Fat Bikes - Full suspension or not?

[Rob_T]

i'm toying with the idea of a fat bike.

i ride around the chilterns - lots of hard climbing, lots of great descents, can be root, loose chalk, rocks.

anyone who has experience of them:

1. would full sus be preferable or would i be happy simply with front forks
2. how useless are they on clergy mud?
3. anyone used them in the alps?
4. are they, as the marketing people would like you to believe, the most fun you can have on two wheels?

any ideas for what to go for?

[Fluffsri]

Go and ride one mate! You might not like it.

[Steamer]

As per the above. Have you tried one, or do you have a group of mates that also ride them?

I'm open minded towards all new trends in cycling.. I even got slated for being an early adopter of the 29er... however I just don't get Fat bikes in the UK (unless maybe its snowing)

A guy came out on a group ride with us in the woods a few weeks back, and although we can't say exactly how 'bike fit' he was, the climbs were galacially slow, it made alot of noise and the first tight twisty bit under the trees he binned it. It looked like an old F1 car caught out on a wet track.

I think I'd be looking more towards 27.5+

[Kermit power]

I tried one once. It was bloody weird! The bloke I borrowed it off loved it though, so to each their own, I guess.

The one thing I definitely felt was that the last thing it needed was suspension!!

I didn't even know you could get full suspension Fat Bikes (it seems you can, but a quick bit of googling only showed me the Salsa Buzzsaw), and I can't possibly imagine anyone ever having any use for it in this country. Even front suspension seems fairly redundant on them.

I presume you're not thinking of getting one as an only bike, so can you really say you're going to be riding rough enough trails in harsh enough ground conditions that you can't cope with either a normal full susser or a rigid fattie?

[Herman Toothrot]

A fat bike in the Chilterns, quite possibly horrible - that's where my money would be. If you like the idea of big tyres get a 29er with clearance to fit 650b+ that way when you get bored of all the punctures on the sharp flints you can just put the 29er wheels back on.

[anonymous-user]

They are at their best rigid but they are not to all tastes, for me the novelty would wear off quickly but my mate rides his fat bike all over the north. You can't ride then fast though, that's not what they are designed for, they suit all day rides or bike packing. The huge volume tyres are all the suspension you need.

[Fluffsri]

A friend has one and went with hardtail as he found the rigid front forks made it too bouncy,I rode his round a quarry and really enjoyed it! He rides his all the time now and loves it. His full bouncer hasnt been used since he bought it.

[yellowjack]

Kermit power said:

I tried one once. It was bloody weird! The bloke I borrowed it off loved it though, so to each their own, I guess.

The one thing I definitely felt was that the last thing it needed was suspension!!

I didn't even know you could get full suspension Fat Bikes (it seems you can, but a quick bit of googling only showed me the Salsa Buzzsaw), and I can't possibly imagine anyone ever having any use for it in this country. Even front suspension seems fairly redundant on them.

I presume you're not thinking of getting one as an only bike, so can you really say you're going to be riding rough enough trails in harsh enough ground conditions that you can't cope with either a normal full susser or a rigid fattie?

Very much this. I've seen plenty in races I've done. There's usually a separate classification for them within the race. Back in 2014 I did a race in truly awful weather conditions, which turned a normally firm, fast lap into a swamp. The fatties really excelled on it. In the hands of the fast lads, sponsored amateurs from shop teams, etc, they can show a 'normal' MTB a clean pair of heals. Certainly a talented rider on a fattie is going to leave me for dust in most conditions.

I've only ever seen the rigid fat bikes though. Seemingly (from talking to riders) they run pressures so low that all the 'bounce' they need is in the volume of the air in the tyre. I've not considered getting one yet, but I know that even local to me, at the wetter times of the year, there is plenty of riding that would suit a fat bike. Money no object I'd buy one, but currently keeping up with maintenance and wear replacement parts on my full-sus MTB and my road bike eats up all of my cycling budget.

[Johnnybee]

I've got a fat bike and I've never felt that it needs suspension, they are plenty bouncy enough without. Never had a problem climbing with it and on some of the downhills I'm actually quicker than my full suspension. The grip from the wide tyres and their ability to soak up rough terrain can give you that bit more confidence to plough over stuff where on a narrower tyred bike you'd have to choose your line a bit more carefully.

[mackie1]

Second the B+/26er idea. I'm toying with the idea of a Trek Fuel 27.5+ (or similar) myself. Had a brief demo of one at the cycle show and got lots of pedal strikes though - possibly due to excessive sag (i'm heavy) but I've seen it mentioned a lot online too.
Lots of fun being able to smash into stuff that would ping a regular tyre sideways though. Likely really terrible in mud.