Fatbikes rule in the sand. I have been on a few group rides on my cheap fat bike with expensive tires (SE Bikes F@e - 26x3.8 Surly Black Floyds - basically slicks) and I rode away from the much younger, much lighter, much, much better condition riders on expensive full suspension carbon fiber bikes with narrower tires when on the sand. They were in the sand, I was on top of the sand. Same thing a couple years ago with two of my brothers in law on some sandy back roads in North Carolina. They wanted to ride my cheap fatbike over their full suspension steeds, because it was a lot more fun and less effort. Yes, the handling is pretty strange for a few miles, but then you adapt and it feels normal. It is no a cure-all though - there is some sand that even the fat bike sinks into (with a fat rider). I have never ridden a mountain bike or a fat bike in actual mountains, just on back roads and trails in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. On pavement, I can draft the local spandex and carbon bike club on the same bike - very little rolling friction at high pressure (20 - 25 psi), but the Black Floyds are big lightweight slicks compared to most fatbike tires.
I am in the middle of reconfiguring my Bombadil from Bullmoose bars to Randonneur drops. It has 650b Atlas rims and I am going to see how big of a tire I can get under Honjo H-95 fenders. Laing Cocoa, FL On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:07:40 PM UTC-4, Ryan M. wrote: > You aren't specifically asking about dedicated mtb fatbikes, but I've > ridden a fat bike in snow, sand, and dirt and can say that the rolling > resistance is enough to take notice; the plus size (3" is still an issue > but not as bad). I honestly did not like it, and did not like the way the > bike decided to turn when it dang well wanted. I really didn't like riding > the fat bike on twisty single track as the bike just behaved weirdly and it > was something I was not used to. It seemed to just not want to turn when I > wanted it to and then moments later it would. Odd. Plus, exact tire > pressure was hugely important. The bikes definitely have their following > though, but they aren't for me. > > On my mtbs I usually run 2.3 or 2.4 (29'ers) on the fronts and 2.2s on the > rear and the combination works great on the single track I ride and the > gravel roads around me. > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 1:53:28 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: > >> My personal suggestion for any new Rivendell mountain bike is that it >> accommodate 3" wide 650B tires, or at least, 3" wide 26" (559) tires. Or, >> that it be built for 65 mm 700C tires. Fat and tall really does make a >> difference on soft surfaces, and on high-frequency, low-amplitude bumps (at >> least, if you keep the tire at appropriately low pressures). 2 inches just >> isn't fat enough. >> >> Aside: Curious: has anyone here had the opportunity to personally compare >> 584 X 70 with 622 X 60 in sand? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
