I see that On-One are offering their fat bike as a chassis kit, containing:

Frame
Forks
Wheels
Tyres and tubes

For £499.
I was tempted for a few seconds then remembered that I hate lugging heavy tyres about so quickly dismissed the idea. Anyone pressed the buy button on one?

More interested in the new Salsa Beargrease in carbon

I love my On One Fatty but I'd take my Mukluk for bivi rides

As someone who's currently awaiting delivery of a Mukluk (from Paul78) I was initially miffed to see that deal from On-one as it'd have saved me some money but I think, in the long-run, I'll be happier with the Salsa!

JohnClimber wrote:I love my On One Fatty but I'd take my Mukluk for bivi rides

Very happy to read that!

It looks tempting but why do you prefer the Salsa over the on-one?

Also, with either, can you put 29er wheels on them and how would they ride?

I'm still loving my fatbike. Perfect for bivi rides.



P1050319 by ScotRoutes, on Flickr

Rides a bit quicker now with the Husker Du tyres fitted for the summer.

gairym wrote:As someone who's currently awaiting delivery of a Mukluk (from Paul78) I was initially miffed to see that deal from On-one as it'd have saved me some money but I think, in the long-run, I'll be happier with the Salsa!

JohnClimber wrote:I love my On One Fatty but I'd take my Mukluk for bivi rides

Very happy to read that!

Not that I'm In the market (as the next purchase would be a divorce lawyer) but the gap between "your" mukluk & the fatty kit would be reduced as you'd still have to source a suitable BB and chainset.

True but I've got a lot of that kit laying around from old bikes etc... but it's all good.

To me the fat bike is the bike I can't quite justify, I was out in the woods the other week riding and came across a guy on a on one fat bike, reality was it was slow, there was no way he'd keep up with the Spearfish. So people say oh but you can ride them where bikes can't go, as far as I can see, we don't have many iditarod or Yukon quest trails appearing in the British Isles, the " but they float over the land" argument yeah yeah shame they weigh so damn much, and mr fat bike rider is pushing his lard bike through the environment. Beach riding, you aren't convincing me on that one, we don't have a lost coast!
So ultimately for the average trail rider who is rushing out to buy his fat bike, you get draggy tyres, extra weight in the bike. For the bike packer, in a world of ultralight obsession, then if you seriously going out in the depth of winter forget your ultralight, and enjoy pushing your 65lb boat anchor up the hill as nobody groomed a trail we snow mobiles and dog mushing!
So in the end fat bike is like a fat chick, ok for the odd ride, go on have a laugh, but ownership is for the odd balls and those with special needs, and the rest will point and laugh and yes we will comment.

Hmm pretty damning view there.

I loved riding my fat bike ... on normal trails was just as fast as the guys I was riding with.. bullied its way through most obstacles and with acres of traction available all the time !

Agreed as a super light option its not great but its versatile .. we don't have a lost coast like Alaska but in Northumberland we have a ton of rideable beach with some great spots to bivi and have a driftwood fire too :)

Looking forward to my new one arriving.

From what I understand of the On-One fatty it doesn't have the same rack and bottle mount options that the Mukluk has and that severe sloping top tube really reduces frame bag size so for bikepacking Mukluk wins :)

Did I miss something that suddenly made the country a bit more extreme that we now need bikes developed for Alaskan winter racing?

didnothingfatal wrote:To me the fat bike is the bike I can't quite justify, I was out in the woods the other week riding and came across a guy on a on one fat bike, reality was it was slow, there was no way he'd keep up with the Spearfish. So people say oh but you can ride them where bikes can't go, as far as I can see, we don't have many iditarod or Yukon quest trails appearing in the British Isles, the " but they float over the land" argument yeah yeah shame they weigh so damn much, and mr fat bike rider is pushing his lard bike through the environment. Beach riding, you aren't convincing me on that one, we don't have a lost coast!
So ultimately for the average trail rider who is rushing out to buy his fat bike, you get draggy tyres, extra weight in the bike. For the bike packer, in a world of ultralight obsession, then if you seriously going out in the depth of winter forget your ultralight, and enjoy pushing your 65lb boat anchor up the hill as nobody groomed a trail we snow mobiles and dog mushing!
So in the end fat bike is like a fat chick, ok for the odd ride, go on have a laugh, but ownership is for the odd balls and those with special needs, and the rest will point and laugh and yes we will comment.

I can see that from a position of ignorance, all your arguments might appear to make some sense.

You came upon one guy on a fatbike who couldn't keep up with you. Well, I guess that makes all fatbikes slow. The guys I was riding with last night would disagree with you as they struggled to keep up with me. But then I'm just one guy on a fatbike too. Of course that could be because I'm a super-fit, gnarly racer-type (looks in mirror. disagrees)

My fatbike weighs in at 31lbs and that's nothing special. Sub 30lbs is easy and we'll be seeing stock weights around 26-27lb later this year.

Yes - you can go where other bikes simply get bogged down or run out of traction. Lots of places I ride are just like that. If you're sticking to bridleways, you don't need one. Not only can you ride you ride on soft terrain, you do a lot less damage in the process.

Coast riding is a bit of a weird one. The idea of riding endless sandy beaches doesn't appeal to me but the reality is that or coast tends to be made of of sections of beach with rocky outcrops between. You can end up with almost a "trials" type riding and generally doing more stuff on rocks than you'd think. The low pressure/massive grip of the 4" tyre plays really well in this stuff.


I guess that if your imagination and/or riding is limited, the attraction of a fatbike will pass you by. That's fine. I do a lot of road riding too and some folk don't get that either :)

So in the end fat bike is like a fat chick, ok for the odd ride, go on have a laugh, but ownership is for the odd balls and those with special needs, and the rest will point and laugh and yes we will comment.

I like the analogy, it made me laugh, true or not (I wouldn't know) 8-)

I suspect it's quite a niche thing and whilst fun / interesting for a few probably isn't the "right" bike for a lot, lot more people.

I'd like to try one but it'd be bike umpteen in a too bigger collection already.

Saying all that I'm a recent convert to the "niche" of 29 (proper trail HT, rather than the niche-niche Gryphon). I'll admit the Scandal is a different ride and I'm enjoying it / the change.

Better or worse? Mleh

S'all grown folks riding push irons in mud. Just can't take it too seriously :D

IMO what can't be easily accounted for, is the FUN FACTOR ... it doesn't always matter whether something is logical or not*. I assume the fella in the woods on the On-One was enjoying himself ?

*No one would ride SS, rigid or even bother with a hardtail if it did

Oh where would a Krampus sit with its 3'' 29er wheels
Is this classed as full FAT, or more like semi skimmed?

He probably was, but so is riding a fat girl on occasion

http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/YBSH288199/ ... inch_white
Is it just me or does it look really good with thin tires?

Ben98 wrote:http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/YBSH288199/ ... inch_white
Is it just me or does it look really good with thin tires?

It's just you