didn't understand what the writer was saying, I then remembered and scanned down to the footer and laughed out loud in WHSmiths at the author. Doesn't anyone proof read his pieces?

Sub-editing seems to be a completely alien concept in Dirt Towers; this is the only possible explanation for Jones' [s]word salad[/s] 'writing', and for why they think "So yeah we think' is an appropriate way for a journalist (ie. someone who earns a living from the written word) to begin a sentence.

(Somewhat stunned to be agreeing with Hora).

I always hated the fact that Dirt used to print often with the text going at some jaunty angle across the page, with dark grey text against a black background or font so small you needed your granny's bi-focals to read it, have they stopped doing that?

No, they still do silly stuff like that.

Fat bikes don't really bother me either way - if people like them, then fair play. Some guys are bloody quick on them too.

Dirt do look a bit silly in the way that they have just written them off - they seem to love every other new fad. I agree with the previous poster about them being unable to see beyond their own opinions.

This thread is proof to me that fatbikerists are attention seekers.

Probably because you look like a dick riding a fat bike.