If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Talk about anything.

Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew

valleydaddy
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:05 am
Location: The Valleys of course

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by valleydaddy »

I was thinking putting it on the front Ian, but a quick search they only come in 2.2, I have one of those on my Zesty and it's massive :D
User avatar
Ian
Posts: 4658
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:10 pm
Location: Scotlandshire
Contact:

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Ian »

I thought you meant you'd be putting one on the front as well as the back ;)

I have to say that a 2.4" Ardent (or anything else this width) does not compare to a 3.8" Larry. It's the combination of width and volume, and the ability to be able to run low pressures (i.e. 6-8 psi)
valleydaddy
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:05 am
Location: The Valleys of course

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by valleydaddy »

Yes I guessed that Ian was just trying to avoid the expense of a new fork, wheel, larry tyre and realistically how much am I going to use it??

I think getting into 29ering fully first will be the best bet and explore from there, I am already thinking of changing my Zesty for a 29er Ibis carbon ;)

and then getting a Pegasus like yours to replace the Swift frame I have, then I would have a nigh on dream bike collection :lol:

but I guess I should post that in the Dream kit thread
alfachippy
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by alfachippy »

I really like the 'Jones style' that On One have adopted for their fat bike, will be interested to see how much they will retail for. Hopefully it will take them a couple of years to get it production ready so that I have more time to save ;)
http://www.on-one.co.uk/news/products/q ... n-testing/
User avatar
Ian
Posts: 4658
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:10 pm
Location: Scotlandshire
Contact:

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Ian »

I'm sure there was a reason why I couldn't use an Enabler with my Phil hubbed wheel
To clarify this point, I had a look at Stu's set up yesterday, and the Enabler fork allows you to use any brake caliper (front and rears are actually the same, only the adaptors are different to suit rotor diameter) on a 135mm rear hub only. The disc offset on rear hubs is different to front hubs. My Phil Wood hub (or the Paul Comp Whub) are 135mm axles with disc offset per a standard 100mm front wheel. So if you buy an Enabler, don't by a Phil or Paul hub 'cos it won't fit.
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 24197
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

According to Brant ... it would seem that £999 MIGHT be the price of a full On-One Fat bike ;)
May the bridges you burn light your way
valleydaddy
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:05 am
Location: The Valleys of course

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by valleydaddy »

Now that would be interesting as could get one via c2w ;)
didnothingfatal
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:26 am

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by didnothingfatal »

This isn't a moan at On One, I rode my Inbred for years, but a £1000 fat bike isn't that exciting, when you can have a complete Pugsley for £1,335
User avatar
Ian
Posts: 4658
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:10 pm
Location: Scotlandshire
Contact:

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Ian »

Not sure I entirely follow your logic. The On-one would seem to be £335 cheaper, whilst effectively doing the same thing?
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 24197
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

I also imagine the On One will be a fair bit lighter as it's an aluminium frame ... IMO weight was/is a drawback to a Pugs.
May the bridges you burn light your way
didnothingfatal
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:26 am

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by didnothingfatal »

Fat bikes for a long time were expensive, frame and fork £500, tyres running better part of £100 each, rims £100 each, etc. yet that Pugsley isn't that expensive by comparison. You couldn't build a Pugsley that cheap, and having seen some the bikes being ridden by us all, we are that worried about spending money on our bikes. So a fat bike for £1k, it's £300 cheaper than what is probably the best selling fat bike of the lot, with a proven record. So I really can't get excited, now if you can locate me a Moonlander for £1k :D
tonyjaa
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:50 am
Contact:

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by tonyjaa »

fat bike is not cheaper,but £1k can buy a set carbon frame and a set carbon wheels from carbonbikekits http://www.carbonbikekits.com/products/ ... ke-en.html On One price is too heigh
jameso
Posts: 5341
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by jameso »

Edit.. Spotted thread resurrection after post about RQ availability..
Last edited by jameso on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Taylor
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:27 pm
Location: Brizzle
Contact:

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Taylor »

Any prices on the carbon stuff Tony?
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by johnnystorm »

tonyjaa wrote:fat bike is not cheaper,but £1k can buy a set carbon frame and a set carbon wheels from carbonbikekits http://www.carbonbikekits.com/products/ ... ke-en.html On One price is too heigh
Have OO announced the price of the carbon Fatty, if they haven't its a bit soon to say it's too high? :wink:

*Holy thread resurrection Batman*
Didn't see the date, reading everyones posts and thinking there was some collective amnesia or it had all gone a bit "Dallas" in here! :lol:
Image
User avatar
Zippy
Posts: 3069
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:43 pm
Location: Suffolk
Contact:

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Zippy »

Carbon is the last thing I would want a frame to be made of if being ridden in sandy/gritty places :shock:
johnnystorm wrote:
tonyjaa wrote: *Holy thread resurrection Batman*
Didn't see the date, reading everyones posts and thinking there was some collective amnesia or it had all gone a bit "Dallas" in here! :lol:
I concur :lol:
User avatar
Mart
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:57 pm
Location: Oot 'n' aboot

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Mart »

valleydaddy wrote:I like the idea of Ian's half fat bike but a 29er Rubber Queen 2.4 if they bring that out won't be far off, I saw the the Conti RQ in 29er flavour on the Orange Strange 29er, lets hope the Swift rigid forks have enough clearance to take it and they will stay on Stans Crests
You will be OK on the Swift forks, Ive fitted a 3'' Knard in mine :-bd
On the rear however you will be more limited, think 2.4 will be a squeeze, but will depend on how they come up on the rim
2924 miles per Gallon
User avatar
adjustablewench
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:12 am
Location: Sheffield

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by adjustablewench »

. . . . For a moment then I thought DNF was back . . . Then I realised the dates!

Still not about to go and buy a fat bike - think it would be fun to have a go now and then but not enough to justify making room for one in my shed :)
Image
User avatar
Dainiusd
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:27 am
Location: Portsmouth

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Dainiusd »

What do you guys think about this one?
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/verenti-indulgence-2015/
AlasdairMc
Posts: 1267
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:46 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by AlasdairMc »

Dainiusd wrote:What do you guys think about this one?
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/verenti-indulgence-2015/
Wiggle wrote:19.4kg / 42.8lbs
Heavy!!
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by johnnystorm »

AlasdairMc wrote:
Dainiusd wrote:What do you guys think about this one?
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/verenti-indulgence-2015/
Wiggle wrote:19.4kg / 42.8lbs
Heavy!!
A 42T on the front paired with an 11-32 and weighing 42lbs! You'd have to be Chris Hoy to move that along!

*edit*
Looking at it, a swap of the chainring to a 32 and changing the inevitably heavy tyres and tubes to something lighter would solve most of the issues for not too much extra.....
Last edited by johnnystorm on Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Dainiusd
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:27 am
Location: Portsmouth

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Dainiusd »

I think heavy and fat bike is like synonyms anyway :D
ScotRoutes
Posts: 8144
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:56 am

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by ScotRoutes »

Dainiusd wrote:I think heavy and fat bike is like synonyms anyway :D
Nope.
User avatar
Dainiusd
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:27 am
Location: Portsmouth

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by Dainiusd »

Well swapping chainring costs less than £350 difference from On One fatty.. I think there's a lot of overweight in tyres aswell...
ScotRoutes
Posts: 8144
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:56 am

Re: If fat bikes were cheaper ...

Post by ScotRoutes »

Well, I guess if an On One is your benchmark for a "light" fatbike, go for it.
Post Reply