So as the year had just finished I looked up my 2016 stats on veloviewer. It was interesting to see that both my original Fatbike and the Current one are actually on average faster than both my hard tail and susser.

This is across multiple years and all kinds of riding.

Ave Climb Ave Speed Ave Dist
Susser 404m 13.0km/h 29.8km
HT 510m 12.7km/h 32.4km
Fat 1 810m 13.1km/h 51.8km
Fat 2 522m 13.9km/h 37.3km

The fitness level was very similar across the last two years. The fats generally climb better and on the straights are easily as fast, once you have tyre pressure mastered. What is interesting is descent PB's. The Susser held most of them, but the 2nd fat bike has seriously chipped away at them, but it is approx 1kg lighter and has 4.0 v 2.35 tyres. It just proves what I have said that Fat doesn't mean slow and heavy.

Still not convinced.

Apples & Pears....

Susser - 13.6 m/km
HT - 15.7 m/km
Fat 1 - 15.6 m/km
Fat 2 - 14.0 m/km

Easier rides on the Fat 2 than the HT.
The Fat 2 may be 9% faster but the rides are 11% easier

I'd also say if your average rides are only 2.5 hours in duration, they're not long enough for the extra required effort to have an affect on the output.


Plus if they were great, people wouldn't have to keep convincing everyone else that they were

I've looked at this and come to the conclusion that the average speeds are completely misleading as I tend to select the bike according to the terrain I'll be on. For example. a ride over Torridon would see me take a FS for the descents but it would involve a long hike-a-bike that would completely mess my average speed for the ride.

As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!

ZeroDarkBivi wrote:As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!

Ever tried a river crossing with a fat bike?

That's why it pays to work on those upper body muscles.

Pedal faster on the other bikes.

I never said that these would apply to you guys, they are my stats, so please don't tell me they are wrong in anyway.

They are correct for me.

Rather than bitch about them, the idea was for people to put THEIR own stats up.

The data is what it is, its the interpretation to back up the claim of:

dlovett wrote:It just proves what I have said that Fat doesn't mean slow and heavy.

Its just riding bikes

Its just riding bikes

Yer, even slow ones with silly big tyres ( )

I looked at the stats for my bikes. I have them separated for when they are laden. These data indicate a c.1kmh slower average speed when bags are added to any bike. But the ride distances are much longer too.

The road bike is the fastest, then the rigid 29er, then the spearfish. I don't have a fat bike.

In my case I'm not sure that these averages tell me anything. I know that the spearfish is faster on many routes (because I've compared them to see) but yet the amalgamated data doesn't show this.

I know that my road bike is faster than my carbon fibre race mountain bike... but oddly by no-where near as you might expect it to be.

Richard G wrote:I know that my road bike is faster than my carbon fibre race mountain bike... but oddly by no-where near as you might expect it to be.

But if you do lots of long steadier rides on the road and only ever race you XC machine it would make a lot of sense.

No, I'm talking about over the same loops. I was interested so I went out and did some duplicate rides where I was working to heart rate.

I actually think my race beast might be lighter than my road bike, b obviously the tyres should make it a good chunk slower though.

It's really hard to do speed comparisons in the real world as there are so many variables that can affect the result. I did a comparison between standard 29er wheels/tyres and 650b+ wheels/tyres. I tried as much as possible to keep everything but the wheels the same including my heart rate (I was within one or two bpm on every segment). Whereas I expected some Strava segments to be quicker on the 650b+ as the terrain on those bits suited the higher volume tyres I was surprised that I was quicker overall on the test loop on those wheels.

But (and it's a big but) that was one ride of about 24Km when I used the same wheels on the Peak200 they became very much hard work. The wheels are at the cheaper end of the spectrum (Alpkit Rumpus) and the complete wheelset adds nearly 1.5Kg to the weight of the bike and in just the wrong place. I've not differentiated between wheels when I've logged rides on Strava so I don't really have the means to split them apart.

Tyres can also make a difference: on my fat bike I notice a difference between the Husker Dus that I bought it with and the Vanhelgas that I've fitted for winter. Both sets of tyres are the same weight (within a few tens of grams) so it's down to tyre pressures, tread and the compound used. Of course the reason we fit different tyres is to adapt the bike to different conditions and terrain so comparing an optimal tyre for a particular terrain with one that isn't is only telling us that the tyre is optimal not the bike. So riding a "slower" bike with an optimal tyre might actually be quicker than a "faster"bike with a sub-optimal tyre.

Richard G wrote:No, I'm talking about over the same loops. I was interested so I went out and did some duplicate rides where I was working to heart rate.

I actually think my race beast might be lighter than my road bike, b obviously the tyres should make it a good chunk slower though.

Ahh I see. I did similar with the spearfish vs rigid.

I've got a similar situation with the rigid bike being lighter than my escapade

ZeroDarkBivi wrote:As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!

Chance here for someone to set a first record!

I've only got one bike. The comparisons I do is how strong the head/tail wind is.

ZeroDarkBivi wrote:As far as i am aware, the HT550, covering a variety of terrain, has had both full suss XC bikes and rigid single-speeds at the sharp end, but never a fat bike... Just saying!

Not quite true (briefly)

To be honest I dont care if my (15kg) fatbike is faster than any other bike, its flippin awsome - period. That said I bet its faster through foot deep windslab than any bouncer you would care to mention....

My rides with my fatbike must be about 1/3 or even 1/4 of the speed of the ride's with my other bikes.

I only ride it on snow
And some of the best rides of my life where on the fatbike. Just sooooo slow.


As much as I dislike fatbikes on dirt and alpine single tracks etc. they do roll faster then one (fatbike unexperienced rider) would think looking at them and given my experience - which is only negative for dirt + fatbikes (except for very rough climbs), I still kinda agree with

dlovett wrote:It just proves what I have said that Fat doesn't mean slow and heavy.

But... I'll stick with slower and heavier outside snow/sand. heavier as in the feeling of the ride, not the absolute bike weight.

They do roll bloody fast down hills. Have seen that first hand on the weekend. :)

What is it with 90% of fat bike riders, always preaching about how much better a fat bike is than anything else*. All a bit tiring


*When in reality, they're not

voodoo_simon wrote:What is it with 90% of fat bike riders, always preaching about how much better a fat bike is than anything else*. All a bit tiring


*When in reality, they're not

We're just trying to share the love.... Actually its a reaction to all of the bull on STW and other publications that seem to treat them as toys that aren't proper bikes for proper people. Somewhat ignoring their origins....

On a road descent at the weekend I was very approximately half as fast on my fat bike as the fastest recorded on Strava (sorry for the S- word). However it was dark, I'd not done the descent before and I'm a wuss