Category Archives: Fatbike

2 Fat 2 Furious: A Fat Bike Freeride Film

Teetering on the edge of wiping out in nearly every frame of this film, these freeriders push the limits of their Rocky Mountain Blizzard fatbikes.
Deep powder, steep chutes, good sized drops, and a dirt jump session complete with backflips and 360s kept me entertained for the entire 3 minutes and 4 seconds.

Good job Rocky Mountain.

Enjoy!

Marin Pine Mountain 2: Steel 27.5+ Hardtail – First Look Review [VIDEO]

Marin celebrates its 30 year anniversary with a new bike that harkens back to the classic, well-liked model it shares its name with, the Pine Mountain. In the video below, we take a look at the 2016 Marin Pine Mountain 2. The Pine Mountain 2 has upgraded build specs and frame construction (compared to the Pine Mounatin 1) that we took a close look at. Not only did we discuss those build specs and frame construction choices made by Marin, but also the possible applications for this 27.5 plus hardtail trail bike.

When looking at the Marin Pine Mountain 2, there were many things I immediately liked and/or was intrigued with.

The first was the frame construction. Columbus CrMo steel catches my attention right away. I have been a huge fan of steel hardtails ever since my first singlespeed 29er. The modern steel frames can be drawn, butted, and formed very precisely yielding a frame that has ride quality and rigidity in just the right places for a great balance of efficiency and comfort. This frame is unique in that it has really cool, high quality, yet understated graphics and design elements. The 30th anniversary emblem on the seat tube looks phenomenal. The raw, clear-coated frame with brazing showing through makes this frame look completely custom and has an industrial feel. As I looked at the brazing, I noticed this steel frame has cable routing through the frame. For a steel frame this is almost unheard of. Mad props to Marin for including this. It isn’t entirely necessary, but isappreciated as it makes this bike look clean, high quality, and if you didn’t know better, a one-off piece that was custom ordered.

Secondly, was the plus sized wheels and tires. While WTB Trailblazers are on the narrow end of the plus bike tread options, they roll quick and add volume that is noticeable. The WTB Scraper rims, with their 45mm inner width, allow a wide profile and will be a good foundation for any other tires you may decide to use in the future.

Thirdly, the rack and fender mounts on the frame are definitely a rarity on a trail bike like this. In my opinion, its better to have them and not need them, should you only use this bike in drier conditions for a general trail bike instead of loading it up or outfitting it with fenders. Like the adage goes, “Its better to have them and not need them, then not have them and wish you had them.” I imagine other frames like this, capable of general trail riding with higher volume tires and a little more comfortable geometry, will start incorporating features that cater to bikepacking, longer rides, and carrying more gear as overnight trips by bike continue to grow in popularity.

Fourth, I noticed the HUGE amount of clearance on the Fox Float 34 fork. This thing could probably come close to clearing an actual fat bike tire. It appears that tires close to 4 inches wide may fit. 29 plus tires should fit no problem, so I imagine just about any 27.5 plus tire could fit up there. That is a great plus. Pun intended.

Fifth, the dropper post. This was very intriguing. While I have yet to use a dropper post on a bikepacking trip, I have used them on trail rides and they are undoubtedly a huge benefit. This is the first time I can recall seeing a bike come factory spec’d with both a dropper post and rack mounts on the frame.  I quickly wondered why. Why haven’t I seen this combination before and why did Marin include both. Both of my two hypotheses hinged on the assumption that because Marin wanted to make this a trail bike (Marin calls it “Trail+”), they included a dropper post. That seems reasonable. My first hypothesis is that in order to utilize a dropper post while bikepacking, the larger seat bags that are so common and often necessary for carrying sleeping bags, tents, clothing, or other bulky items would not be possible. Since the large seat bag wouldn’t be used when using the dropper, rack mounts would provide the opportunity to carry that necessary volume on a rear rack. The second hypothesis is that Marin figured most of the time, trail riders would prefer to have a dropper post, so they included it in the build, but they knew that the plus-size platform, with the trail geometry and steel frame would attract many riders would see this bike as one that can fulfill two roles: trail riding and bikepacking/all terrain touring. If riders plan to trail ride most days, but occasionally use it for an overnight bike trip, it would be easy to either swap out the seat post and use a large seat bag, or mount a rack and bags to carry their gear. I think its a good call and may be ahead of its time in a trend that may start in the future as we see more riders using their bikes to explore and spend nights in the backcountry.

Build Specs as listed on MarinBikes.com:

  • Frame: Columbus Thron Butted and Formed CrMo, 27.5+ Wheels, Boost 148x12mm Naild Locking Thru-Axle Dropouts
  • Weight: 29.01 lb/13.16 kg (published bike weight is based on a size Medium frame)
  • Front Fork: Fox Float 34 27.5+, 3 Position Lever, 110x15mm Thru-Axle
  • Crankset: Shimano Deore XT Hollowtech II, 32T
  • Derailleur Rear: Shimano Deore XT Shadow Plus
  • Shift Lever: Shimano Deore XT 1×11-Speed
  • Derailleur Front: Cassette: Shimano Deore XT 11-Speed, 11-42T
  • Bottom Bracket: Shimano Hollowtech II
  • Chain: KMC X11L
  • Hub Rear: Formula, 148x12mm, Alloy Axle, Quad Cartridge Sealed Bearing, Centerlock Disc, 32H
  • Hub Front: Formula, 110x15mm, Sealed Cartridge Bearing, Centerlock Disc 28H
  • Rim: WTB Scraper, 45mm Inner, Tubeless Ready Spokes
  • Nipples: 14g Black Stainless Steel
  • Tires: WTB Trail Blazer, 27.5×2.8
  • Brakes Front: Shimano SLX Hydraulic Disc, 180mm Rotor
  • Brakes Rear: Shimano SLX Hydraulic Disc, 160mm Rotor
  • Brake Levers: Shimano SLX Hydraulic Cockpit
  • Handlebar: Marin Flat Top Riser Grips: Marin Locking
  • Stem: Marin 3D Forged Alloy
  • Headset: FSA Orbit, Sealed Cartridge Bearing, 1 1/8
  • Seatpost: KS LEV Integra, 30.9mm
  • Saddle: WTB SLC XC

 

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Subscribe to get more of our content sent to your inbox!

————-

www.RideAlongside.com

Ride alongside one another. On bikes, through life, together.

 

Are Plus Tires Too Fat?

Regarding durability and potential sidewall cuts, plus sized tires, by design, have wider sidewalls that allow for fewer possible line choices to pick than narrower tires would when navigating tight rocky singletrack. Its in these situations where precise tire placement may be preferred more than the increased traction, rollover, and compliance that a plus tire provides. The issue becomes when a plus tire either is so well reinforced that it is incredibly heavy or the tire is made so attractively lightweight that the sidewalls are too thin to depend upon in all trail sceanarios.
image

Price of course comes into play here and yet again we see a place for the bicycle industry to focus it’s efforts on achieving highest possible durability, with lowest possible weight, while providing it to the consumer at the lowest possible cost. As the saying goes, however, “Light, strong, and cheap: pick two.”

What are your thoughts?

When would Plus-sized tires be too fat?
For that matter, when are 3.0, Plus-sized tires too skinny?

When are 4.0, fatbike tires optimal? What about 4.8’s?

When are 2.2 or 2.4 width tires too skinny?
Can it be quantified? (E.g., for snow greater than 3 inches deep, a 3.0 tire is too skinny to be efficient enough, etc.)

Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. We would love to carry on a discussion for which tire size you would choose and which conditions you would prefer it.

image

Wide Tires on Narrow(er) Rims

Recently, I have had opportunities to ride a variety of plus tires and rims in a few different combinations. When riding narrower 35mm wide rims, 3.0 tires are definitely more rounded out than they would be with a 45 or 50mm wide rim, but I actually tend to prefer it. I can’t say definitively why it feels better to me, but I suspect that the flattening out of the center tread when run on wider rims feels less precise, harder to turn, and more sluggish to me. Now, with narrower rims, the peaked center tread feels more efficient and lively, quicker to turn, yet when I lean forward on the front 3.0 tire with lower pressure, it compresses, increasing tire surface contact, thereby yielding more front end traction and ultimately more control. I tend to acticely lean into the front when I steer and drift the rear more than I used to with previous setups and have grown to really appreciate the flexibility when I have that 29×3 Chupacabra at 12psi. Shifting weight fore or aft can really make a huge difference in how efficient the bike feels and how much traction the riders have at their disposal. Getting familiar with this sensation has made me faster. Undoubtedly faster.

image

First Look & Review: Pivot Cycles – Les Fat

For the better part of 2015, I viewed the Pivot Les Fat as a type of white whale. Although I did not actually obsess over it to the point of it nearly destroying me, I did devote much time to learning how Pivot designed it and if it was a “Jack of all trades, master of none”, or a really good, lightweight all-day, endurance-oriented, adventure-ready, multiple-season, multiple-tire sized framework on which to plan my future outings upon.

 

Photo Credit: PivotCycles.com

 

Before this past weekend, I had not been able to even see one in person, let alone ride one, and yet at the same time it seemed to be the ultimate “swiss army knife” bike with ability to accommodate all wheel sizes, Swinger dropouts and reversible headset cups maximizing versatility by changing geometry to suit the application/wheel size, and built up upon a lightweight, yet famously durable Pivot carbon frameset. Either it was really popular and flying off the shelves, or local Pivot dealers decided not to stock it.
Although I hadn’t necessarily traveled far and wide to specifically seek out the Les Fat, mostly due to the price point inhibiting my desire of actually owning one (the frameset alone retails for $2699), every person who had purchased one, from what I read or heard, had a difficult time finding one for a test ride, let alone sourcing one in stock to buy it.
The shop closest to home for me, aka my LBS (local bike shop), Black Mountain Bicycles, hosted a Demo Day this past weekend, where Specialized, Pivot,  and SRAM came with their latest offerings. Weeks prior, after finding out that my schedule was clear for that day, I asked my friend at the shop if he knew about the lineup Pivot would bring, specifically if they were bringing a Les Fat. I hadn’t seen one on the showroom floor at the LBS, so I was curious about seeing one in person and possibly riding one on my local trails.
Before going to the Demo Day, I already knew quite a bit about the Les Fat from studying up on it earlier this year.
The ability to run a set of 29+ wheels and tires (or any other size you like) on a high quality frameset was a little bit rare, but to be able to adjust the geometry accordingly while keeping the bottom bracket height the same was beyond rare. Not only that, but the bike has the clearance for up to 5 inch tires and yet they trimmed down the Q-factor tremendously, apparently “a full 15mm narrower than other cranks designed for 197mm rear ends”.  They internally routed the frame for a dropper post, shifter cables, and hydraulic disc brake hoses as well.

I could go on and on about the specs, but you can read all those on Pivot’s website, (http://www.pivotcycles.com/bike/les-fat/). You should probably click that link, it will open it in a new tab, and then you can toggle between my initial impressions review here and the Pivot website. Thats what I would do. 🙂

Let’s not beat around the bush too much, how about we get right to what I did and did not like? Sound good? Great! Read on…

 
What I liked.
1. The look.

Sleek for a fat bike, not over the top on color or graphics (Salsa has rainbow sherbert colored Beargreases for 2016, which some adore, but I abhor), and nicely shaped tubing, the downtube is thick in all the right places, but doesn’t look overly beefy from the profile view.
2. Cornering and trailbike prowess.
The first trail taken was a downhill with many banked switchback turns. The Maxxis Mammoth 26×4 tires were interesting.  On my primary bike, I have been running a 29×2.4 Maxxis Ardent on the rear that had a similar tread pattern for the most part to the Mammoth, but more evenly spaced knobs without so much space between the center knobs and side knobs. This space between the center and side knobs could be advantageous or horrendous,  depending on your riding style. I quickly found that I was able to really trust the side knobs, particularly on the front tire, but when braking would break loose the rear tire VERY easily for such a high volume, large contact patch tire. It broke loose much easier than the 2.4 Ardent. Both front and rear tires were holding approximately 8psi. While this rear tire breaking loose was annoying to me initially,  I learned to use it to my advantage and drift the corners that resulted in VERY fast turns. The side knobs were there for me too when I leaned the bike hard. The lower bottom bracket and slacker headtube angle of 69 degrees really helped make this fatbike feel like a capable trailbike. (I did have a significant pedal strike on one turn, likely due to the lower bottom bracket.) I was smiling all the way down those 6 bermed switchbacks. I came to a bridge with a slight lip up to it and gave it a quick bunny hop. Although the wheels and tires felt a little heavy, it was nimble in the air and sailed easily over the bridge, adding more trail bike confidence for me. I felt like I was already familiar with how this bike handled in what was less than a mile of riding and I was ready to really push it to see what it’s limits were.

 
3. Q-factor.

I have ridden Surly, Salsa, and Borealis fatbikes previously and after riding my primary bike everyday, which is a 29er with a 73mm bottom bracket , I dramatically notice the difference in Q-factor when my cranks are spread out to 132mm  and I feel like my legs are really bowing out on each pedal stroke. Yeah, you get used to it to some extent, but I always look at bikes with the intention of riding them of all day and multi-day rides. A large Q-factor always seems like a bad idea for endurance riding to me, even though I admittedly have no first hand experience riding all day in the saddle on those types of bikes. Another bike I was able to test and review this year was the 29plus Trek Stache 9, which did not have a high Q-factor,  but had short chainstays and wide seatstays. I found myself rubbing my calves, particularly the right calf on the seatstay numerous times while climbing and moving my body around to stay balanced up technical climbs. It only had a 148mm rear hub. The Les Fat has a 197mm rear hub. The Q-factor is 120mm, which is apparently 15mm narrower than all the other 197mm rear hub fat bikes on the market. On the Pivot Les Fat, I did not notice the Q-factor much, if at all and my calves rubbed on the rack mount bolts maybe two times while balancing up technical climbs, but that was just barely noticeable, not like the Trek Stache 9.

 
4. Mounts.
Three waterbottle cage mounts! Rear rack mounts! Phenomenal. Many kudos to Pivot for including these. Most carbon frame manufacturers try to avoid excessive mounts because they want their carbon frames to be uber light. Not sure why they didn’t choose to also include mounts on the fork. That would have made it even better for a multi-day, exploration, endurance rig.

 

 

 

What I didn’t like.

 

1. Climbing.
Climbing was a chore. This was likely the combination of a slacker, 69 degree headtube angle,  and heavy wheels and tires.

The front end wandered. It felt like I was having to significantly restart the momentum with each pedal stroke, even though I was clipped in, smoothly and continually turning the cranks with lots of wattage. The wheels weighed in at 4.96lbs (the lower build with Sun Mulefut rims apparently are 1lb heavier) and the tires are almost 3lbs each. That is much more that I am used to and more than a 29er or even 29+ set of wheels and tires would weigh. The frame, at 3.5lbs and fork at 1.7lbs are much lighter than my steel frame and fork however.
I would have loved to try it configured differently  (see dislike # 2). After the initial downhill with bermed turns, I was very much hoping that, with the carbon frame and rigid fork, I would be able to fly on the uphill that was next. I gave it all I had as this climb was not too steep, but long enough at over a half mile and one of the best short sprint barometers for my fitness.
After pushing hard for half of it, it was obvious that this carbon frame and carbon fork were not as easy to climb as my steel frame with steel fork. I figured that something was significantly different, but was ready to ride the rest of the 10 mile loop I had planned to figure out what it might be. After descending another tight turning, flowy, downhill singletrack section that I had ridden every Monday all summer, I felt like this bike was fast again. I was right. Strava said it was my personal record. 15 minutes into a ride, on an unfamiliar bike is crazy to be getting a PR on a trail I have ridden so often, but it really inspired confidence in the turns. I then hopped on the road a bit. The geometry of the medium frame was very neutral, allowing a comfortable, upright riding position, which was likely due, at least in part, to the 70mm stem. I typically run a 100 or 110mm stem on my 29er. The bars were also very wide. This is the short stem, wide bar trend that everyone seems to love right now, but I have been reluctant. It’s what I rode from 2004 to 2010, but I no longer find it advantageous. More on that in a future article. On the road, needless to say, I tried getting down closer to the bars and extention my torso out toward the front end more. Putting my forearms on the grips into a pseudo aerobar position tended to help, but the wheels felt a little more difficult to keep up to speed, maybe because the rims and tires weigh so much more than I am used to. Regardless, I then bombed down a fireroad with brand new waterbars to either slow down for, or bunny hop. I confidently did a mix of both and got another downhill PR on this bike. Phenomenal.  Then came the climb. Yeah, not so good. A wandering front end that wanted to lift up, the fact that I couldn’t keep my weigh over the front end and stretch out like I did on the road, and the rear tire slipping out when I was on a 10 to 15% grade left me very frustrated.

?

A short, steep, loose-over-hard pack climb where the front end wandered while climbing.

2. Internal Cable and Hose Routing
Rattled loudly and continually on every downhill. That is all. I would otherwise find this to be very beneficial.

 

3. Stiff Carbon
Though the fat, 4 inch, tires took a lot of jarring out of the trail from their high volume and low pressure, I could tell that the carbon fork and frame did not seem to be very forgiving. This was especially evident when dropping off curbs, either as a wheelie drop or each wheel separately. Going up the curbs was a breeze either way. Bunny hopping was easy too.  The bike feels very easy to manuveur. It did feel abrupt and stiff compared to steel however.

 

4. Lack of complete build options.
This was one of the biggest let downs for me. Somehow I had hoped that Pivot had brought additional wheelsets with them that fit the fat bike width drop outs, but fit different sized tires like 29×3.0 or 27.5×3.0. They offer two build packages, but they are both spec’d with 26×4 tires. If you designed it to run alternate wheel sizes, it would at least be nice to test ride it with one or more of those setups as well. The differences in geometry are only listed for a few of the combinations, but it should give you an idea of how the wheel size changes the geometry. It doesn’t change much, but could be just enough to make you prefer a certain setup. With no way to test a configuration that I may prefer,  quite possibly 29×3.0, I was left cautiously curious.

 

5. Price
$2599 for the frameset
$4699 for the lower end “Les Fat X01” 26×4 build with rigid fork and Mulefut wheelset.

Currently, I don’t see the higher end “Les Fat XX1” 26×4 build available. Anywhere. I believe the Pivot rep that handed me the bike (it was this build which I test rode) said that it’s MSRP was $5399. I can’t easily find the high end build MSRP, but will edit it once it shows up.

 

Overall, I really, really wanted to like this bike, despite the larger “pay to play” ratio than I would normally consider. I actually think I may have enjoyed this bike tremendously if it had a 29+ setup with lighter wheels like Velocity Duallys and Maxxis Chronicle tires upon them. Unless I build up a set of 150/197mm spaced hubs, throw on my own cassette/rotors/tires, and ask the Pivot dealer if I can throw them on the test bike at the next demo, I don’t see myself ever finding out. I like the idea of having a fat bike at my disposal, even if I live in sunny San Diego. It would be fun to throw some 5 inch wheels/tires on and take it to the beach or desert, and of course up to the mountains where we get snow for a few days per year. I did get my fastest downhill times on a few familiar segments…I have always wanted another bike…I would have to trade my car for it. And then I would only have a frame. It was fun Les Fat, but I don’t see us meeting up again down the road.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Subscribe to get more of our content sent to your inbox!

————-

www.RideAlongside.com

Ride alongside one another. On bikes, through life, together.

 

20151024_105128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: