Must be my screen but that looks about 6" high. Must've shrunk in the rain .

RIP wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:53 pm Must be my screen but that looks about 6" high. Must've shrunk in the rain .

Well it does get ridden in the rain a lot (being based in Scotland) but it's a 19" frame, honest!

I’d never say never but I currently don’t do the sort of riding to justify a fat bike

A "no" from me

They are funny like an awkward clown (Swiss circus clowns, basically) on regular single track terrain.
If you're a beginner you'll be happy how it helps will rolling over stuff you'd otherwise struggle.
If you're a capable rider, you'll be fighting the immense rebound of the large volume tyres beyond a certain speed - no matter how well you've sorted the tyre pressure. And the weight of the wheels of course. They lack precision too.

Any of my bikes with chunky tyres (like Magic Mary) has more cornering traction on dirt, or even snow (prepared ski slope).

On smooth surfaces it's quite okay, but so is just about any bicycle.

On the other side of arguments, they are extremely capable on snow and sand, when even plus bikes get stuck.
If you live next to sand dunes or have 4 months of snow behind your house - get one.
From awkwardly funny, they become fun, efficient and very capable in taking you to places you never though a bike could go (with sensible reasoning).

There might be an easy answer if you change the question to "is there some terrain around where I ride, on which a fatbike would provide a better platform?".

Alec wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:51 pm trail oriented geometry ones and then bikepacking/adventure/lots of xc type miles ones.

That has me thinking a bit. Not knowing what the market looks like exactly, I'm convinced they (bike manufacturers) are mostly/all heading in one direction - trail bike geometry for everything. Not just fatbikes.

Look at what even the slow responding and supporter of classic geo's are doing. I told the BB forum a while ago where the geo journey of just about everything offroad was going to go.

Long, slack, low - it's betterer

I voted no as they just don't appeal to me. I find my 29 x 3 hard enough going at times and have started to down size to 2.6's but after reading your response's and if you think you could move it on without losing to much then there really isn't a lot to lose, and you'll at least get an experience out of it.

Rather than buying new, wouldn't picking up a used bike be sensible? There are always OOFs coming up on the various FB fat bike groups and bargaining power should be strong now that fat bikes are no longer flavour of the month. Things to look for are V2 frames (v1s can crack at the seat tube, although mine was fine) and Hope rear hub as a replacement for the terrible On One OEM hub which always fail and have zero spares support (fronts are fine). Blutos are nice if you ride normal mtb trails but the On One carbon forks are decent too and quite light if you want a light build (I got mine down to just over 26lbs before I added a dropper and Blutos). They're fun to ride with fairly slack geometry and low standover.

Alec wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:51 pm The only other thing to note is that they can get quite spacehopper like at speed on trail centre type trails,

Aye, very much depends on the trails. My 9zero7 was fantastic round Glentress (set some of my best times on it, up and down) but completely useless at Laggan where it would simply bounce off stuff.

Alpinum wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:24 am If you're a beginner you'll be happy how it helps will rolling over stuff you'd otherwise struggle.
If you're a capable rider, you'll be fighting the immense rebound of the large volume tyres beyond a certain speed - no matter how well you've sorted the tyre pressure. And the weight of the wheels of course. They lack precision too.

Long, slack, low - it's betterer

I broadly agree with these comments but I think even a seasoned rider will benefit with the ability to roll over stuff and a fat bike exceeds the abilities of a 29er in this respect. Performance on wet, cambered roots is beyond anything I've experienced on a non fat bike (for transparency, I've ridden 650b+ but not 29+). I've done repeated back to back tests on my fat bike and my Orbea Rallon (29x2.5) on the tight, muddy, steep rooty local trails and the fat bike is quicker unless the trails are absolutely dry (which is almost never the case). If the trails are dry or very rocky and hard packed then speeds go up and the rebound/spacehopper effect begins to kick in and a narrower tyred full suspension bike will be quicker but we are talking about riding at speeds that'd make a narrow tyre hardtail or fully rigid bike really uncomfortable and difficult to manage as well.
Regarding geometry, I agree totally. My Smokestone has a head angle of 66.5 degrees and an effective top tube of 624mm, Rallon is 65 degrees and 644mm effective top tube for roughly the same size frame (L Smokestone and XL Rallon but Rallon sizing is weird) and they both make my Ramin feel like a road bike in terms of stability and security on technical terrain. Horses for courses though........

I can't believe the NO vote is running ahead of the YES!!!
Where's the commitment and encouragement for N+1??

Where's the "It depends" option

As Phil says, it really depends on where and what you ride. While snow and beaches have been mentioned they are also great for moorland riding. The other area they are good for is riding footpaths as everyone just smiles at the bike and ignores/forgets the fact that you shouldn't really be there (Scots readers may remain smug and silent )

My fat bike probably gets the least use out of my bikes but mostly it's not about distance/time/number of rides but when it's the right tool for the job, you're glad you've got one. Having said that, sometimes it's fun just to take it out when it really isn't appropriate and just to wind people up.

Tyres really make or break a fat bike, get the wrong ones for your riding and you'll hate it. The problem is that they are so bloomin' expensive so finding what's right can be expensive (and requires storage space that ATS would envy).

Yep, tyres have a big part to play in the grin factor of riding a fat bike and indeed they can be expensive. However the Nates (slow,draggy but a great tyre) on my Mukluk (the black and white one) are nearly 6 years old and are the originals! The bike still does a fine job at riding through stuff although I think they are a due to be replaced.
Jumbo Jims on t'other one are fast rolling but naff on wet grass, gloopy stuff. Wheels like ahs been mentioned have a part too, yes some are heavy (the Darryls on the Mukluk) but the Whiskey's on the Bucksaw are featherlite! Both bikes are great on varying terrain.
One thing fat bikes do for me though is I've never 'lost' the front end once in 6 years of riding them.

At the end of the day Al you have to ask yourself will you ride it on the terrain it deserves?

I could always loan you the Mukluk for GFBD in December btw

Jurassic wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:54 am I broadly agree with these comments but I think even a seasoned rider will benefit with the ability to roll over stuff and a fat bike exceeds the abilities of a 29er in this respect.

The seasoned rider needs to ride faster to make my case valid

If you have the money, time and the space for it then go for it. You'll forget the cost and remember the memories

I'd say the same for all bikes. They're fun so why not?

I have no use for one where I am, but I rented an e-fatbike when I was in Lapland for xmas, it was excellent fun!

It's very, very seldom that the measure of a good ride, for me, is how fast I went.

ScotRoutes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:24 pm It's very, very seldom that the measure of a good ride, for me, is how fast I went.

Isn't that what the slow people (like me) say?

ScotRoutes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:24 pm It's very, very seldom that the measure of a good ride, for me, is how fast I went.

For me too. The slower the ride, the more I see which is a win win for me. Gone are the days of hurtling down some singletrack not knowing if a trip to A&E is just (literally) around the corner. I thought it was roadies who wanted to be the fastest.
Slow and fat is where its at

summittoppler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:55 pm
Slow and fat is where its at

That's described me to a tee ,even without a fat bike

ScotRoutes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:24 pm It's very, very seldom that the measure of a good ride, for me, is how fast I went.

Wise words.

benp1 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:40 pm

ScotRoutes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:24 pm It's very, very seldom that the measure of a good ride, for me, is how fast I went.

Isn't that what the slow people (like me) say? 

You could of course put it this way; who likes an inefficient bike?
(yes, I too have my moments on a rather slow bicycle – but it's very special and nothing I'd want to use for regular trips)

summittoppler wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:55 pm The slower the ride, the more I see which is a win win for me.

Tough one.
I got back from 3 days with a very good mate - much slower than myself up and down - yesterday later afternoon.

If I wasn't going his pace, I went ahead a few minutes and waited. Checked for plants, animals, sat down and enjoyed the views, made sure we had enough water etc.

Once again I experienced the differences well, like when I was biking in a spot and not much later go hiking there.

So what does faster mean? Doesn't it also mean you can cover more ground if you want, or stay longer at a lovely spot?

I saw much more (of our surroundings) than my mate (and was constantly pointing them out), mainly because I was fitter, but not just.

I have a much more efficient and faster bike -  up and down -  than his.

Slower would've meant spending more time to cover ground I have to keep my attention on. Others may ride smooth gravel and empty roads more than I do and can ride and look around, see the biodiversity, the change of geology in detail etc. When I'm riding I can't do both, usually. Perhaps we have different conceptions mostly due to this(?)

If you want to see much whilst on the move, go hiking – yet even then, be careful not to trip over.
If you want to see much whilst biking, you better stop or risk visiting A & E. The faster you go, the longer you can stop and soak it all up.

The way I see it, faster is positive in both ways. 1. more time to stop and 2. more thrill (equal to fun for me).

Fatbike = less plant sniffing 

P.s.: sorry for the OT...

had 3 up to now, loved them all in different ways, the Current Canyon Dude is a total weapon

My Fatty Trail has probably been my most used bike for the past couple of years. I live and ride in the Surrey Hills and that’s where it gets ridden when I’m out with mates who predominantly ride fast on 150mm-ish full sussers.

I ride it because it’s fun for that techy, rooty, twisty, jumpy kind of riding and it makes a change from my (many ) other bikes. I’m sure I’m nowhere near Alpinium’s level but I don’t mince about. (I get what you’re saying but fast isn’t my only criteria for enjoying these rides.)

I’ve never used it for a ride of more than 40 miles, or for bikepacking, because it’s never seemed like a good idea. But it might one day.

Another thing to think about - being able to go places most bikes won't you'll be encouraged to try to go places anything (including a fatbike) won't go. This can get you into an awful lot of trouble.....

PS I like it when they start bouncing around off bumps

Fatbike = less plant sniffing

I can't be the only one who read that as 'panty sniffing' .... can I?

Definitely just you Stu. Absolutely didn't see that here, oh no no, in no way. Er. Cough.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:13 am

Fatbike = less plant sniffing

I can't be the only one who read that as 'panty sniffing' .... can I?