Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Wed Jul 01, 2015 10:09 am

Hi

Back in 2007 I got the MTB urge and brought a XL Giant 2007 XTC2. A Clydesdale build soon meant rims buckled, set post broke and brakes never work as they overheated and seals leaked. So spent as much again, plus more on DT Swiss Freeride rims, Thompson seat post, Top of the line XTR brakes, etc. Result, reliable, but still hate it, and it has been nicknamed Satan by a friend, and is treated with fear by anyone stupid enough to think that they can tame it. The geometry is just plan wrong. Short wheelbase means you are launched over the back or the front, and if Satan can not do that then you are chucked over the high side. Found much the same lack of stability when I swap for a ride from my Bianchi road bike for a carbon framed Giant in 63 size. The Bianchi C2C was a joy to ride and the Giant wobble and wandered everywhere. My weight means I forced to run high tyre pressures as low pressures give pinch flats and even rupture side walls.

You would think I am speed demon but at fifty plus actually a granny. My aim of fanging along, repeating my youthful exploits on the old 24" bike soon became a tale of broken bones and painful walks back to the car.

Looked at a range of MTB in the 29" range but frankly the racing creed mentality that now drives the industry means stability has been sacrificed. I do not give a dam which hero rode what bike to some "great" victory. Watching mountain bike events with bike service stations just shows that this racing creed has remove the mountain out of mountain bike.

So spotted a fat bike. Hope as sure a hell nobody starts races as they harp back to the days of exploring new areas rather than the pursuit of shaving a second of circuits. But I have not a clue what to get.

I am over spending up big but do understand quality of components can be governed by price assuming that the racing god of weight saving does not rear its head. Built proof reliability with a relax frame in the XL sizing is my goal. Wider the better tyres as I will be exploring so not looking to brag endlessly how quick I did X track. Stability, so I can actually ride rather than walk the bike down tricky stuff. Basic goal is fun.

Price range. Well, rather open. $999 dollars with money to spare to replace the trash items to $2500 plus to get something that should not need stuff replaced. Like all bargain hunters looking for chuck out price with great gear, but not willing to sacrifice frame geometry for sexy specification. Sorry, but Giant has proven to me that long list of sexy components is no substitute for a complete package like a Bianchi.

I have looked on the internet and no much. Local shops just do not understand Fat Bikes and some Muppet selling bikes claiming X MTB is what I need, unless a fellow Clydesdale, will never get it. I am over 110kng and 191cm with my height in the legs. A low seat position kills my knees.

So what be out there in Australia?

User avatar
Mugglechops
Posts: 3037
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:51 pm
Location: Wagga

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Mugglechops » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:03 pm

Sounds like you need a Salsa Mukluk or a Surly Ice Cream Truck or Moonlander.

New may stretch your budget but 2nd hand should be achievable.

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:15 pm

Yes, rapidly finding the budget is rather low so might be raiding the piggy bank for a Muru bike. XL are rather rare secondhand, especially in Tassie. There does not appear to be much in buy cheap then the build up range with many decisions once made locking you in to a certain path.

So price has been upped and frame geometry now the most important thing. Hell, I want to get something that works and Satan has taken me seven years of bad luck to realize that getting the right bike is more important than getting the right price.

On fixed versus suspension front fork, where do the trade-off sit? Ie, has anyone ridden both can comment if the cost and complexity of a suspension front fork any advantage in the real world?

Likewise, I like the look of the mega expensive 14 internally geared German hub. Mountain bike riding trips have about a one in three chance or better of one bike stuffing up out of the four. Simple older MTBs of quality appear bullet proof while newer bikes not so much. Tassie means mud, lots of it. This stuffs everyone up as we all stick together an leave no person behind. Seen one colossal failure that destroyed the complete drive train to the point that you could not even get the bike to operate as a fixed gear bike as chain was twisted. Couple of cold wet hours in a Tassie winter attempting that fix due to cheap tools.

So thoughts and experiences please.

User avatar
Mugglechops
Posts: 3037
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:51 pm
Location: Wagga

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Mugglechops » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:56 pm

Generally I don't ride my Fatbike in situations that require a suspension fork. It can get a bit harsh but still much better than a rigid 29er. A mate has the Bluto on 2 of his fatbikes and he loves them.

I will be sticking with the rigid fork. It's full carbon on mine so takes some sting out. I ride a CX bike with an alloy rigid fork and that is a lot worse.

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:24 pm

Once again I am striking Aussie supplier's' indifference to customers. Used the web base mail contact form of four companies an not one reply. And they complain that we Aussies buy oversears :roll: Hint, it is not trying to dodge the GST. I buy a lot of bushwalking gear overseas as questions are turned around quickly and issues resolved fast. In Australia try to spend $3000-$6000 and you are treated to the wall of silence.

I would like to know simple things, like availability, and a few technical questions on does this work with this frame, and can x brakes by swapped for y brakes on the fully built bike (which I am planning rather than a build up). And of course a few subjective things like frame stability and what model in their range best suits my needs. Most other countries do websites so well but in Australia we just stuff them up. More times than can a remember I have given up using web based contact forms and tracked down the phone number only to be told, "oh yea there is a problem with our web base contact form". Big suggestion to any person in an Aussie company, try using your own website to contact yourself. You might be shocked that you can not.

Has anyone had any luck buying Fat Bikes overseas?

Cheers

User avatar
RonK
Posts: 11508
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: If you need to know, ask me
Contact:

Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby RonK » Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:29 pm

Well, I've not had much greater success with OS merchants contact pages either. I did get a reply from Muru bikes though.

It can be difficult to buy online. Shipping from the US is usually prohibitive, and QBP - the owner of Surly and Salsa does not permit their dealers to sell online.

A good place to start locally might be River City Cycles - my lbs in Brisbane, which has specialised in fat bikes.

You could phone or email Troy Szczurkowski - Fatbike and Adventure bike specialist

River City Cycles - admin@rivercitycycles.com.au
P: 07 3892 4955
M: 0408 424 206
E: troys@rivercitycycles.com.au
Blog: http://troyszczurkowski.blogspot.com.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check out Troy's blog - he's very active on the adventure cycling circuit.

Another option is to try German shop HiBike. I bought my Salsa frame from them, price was very competitive, service excellent, shipping very reasonable.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:49 pm

Thanks RonK for that info.

Diamant did reply in the end. Yeap, their web base mail system channeled the my request into junk mail :roll:

Anyway good response and they pointed out they do not do an XL size. The F4 is more a base bike and a read of a Norwegian review translated by Google was interesting. Appears nothing too wrong but the brakes are poor and this adds to the tiredness of the ridge frame. You can get a front suspension fork for not much more though. Pricing around $2000.

Today visited local bike shop and confirmed once again the racing marketing mindset that drives the retail bike market. Though the Scott 910 dual is a nice bike a read of reviews suggests it is a XC driven geometry, which is something I definitely do not want.

So heading down three paths.

1. Mid range Fat Bike like the Diamant to check out the idea.

2. Boots and all Muru with Rohloff gearing.

3. 29" 3" MBT dual suspension or maybe 2.4" as more common instead.

Still left with the distinct impression that the bike industry at the main company and retail level are over rating racing as a motivation for people to buy a bike, at least in Australia. In Germany when I visited many years ago you could buy very nice bikes designed for riding anyway. In Australia to get the quality components you wind up with a racing inspired geometry. Fat Bikes were different, a counter reaction to this absurd focus, but the same lopsided marketing is now creeping in with the reason you buy a Fat Bike is to race it.

Still trying to figure out geometry measurements but most look very similar strangely but claim different purposes.

Cheers

User avatar
RonK
Posts: 11508
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: If you need to know, ask me
Contact:

Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby RonK » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:33 am

I think you may be looking in the wrong places. Surly f'rinstance make a diverse range of bikes and few would be intended for racing. Soma and Salsa probably have a foot in both camps.
A Rohloff could be a good choice for muddy conditions, it would depend what kind of riding you want to do. They are not much favoured by MTBers as I understand because they concentrate a large mass at the back of the bike. OTOH I don't think a fatbike can be expected to perform well for MTBing, if that is the kind if riding you're doing.
A fatbike has a 170mm hub spacing. This means you would need a Speedhub XL, which was only recently released. One of these would cost around $1800 from Bike24 if they will still ship to Oz - likely > $2k if bought locally. If you go this way it would probably be wise to also go for a suspension fork to compensate for the rearward mass.
Since you weight > 100kg, you need to be aware that Rohloff restricts the lowest gear you can use within the terms of the warranty. For fatbike use I doubt you'll be able to gear low enough to avoid using the noisy lower 7 most of the time.
Finally, titanium frames are quite resonant and I suspect this amplifies the noise in the lower 7 gears. Buy bulk earplugs, enough for your riding mates too. :)
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...

Espresso_
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:22 pm

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Espresso_ » Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:30 pm

Ent wrote:
So heading down three paths.

1. Mid range Fat Bike like the Diamant to check out the idea.

2. Boots and all Muru with Rohloff gearing.

3. 29" 3" MBT dual suspension or maybe 2.4" as more common instead.
I don't really understand what uses you intend to put this bike toward, but the third item in your is quite out of kilter with the first two.

Have you considered the range of 29+ rigid bikes available these days? A Krampus Ops could be worth a look.

E

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:33 pm

Yes the range is rather wide but does make sense in a weird way. A basic mid range fat bike would give me a chance to learn the ropes and upgrade components that fail. A totally fitted out Muru would be what I will ultimately wind up with if I like fat bikes. The third is a last ditch look at a MTB hoping 29" gives a better geometry for the taller rider.

In Tassie, as opposed to the mainland, most rides are short so can be done in a day. I nowadays normally explore 4wd tracks first with a bike to see if I want to take a medium 4wd down it. It would be nice to go for a multi day ride but rather trapped by my friends decisions on their bikes that are not setup for this. Solo riding is not where I am at. For me bush riding is a social event. Generally speaking I am looking to explore rather than go endless up and down the same trail. This means you never know what to expect rather than becoming familiar and looking to break the boredom with cutting times. So trustworthiness in a bike is my key requirement. In Tassie it is often very cold and wet so stuffing around repairing things is not much fun. Actually, for our group bike riding and bushwalking are winter activities with kayaking the summertime activity. Also, Tassie is up and down so bike weights and gearing is very much a consideration.

The hard tail 2007 XTC is just plain wrong for me. But looking at bike geometry to figure out why I must admit I am rather puzzled. The Muru website for examples claims that their trail bike is snapper than the overland model but the frame geometry looks identical. Something is not adding up between the written word and the specs.

A fat bike and 29" have much the same chain-stay length. This combined with seat-post angle governs climbing stability. One thing I have learnt is small riders just do not understand the effect that scaling up a bike has on stability. Looking at most brands, the chain-stay length is fixed accross all sizes, governed by the wheel size along with the seatpost angle. So scaling up the bike results in more weight higher up and back towards the rear axle. Climb a hill and over the back you go once the centre of gravity shits over the rear axle. On Satan that is not much a climb. Sure you have "active" stability by moving on the bike but you have to fight it more the taller and heavier you are. Also if you are 60 kilograms the frame is a larger percentage of your mass than say at 120 kilograms so the bike has less chance to counter balance you the taller and heavier you are.

If you kayak "experts" seem to prefer craft that your average punter falls out of and much the same with bikes. But also the taller your are the less static stability you have. Also the older you are and take up an activity the less ability you have to implement active stability. See kids and they shift their weight with remarkable freedom so can pull things off that an average adult can not. I am not an elite bike rider.

A problem with MTB is to get quality components that my weight does not break means been forced up in price, and this in Australia means the assumption that you want to race. A good example is a Scott Genius 910 that a local bike shop is trying to flog me. It runs brakes that I have fitted to Satan as well as DT Swiss wheel-set that I respect. On special at the moment, so good bang for the rather expensive buck. Every man and his dog that I know that MTB ride raves that it is stable but read a few reviews and you are waned stability is not its key feature. Part of the confusion is you can change the geometry by alternating a dampener position. It would be a good bike for what I want to do proving it is not Son of Satan. Is the bike good, yes, is good for me, I do not know. Again, forced in Tassie to specially order it in so trapped. I am sure that in the medium frame for the 5'8" rider it is wonderful. just not sure in the XL for the 6'3" rider.

Bit confusing the above but welcome to the world of the tall fifty year olds that want to get out and have fun. Struck the similar thing when buying a 4wd. The biggest customer is buying for a school bus and shopping trolley reason so do not expect to buy one off the show room floor to do a few more challenging tracks. Sure a few tweaks and no problem, but you wind up with a garage full of bits and pieces and reduced bank balance. Sort of suggest that I should have gone for a heavier duty package first up.

Cheers

User avatar
Duck!
Expert
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Duck! » Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:41 pm

All I can say is if you think the MTB market is "all about racing", you haven't been looking very hard. Sure, higher-spec hardtails & short-travel (100mm) dual-suspension bikes are race-oriented, but step up to 120-150mm travel & things are very much built for stable, reliable do-it-all riding - a far cry from your XTC. Beyond 160mm travel, things are moving to the very robust downhill bikes, which are decidedly unsuited to riding up hills....

A considerable part of your misconception would be your focus on 29ers. These are only found in the racier end of the market, because longer suspension travel simply gets too compromised around the bigger wheels. Secondly, the bigger wheels aren't as stiff & robust when the going gets technical, which is why long-travel bikes are either still (but increasingly rare) 26" or 27.5" wheels.
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.

Espresso_
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:22 pm

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Espresso_ » Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:56 pm

I'm having a lot of difficulty following your logic, but let's go with it anyway...
Ent wrote:The third is a last ditch look at a MTB hoping 29" gives a better geometry for the taller rider.
That's a generalisation, but it could be true in specific circumstances for sure. I still don't know why you think a full suspension 29er would give you this and all other 29ers wouldn't, though. And, it doesn't account for why the Krampus is not worth looking at, amongst other 29ers.
Ent wrote:Today visited local bike shop and confirmed once again the racing marketing mindset that drives the retail bike market.
If you're not into racing bikes, fine - neither am I. Why would you include a dual suspension 29er in your list of options, then? They don't make them for going slow...
Ent wrote:A fat bike and 29" have much the same chain-stay length.
Sure - the Krampus and Pugsly fatbike are almost identical, as an example. Doesn't account for why you don't think the Krampus is worth looking at.

PS. I'm not advocating hard for the Krampus or any option, really. I just don't get what you're on about by including a full suspension 29er in with the fat bike options for the same purpose.

E

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:25 pm

Hi

Good feedback and thoughts. If I sound confuse it is probably because I am. I studied a lot of bike geometry trying to find the magical numbers but in all honestly just got more confused but a few things stuck as something to look for.

The first is chain stay length and seat post angle does not vary with the vast majority of bikes as the frames are scaled up. So unless the basic laws of physics have been replaced totally by quantum theory then the larger the frame the more prone a taller and heavier rider is to go over the back. Again looking at a raft of geometries the biggest decider on chain stay length is merely fitting in the rear wheel so short of tricks pulled with time trial bikes (not renown for stability) most manufacturers hardly vary from each other.

The second is front head angle. The Giant XTC 2 at 71 degrees is steeper than fat bikes which tends to be around 69 degrees. Now two degrees does not sound much but maybe this is a critical thing? Downhillers tend to be 66 degrees, short of the really dedicated rocket sleds that are more motor bike with engine removed.

So all things equal, if the chain stay length nor head angle changes as the bike is scaled up then stability will decrease for the taller/heavier rider. So if you ride a medium frame and have no issue but find it surprising that a person on the XL version does, then basic physics gives the answer. Try wearing a shoe two sizes too small and you might better understand that what is great in a medium may not be so much in XL.

Curiously a bike shop owner decided to research up and tackle me on this observation so spoke to a custom frame builder. Yeap, he varies many dimensions to get the best fit and clearly stated that economics of standardization of large scale manufacturing outweigh precision fit so chain stay length, for example, are generally kept the same for XS to XL. In custom frame he varies this to suit the rider.

Some time back I did some rough calculations and it appeared that a 5'8" rider on a medium closely matches a 6'3" rider on a 29". A fat bike has much the same rolling diameter as a 29" so the same logic applies. So if you are wrapped in a 26" medium then possibly a taller rider will find the 29" version better than a poorly scaled up 26" version.

Rather than start a "religious" war on wheel sizes it is interesting to note that Scott for example is trimming its range in the Spark/Genius range of imports as a XL 27.5" is better done in a 29" wheel size, and a S better in 27.5". Against that is some rather small professional riders use 29" so this is not a definitive statement, as no statement can be around humans. Every statement can be criticized as a generalization in debates. So if rhetoric, the old Greek approach to rubbishing an opponent's view with accusations of generalizations and demanding every term is explained to the point of stupidity, is your style then please price your alternative options in Drachma :lol:

So what was the decision. Surprising actually. The devaluation of the AUD being faster than a mad downhiller meant any further delay in waiting for replies from the Fat Bike companies could result in significant price penalties. As past June the chuck out specials for the 2015 models are running out of stock. About now is the best time to get the "preferred" models at special prices. Likely the AUD decline will start to push up prices as well.

My first option was a 170mm 22" Muru with Rohloff gearing. On other threads are numerous debates on the Rohloff as it is something that all people love, either love it, or love to hate it! But having received no reply until today from Muru after I had already signed up yesterday for another bike it lost out.

The "winner" is a Scott Genius 910 XL. Yeap, a carbon framed 29" with longer than normal XC suspension and more relaxed 69 degree head angle, plus the option of lower bracket position. I have always had a soft spot for Scott as they tend to be more innovative with their MTB designs and concentrate on a complete concept rather than putting together a collection of components around a frame to sell at a price point. The Scott Spark/Genius range is interesting. The Spark is designed more as a dual XC bike. The Genius more an Alpine bike, which I hope translates well to the Freeride concept. They also do the Spark in long travel as a downhill speed machine that is still light enough to peddle up the hill. The LT is limited to 27.5 wheels which suggests bigger wheels not as good as taking hits for a given weight/price point. So in a way Scott give credence to some of the points raised by posters.

Sure standard tyres are likely to be a victim of my weight and rocks, but at 2.2 that are more towards the wide side (XTC was 1.9 as standard). The wheel set is suppose to be pretty strong (I like DT Swiss rims as brought for Satan when the Mavic would not stay true) and the only real criticism at the design has been leveled at the front fork been selected to save weight rather than ultimate strength. The brakes are XT which I have found actually work when retro fitted to Satan unlike a lot of other hydraulic brakes. Interesting the Muru on their Outlander version uses the Avid BB7 mechanical brakes that a friend brought a "temporary" system when his hydraulics failed just before a ride and then found no pressing reason to remove them as very good.

So rather the exact opposite what I was originally looking for. Time will tell if it is the right decision for me. A few friends ride the Spark and love them and were tempted by the Genius but the higher price point and the Genius not as nimble (they race XC) geometry governed their decision. I hope I can rave about rather than at Hellstrom.

Cheers

User avatar
Duck!
Expert
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Duck! » Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:12 am

The consistency in rear-end geometry across frame sizes is primarily a cost-rationalisation measure, especially when suspension is factored into the mix. The suspension system is designed with the pivot points in particular locations to achieve the desired travel, so the rear swingarm and seat angle are the same across all sizes. Hardtails may slacken the seat angle slightly as the frames get bigger, but the chainstay length stays the same.

At 71 degrees head angle, your XTC is a very aggressive, race oriented bike. Slackening by two degrees doesn't sound like much, but when you factor that in over the length of the fork, it does kick the front wheel noticeably further out front, which takes the edge off the steering & improves stability through the lumpy stuff.

I note with interest your comment on Scott's use of different wheelsizes for different frame sizes; it's something I've thought should be done, but dismissed as never happening because it's too logical.... I'm impressed that a reasonably major manufacturer has got the guts to implement it, and seriously hope that more follow. The big reason you see small pro riders on ridiculously-proportioned 29ers is because that's what their sponsoring manufacturers produce....
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:50 pm

Hi RonK

Though the decision to buy a Scott Genius 910 has made the decision on the Rohloff hub moot, very good points you raised. I might have wound up with the perfect "storm" of noise as been unable to push the 8 gear or higher with the 2.5 ratio demanded for the 100>kg rider. One thing is for certain, if I were to revisit a fat bike I will be much more interested in trying the exact bike that I would be buying as what you write likely explains the wildly varying reports on the Rohloff gears. Get a frame that acts like a old style gramophone and yes ear plugs all round.

Others

Found a very good article on the wheel size wars. Yeap, they also have the view that rider size should govern wheel size choice. They use a ratio of 165cm on 26" scales up to 185cm on 29" to get the similar stability. Hope this theory holds for me.

User avatar
Dragster1
Posts: 1540
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:46 pm
Location: Eluding motorist

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Dragster1 » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:09 am

RonK wrote:Well, I've not had much greater success with OS merchants contact pages either. I did get a reply from Muru bikes though.

It can be difficult to buy online. Shipping from the US is usually prohibitive, and QBP - the owner of Surly and Salsa does not permit their dealers to sell online.

A good place to start locally might be River City Cycles - my lbs in Brisbane, which has specialised in fat bikes.

You could phone or email Troy Szczurkowski - Fatbike and Adventure bike specialist

River City Cycles - admin@rivercitycycles.com.au
P: 07 3892 4955
M: 0408 424 206
E: troys@rivercitycycles.com.au
Blog: http://troyszczurkowski.blogspot.com.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check out Troy's blog - he's very active on the adventure cycling circuit.

Another option is to try German shop HiBike. I bought my Salsa frame from them, price was very competitive, service excellent, shipping very reasonable.
I second to recommend Troy, very helpful, knowledgeable and has hands on experience with fatties.

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:57 pm

Well new bike did not turn up as been rather optimistic on shipping to Tassie so took Satan out for one last ride before settiing him up to be more road oriented. Satan did not miss the chance so now typing one hand with a broken humerus. He is in protective custody at a friend's place I as was planning to operate on him with my new reciprocal saw and posting him back in one inch segements once a week to Giant HQ.

If any one "recommends" a XC optimised design to anyone but a dedicated racer I am prepared to stand as the other person's character witness if they claim self defence. :twisted:

User avatar
Duck!
Expert
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Duck! » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:10 pm

Familiar with the saying, "a bad tradesman blames his tools"? It's the same riding bikes....
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:38 pm

Duplicated post
Last edited by Ent on Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Ent
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Ent » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:39 pm

Duck! wrote:Familiar with the saying, "a bad tradesman blames his tools"? It's the same riding bikes....
And a bad desinger blames the user. "unsafe at any speed" heard that one? Never had an issue with any other bike over forty years. Just a very, very poor design scaled up with no consideration for stability. Yet another reason to avoid GIant. Take a look at the web and you will see a raft of issues not the least been brakes failing with that model. Know two other people personally that happened to. Hence the very good XT brakes I retrofitted as my brakes failled.

In the ambulance the paramedic had come back from a fall off his bike. Yeap a Giant in large size. Swapped for a test my Bianchi witha Giant of the same size and the Giant owner could not believe how planted the C2C geometry was. Giant simply do not understand the taller riders.

No Duck seen too many work place injuries where crap design has played a major role to think that quoting old sayings as fact nothing more than hogwash. As ocassionally said in Avation some aircraft should never fly. The XL XTC 2 2007 should never have been sold. Might be fine in the medium but in the XL just dangerous.

And thanks for your sympathy. A world class human being response to someone that has just come out of hospital having dodged the need for an operation. Happy trolling along.

User avatar
Dragster1
Posts: 1540
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:46 pm
Location: Eluding motorist

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby Dragster1 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:07 am

Ent wrote:
Duck! wrote:Familiar with the saying, "a bad tradesman blames his tools"? It's the same riding bikes....
And a bad desinger blames the user. "unsafe at any speed" heard that one? Never had an issue with any other bike over forty years. Just a very, very poor design scaled up with no consideration for stability. Yet another reason to avoid GIant. Take a look at the web and you will see a raft of issues not the least been brakes failing with that model. Know two other people personally that happened to. Hence the very good XT brakes I retrofitted as my brakes failled.

In the ambulance the paramedic had come back from a fall off his bike. Yeap a Giant in large size. Swapped for a test my Bianchi witha Giant of the same size and the Giant owner could not believe how planted the C2C geometry was. Giant simply do not understand the taller riders.

No Duck seen too many work place injuries where crap design has played a major role to think that quoting old sayings as fact nothing more than hogwash. As ocassionally said in Avation some aircraft should never fly. The XL XTC 2 2007 should never have been sold. Might be fine in the medium but in the XL just dangerous.

And thanks for your sympathy. A world class human being response to someone that has just come out of hospital having dodged the need for an operation. Happy trolling along.
Most XC bikes are designed to be darty in tight bush and good climbers, short wheel base, short chain stays and steep head angles. You have to know how to steer them with counter balance or you will wash out the front wheel everytime.

User avatar
xx68
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:05 pm
Location: Romsey , Country Vic

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby xx68 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:15 pm

Not smart enuff to argue intelligently on preceding subjects ......but ,

I bought a fat bike today and - it's awesome ! I looked at full race XC bikes , dual sussers and hard tails .

But they left me cold , I wanted a bike that would make me giggle , and it does , very short ride today as the weather is closing in .
Sorry 'bout the fall , try a fat bike ,and I'm not a lightweight - think more "chunky" ,as I found the xc bikes more twitchy ,fine for race , but I'm not a racer .

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 15469
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Fat Bike - Stability - reliability and then the rest

Postby trailgumby » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:51 pm

If you're solid in build and looking for an all-day bike, I can recommend the Cannondale Trigger 29er as a good all-rounder.

The only change I'd make would be to swap the weight-weenie Crest rims for Arch Ex's or Flows and you should be right. Changeover wold be $200 for rims + labour. Spokes should be reusable. Mine has Hans Dampf rubber on it which is sticky and forgiving. I picked up the 2013 aloy Trigger 1 model with some spare brake pads, rubber and spare non-dropper seatpost for $2k.

In climbing mode it runs a steeper head angle and drops from 130 to 80mm rear travel with less sag. The trick with climbing is that you need to keep your weight forward, sit and spin an easy gear. I sit right on the saddle tip and run the bars a bit lower than many and looping out is rarely a concern. I have quite a few 20% climbs in my area with waterbars hitting 40%and am more likely to spin my rear tyre spitting out a loose rock than loop out. I prefer my bikes a bit longer in the cockpit, which also helps with climbing stability.

Riding wider tyres on wider rims at lower pressure helps a lot with wheel life. An acquaintance of mine, Pierre, is 120kg+ and runs a Ti hardtail with 2.4" tubeless tyres at no more than 25psi and can climb walls.

One day on Long Track out at Ku Ring Gai Change NP, I was following him into the infamous pinch near the end and I rode about 1/3rd of the way up and hopped off, expecting that if Mr Climbing Machine (me) was going to likely spin a wheel he had no hope. Well blow down with a feather, he just kept going and winched his way to the top. All 120kg. No wheelspin. Didn't go close to stalling and tipping off sideways. So I learned that day that I need have no concern about running less than 25psi at the rear on my Scalpel for my 80kg. It's now a much more comfortable and grippy ride.

Hope there's something useful for you in the above.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users