Full-sus Fatty

Talk about anything.

Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew

User avatar
Yorlin
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:58 pm

Full-sus Fatty

Post by Yorlin »

Press release for the Salsa Bucksaw...

http://salsacycles.com/culture/introducing_bucksaw

Image

I can't help thinking the slogan should be "you don't even need the fat wheels!" :shock:

(Revelate people shared on facebook - can't help think that Charlie the Bikemonger is going to make some strange noises :lol: )
User avatar
royAB
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:18 am
Location: Narfalk

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by royAB »

I really am struggling to see the point of these

(look nice tho...)
User avatar
FLV
Posts: 4252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Northern Edge of the Peak - Mostly

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by FLV »

royAB wrote:I really am struggling to see the point of these

(look nice tho...)
Just cos I guess.... :grin:
User avatar
royAB
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:18 am
Location: Narfalk

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by royAB »

.... also something vaguely familiar about it;

Image

Mint Sauce has much to answer for..
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 3954
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by johnnystorm »

royAB wrote:.... also something vaguely familiar about it;

Image

Mint Sauce has much to answer for..
:)

As for the purpose, looking back at those pics of Cavedale......
Image
User avatar
Ian
Posts: 4655
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:10 pm
Location: Scotlandshire
Contact:

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Ian »

On the really rocky stuff the fat tyres do tend to become a bit "unmanageable" at a fast pace if purely rigid. I see the point of the fork though; would be handy to take the edge off some stuff around the Beacons.
User avatar
FLV
Posts: 4252
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Northern Edge of the Peak - Mostly

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by FLV »

I was thinking about how the sus forks would work with fat tyres.

I wonder if they would need a really soft initial part of the stroke to allow for the low pressures in the tyre. Just wondered if you'd have the tyre deformed 2 inch before you get halfway through the travel.
User avatar
Cheeky Monkey
Posts: 3915
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:48 pm
Location: Leeds ish
Contact:

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Cheeky Monkey »

On the face of it it seems ridiculous :lol:

But then again so do/did fatbikes. It seems counter-intuitive to how I thought they "worked" but I don't ride one so completely accept I don't know all that much to consider it in context.

UUntil Peaty rides one I'm going to assume it's a fad :wink:
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 23946
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

I was thinking about how the sus forks would work with fat tyres.

I wonder if they would need a really soft initial part of the stroke to allow for the low pressures in the tyre. Just wondered if you'd have the tyre deformed 2 inch before you get halfway through the travel.
I've been giving this some thought too and although the concept sounds great I think it'll be quite difficult to get the suspension to work well / feel right. IMO the biggest problem with fat tyres is the undamped rebound, the effects of which get worse as speed increases / the lumpy bits get bigger / a combination of both.

My thinking is that the forks might be better if they had a higher spring rate, high initial compression damping and a damping curve that actually tails off as the forks move through their travel ... this would allow the tyres to take care of the suspension duties for the smaller / slower stuff and then allow the forks to take over as the undamped tyre started to become an issue ... consider the bike behaving like a rigid until speed / lumps increase :wink: Something like the Terralogic thing that Fox produced might do the trick :ugeek:

We'll leave the issue of unsprung weight for another day :wink:
May the bridges you burn light your way
User avatar
RayKickButts
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:55 pm
Location: South Wales

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by RayKickButts »

NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?
Image
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 3954
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by johnnystorm »

Prices were something like $4-5000!

Theres a long flight of steps near me from cliff top to beach. Fatty rolls most of them with ease but the last 20 or so its almost buckeroo time! That's where this would come in. :D
Image
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 3954
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by johnnystorm »

RayKickButts wrote:NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?
Assuming that your usage of the bike is bivi-ing in Alaska, etc. This is where Salsa say Fattys aren't just for remote exploration duties.
Image
Gari
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:38 pm
Location: Grantown on Spey

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Gari »

A bit like a mountain bike then?!
vorlich
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: Off world.

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by vorlich »

That colour is lovely.

Overkill for what I do, but as others have mentioned, the fork might be useful.
fatbiker
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:41 pm

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by fatbiker »

RayKickButts wrote:NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?
As a keen fatbiker I couldn't agree more. I do think the full sus fatbikes are a step to far in the wrong direction.
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 3954
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by johnnystorm »

Gari wrote:A bit like a mountain bike then?!
What's one of those?

26" wheels, 2" tyres, suspension?

/Looks at Fargo with none of those....
Image
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 3954
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by johnnystorm »

fatbiker wrote:
RayKickButts wrote:NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?
As a keen fatbiker I couldn't agree more. I do think the full sus fatbikes are a step to far in the wrong direction.
Being Devil's advocate here, how do you reconcile World Cup XC MTBs with DH MTBs & your common or garden trail bike? Who's 'right'?
Image
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 23946
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

While basking in the glory of another successful death march and nursing a cup of tea outside a Welsh Trail centre cafe I was approached by someone who informed me that my grubby loaded Inbred wasn't actually a mountain bike. Upon further questioning, he explained to me that mountain bikes required suspension if they were to be ridden properly 'off road'. I enquired as to whether his shiny 6" travel Moncrunge was a mountain bike and he told me "it's an All Mountain Bike". With this, I probed further and asked whether this "All Mountain Bike" had ever actually been up, down or along any mountains or had (as I suspected) just spent the last few months being minced round sanitised trails in non-descript forests ... I received no answer, he just looked at his five tens and shuffled off :wink:
May the bridges you burn light your way
User avatar
Ray Young
Posts: 3443
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:40 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Ray Young »

^^^ I hate twats like that, I am so glad you put him in his place in such a succinct and effective manner.
User avatar
Bearbonesnorm
Posts: 23946
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: my own little world

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Bearbonesnorm »

Back to the matter in hand ... aside from what I said earlier about the specifics of the suspension, does it not seem that adding suspension to a fat bike starts to 'dilute' their main positive attribute?

I know that opinion has changed slightly and fat bikes are now (by some) seen as something not specific to sand / snow / mud, which surely means that a suspended fat bike used on trails that don't require the flotation properties of 3.8" - 4.5" tyres will offer no real benefit over a non-fat suspension bike.

Obviously this doesn't account for the 'smile factor' which if truth be told is possibly the most important thing to consider when buying a bike ... if you like it, you can afford it and it makes you smile, get it bought!
May the bridges you burn light your way
User avatar
johnnystorm
Posts: 3954
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Eastern (Anglia) Front

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by johnnystorm »

+1 on dealing with the nobber :-bd

Your final paragraph sums up my opinion, if you want it, can afford it and gets you where you want to go.....go for it. :cool:
Image
User avatar
Cheeky Monkey
Posts: 3915
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:48 pm
Location: Leeds ish
Contact:

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Cheeky Monkey »

Yep, if you want it, have it and if you like it, schweet :cool:

I wonder about it because (I like to think) I also have a thick vein of function-over-form running through me (not that much though, as my urge for Ti illustrates). I wonder about a FS Fatty because the form (which I feel a bit about Fatties too, TBH) seems to be heavily outweighing the function.

Bit like when slopestyle bikes were around and quite a few folks bought them as bikes-to-ride-most-of-the-time. Carting around 35 to 40lbs on a pretty average ride. Bonkers. Relatively quickly died as a fad. I wonder whether FS fat is the same?

Anyhoo, I'm vacillating about a Rooster so what do I know :grin:
User avatar
Zippy
Posts: 3059
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:43 pm
Location: Suffolk
Contact:

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by Zippy »

I think that bike might be a guilty pleasure. I don't really see the point, shouldn't like it, but I do, it looks cool, look's like fun and I like it :lol: :-bd

(Bit like a '67 shelby mustang gt500, I bloody hate american muscle cars, but I have a real soft spot for that one considering I'm more of a JDM fanboy (but not riced!))
User avatar
99percentchimp
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: North Wales!

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by 99percentchimp »

Kind of like this.... overkill most of the time but likely to be the last thing with any traction in some situations....

Image
Conquistador of the pointless
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99percentchimp/
User avatar
JohnClimber
Posts: 3922
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:41 pm

Re: Full-sus Fatty

Post by JohnClimber »

Fat bikes are really for snow or sand and not for going up and down hills, there are many other bikes for that job.

My Mukluk is perfect for both, my On One Fatty is more trail orientated and there are many other sorts of bike that do this sort of riding that don't need 4" tyres, but I could afford it so I bought it, simples.

I wouldn't fancy taking this full susser fat bike anywhere near a sandy beach, once the sand gets in the moving bit's it will just eat it away. Rigid only on sand.
Post Reply