Do elaborate then mr frog

However if there’s any trend, they seem to be coming from non-mtb backgrounds – either bikepacking/ gravel and looking for an alternative, or new to off road.

I’ve always tended to think that a fatbike could be a good choice for a beginner. Apart from the fact that they are just fun, they also provide a lot of confidence and a big margin for error. It is mainly when you try to push them a bit faster over technical terrain that the limitations start to show.

Think mr frog just bought new 2.6 rubber 😉

To be fair on Mr Frog

A) you do post a lot of opinionated crap that a lot of people disagree with, usually followed up by insulting anyone who counters your opinion. Characterising someone as a naive middle aged man is hardly likely to endear you to people is it? Some might even say it’s a bit naive for a middle aged man.

B) the original point that plenty of people bought 4″+ bikes and discovered that width actually had far less effect on rolling resistance than they thought (Jumbo Jims actually have the same rolling resistance as 2.1″ 120tpi Small bLock 8’s) is correct. I’m not sure how much manufacturers learnt from it (kenda’s fat bike tyres were just as bad as their conventional ones), but consumers certainly did.  I was trying to buy some 2.0-2.1″ tyres the other day, the choices is really quite limited, even XC race tyres that are made in 2.0 sizes don’t actually appear on shops shelves. Maxxis <2.2 and Schwalbe <2.25 are like hens teeth unless you buy the top of the range race tyres.

The myth of skinny tyres being essential for mud seems to have been debunked, I was out on Sunday on the Vagabond with 2.1″ SB8’s and had a far easier time riding through the mud than the pure CX bikes.

I don’t own one myself, but it would be cool to have something that climbed that well – for the very difficult technical stuff they must rule. I have a B+ wheelset and got up something in the Peak at the weekend that is a savage effort on narrower wheels, just rolled over the rocks and rose – a fat bike would be grippier still. Bit of a niche application I suppose, but a good tool to have.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>geex
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

a 2.6″ tyre performs no better than a 2.5″ in situations where control against the clock is paramount

Especially since most of them so far are actually sub-2.5 anyway.

</div>

I would have thought that died-in-the-wool MTB’er should be grateful for fat bikes – they’re the only ones keeping the 26″ format alive 😉

Definitely seeing a growth in the alps and nordic regions in the ‘shoulder seasons’ where snowfall is less reliable. I’m not sure I’d want to share trail space with snowshoers though – mind you, after a few hundred metres, most casual snowshoers would be knackered.

Had a go on a fat bike once (an expensive one) and really couldn’t see the point at all. The added negative of tyres costing so much and having the carcass made of angel tears put me off even more.

Tried a 27.5 plus bike and they are better but the weight and drag are just too much in steep/rocky terrain for me.

Charlie – for me its all that extra grip is the major plus point.  Being able to climb slippy stuff that I can’t on a 2.3 tyred bike and also the extra grip at glentress made this bimbler much faster.

the other plus point is much lower footprint pressure on the ground so less damage to trails.

I agree with you about the drag tho – rode mine 30+ miles a mix of coastal paths and beach and it was much more tiring than the same run on a 2.3 tyred bike  Less drag on soft ground as you don’t sink in so far but a lot more on hard surfaces

@thisisnotaspoon – I also happen to post a fair amount of factual information to back up those opinions… As you’ve just shown, humourless snowflakes tend to miss the intentional irony and darker side of my humour in a lot of what I type. They’re just tyres mate. Try not to take yourself (or me) so seriously.
Anyway. Here are a few more facts for you.

a 2.1 tyre is narrow in the grand scheme of things.
Kenda SB8s measure 50mm (which is undersized for a 2.1) and (hint in the name): have SHORT BLOCKS meaning they ARE a narrow tyre.
Not all mud is the same. The fact you were still managing to make progress on SB8s rather than a spiked mud tyre gives away roughly what sort of mud you were riding.
Try your local winter XC series using your 2.1 SB8s. By your logic you should win easily. *sigh* riding the entire course faster even than those silly CX riders who run the worst bits.

Where the hell TJ struggles for uphill grip at Glentress I do not know. It’s either hardpacked armoured trail centre surface or fireroad on all the official climbs fer clist sake

Two differnt things geex.  faster downhill at GT as the extra grip makes me more confident.  climbs better on slippy rooty muddy stuff on “natural”  trails  There are two climbs on routes I do that I can get up on the fat bike that I can’t on my ordinary MTB

I fully accept a better rider both these effects might not be as obvious

a 2.6″ tyre performs no better than a 2.5″ in situations where control against the clock is paramount

I’d agree, given the same tread pattern. However Maxxis (not sure if others do) space the knobs differently on, for example, the Minion DHF, the gaps between the knobs are noticeably bigger on the 2.6 than the 2.5WT, so they are better in sloppier conditions at the expense of rolling resistance. I imagine that is little to do with that extra 0.1 of an inch in the width of the carcass.

There are certainly climbs that I can do on my fat bike that I’ve never managed on narrower tyres, despite multiple attempts. Some of that is the tyres and I suspect some of that is because my fat bike is fully rigid. Certainly putting a bluto on it meant I couldn’t get up at least one climb that I’d managed in rigid mode. Which is partly why it is now back to being rigid.

OK – new UK Fatbike forum is up and running.

Sorry to those that were looking forward to a resurrection of the previous one and all its content – that’s just not going to happen. That means that we are starting from scratch.

Membership requests are currently via email,  (please bear with us for a few days while we handle the expected flood of requests 🙂  ).

Please send an email telling us your name, preferred username and what make and model of bike you ride to:

admin@fat-bike.co.uk

Fat is alive here in the Midwest.

Infact my Orange has sat in the house and the fat has done more miles over the summer.  Now there is snow it’s fat all the way.

Makes dull trails interesting and passing over invested Americans fun.

Cant see myself wanting to bring it back and ride it in the peaks though.

SHORT BLOCKS meaning they ARE a narrow tyre.

I dont think the name has anything to do with their width. They make them all the way from CX legal sizes to 2.3.

And isn’t particularly narrow compared to what most riders had on sunday which were an assortment of CX treads, which tend to sink meaning the riders have to push a bow wave of mud with them as well as being slower over uneven surfaces.

The reason I actually picked SB8’s as an example is theyre shit for rolling resitance, hence a Jumbo Jim matches them (a racing ralph has almost half the rolling resistance). Which proves the point that there’s more to a draggy tyre than its width.

OK – new UK Fatbike forum is up and running.

Sorry to those that were looking forward to a resurrection of the previous one and all its content – that’s just not going to happen. That means that we are starting from scratch.

Membership requests are currently via email, (please bear with us for a few days while we handle the expected flood of requests 🙂 ).

Please send an email telling us your name, preferred username and what make and model of bike you ride to:

admin@fat-bike.co.uk

Good work scotroutes.  Email sent.

Good work scotroutes.  Email sent.

Thanks should go to that whitestone fella!

And it’s Small Block.  Since when does the size of the tread affect the volume of a tyre?

theyre shit for rolling resistance

They sound cool on tarmac, though!

£479.20 for a Calibre Dune at Go Outdoors!!!

https://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/calibre-dune-fat-bike-p347149

For anyone swithering – DO.IT.NOW!!!!

They sound cool on tarmac, though!

Especially when combined with the whimper from the roadie you’ve just overtaken… (I’ve been on both sides of this…)

Further to what @scotroutes has said I don’t know if ther are any backups of the old forum or if we can get hold of them

Thank you for getting the forum up and running @whitestone

@andyflaw

Has your Mukluk been dispatched yet? I’m assuming you bought it on Monday?

winston

Member
@andyflaw

Has your Mukluk been dispatched yet? I’m assuming you bought it on Monday?

Not yet.  Saying it’s “in picking” at the minute.

Ordered 22:59 on Monday.  To be fair I think they say a couple of days for full bikes to be sent out.

Ha mine was 23.51  I guess I’m one behind you in the queue!

Just ordered some fatbike adapters for my Thule bike carrier as I suddenly realised I wouldn’t get it home otherwise….