How important is carbon/weight?

[Ada Xu]

My first fat bike (that I would like to buy/build soon) will be winter duty only, ridden on Canadian Rocky Mountain foothills trails, that will mostly be packed snow over top of intermediate mountain bike trails.

After posting a couple of threads on here, I have spent literally days trying to read as much as I could to educate myself.

I was heading down the 9-0-7/BearGrease/FatBoy carbon path, and was prepared to spend a whack of cash. But then I started thinking... With layers of clothing on, sub zero temps and often blustery weather, combined with the huge tires, and what I envision being some pretty thrashy riding, really, how important is weight? Carbon?

I am willing to spend as much as required, but within reason. I am an enthusiast and have close to $10k in my go to long travel bike that I built this year. So I am not afraid to lay out the cash. Every single thing on that bike was carefully selected, and no expense spared. But I am thinking it may not be nearly as significant for a fat bike, in terms of performance returns. Maybe I'm wrong on this.

Anyway, just wondering how much frame material and weight really mean, performance-wise, with a fat bike, for weekend warrior type stuff. If it doesn't mean much, I may just pull the pin on a Norco Sasquatch 6.1. Otherwise, I will go the carbon route. The Sasquatch seems to be spec'ed very nicely, component-wise. This is the point at which I am stuck.

Yes, I know this boils down to whatever I want to do, but just wondering from those of you who have had a mid level aluminum frame fat bike who went up to a carbon, high end component spec bike, whether you would go that route again, or whether the aluminum frame bike was totally fine, extra weight and all.

Part of the problems is that while I have 20+ years of serious non-winter riding, I have never had a fat bike, nor have I ridden anything but paved bike paths in the winter. Looking forward to extending my fall riding this year.

Hopefully this makes enough sense that you can at least connect the dots. Thanks.

 

[MarkvW]

My first fat bike (that I would like to buy/build soon) will be winter duty only, ridden on Canadian Rocky Mountain foothills trails, that will mostly be packed snow over top of intermediate mountain bike trails.

After posting a couple of threads on here, I have spent literally days trying to read as much as I could to educate myself.

I was heading down the 9-0-7/BearGrease/FatBoy carbon path, and was prepared to spend a whack of cash. But then I started thinking... With layers of clothing on, sub zero temps and often blustery weather, combined with the huge tires, and what I envision being some pretty thrashy riding, really, how important is weight? Carbon?

I am willing to spend as much as required, but within reason. I am an enthusiast and have close to $10k in my go to long travel bike that I built this year. So I am not afraid to lay out the cash. Every single thing on that bike was carefully selected, and no expense spared. But I am thinking it may not be nearly as significant for a fat bike, in terms of performance returns. Maybe I'm wrong on this.

Anyway, just wondering how much frame material and weight really mean, performance-wise, with a fat bike, for weekend warrior type stuff. If it doesn't mean much, I may just pull the pin on a Norco Sasquatch 6.1. Otherwise, I will go the carbon route. The Sasquatch seems to be spec'ed very nicely, component-wise. This is the point at which I am stuck.

Yes, I know this boils down to whatever I want to do, but just wondering from those of you who have had a mid level aluminum frame fat bike who went up to a carbon, high end component spec bike, whether you would go that route again, or whether the aluminum frame bike was totally fine, extra weight and all.

Part of the problems is that while I have 20+ years of serious non-winter riding, I have never had a fat bike, nor have I ridden anything but paved bike paths in the winter. Looking forward to extending my fall riding this year.

Hopefully this makes enough sense that you can at least connect the dots. Thanks.

You're wasting money for ultralightweight stuff. But....please don't take that as discouragement.

For a no limits expedition bike, I'd say steel because you could get it welded back together in the middle of nowhere. But with the fat bike you describe, you'll be way out of nowhere so fixing a busted frame isn't a major concern. Carbon can do some weird cracking *** if you hit it in weird ways.

So, to make a long story short: Titanium! It's light, it's cool, it's expensive, and it's strong!!!

 

[Bustedknuckle]

[

So, to make a long story short: Titanium! It's light, it's cool, it's expensive, and it's strong!!!

http://advocatecycles.com/product/watchman

 

[Benotti69]

[

So, to make a long story short: Titanium! It's light, it's cool, it's expensive, and it's strong!!!

http://advocatecycles.com/product/watchman

Bullseye.

 

[King Boonen]

I wouldn't ride Ti for a fat MTB, if you're spending that kind of money then Reynolds 853/Columbus Life Niobium is a better option. They can draw the tubes thinner so it soaks up vibration better, it's stiffer than Ti so will work better with the big wheels, will be cheaper and the weight difference isn't that big. Shand have just released a fat bike, it looks awesome:

http://www.shandcycles.com/blog/

 

[ray j willings]

Carbon is the way to go ...any bike can crash and wreck including titanium.
To much anti carbon on here. Carbons not made out of paper. Carbon bikes are made to ride and you shouldn't be scared to ride light stuff. Technology has moved on and it serves its purpose.

Buy this http://www.pivotcycles.com/bike/les-fat/

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

heres some sound advice from a couple of guys who actually know what they're talking about

Steve Tilford anyone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YzxdF4sqqQ

 

[ray j willings]

Re:

heres some sound advice from a couple of guys who actually know what they're talking about

Steve Tilford anyone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YzxdF4sqqQ

Old geezers stuck in a time warp sponsored with TI Frame

go and take a look at the top rated fat bikes ...plenty of carbon ones in there

Heres a good quote from a fat bike rider ,,,,who knows what hes talking about.

Most people out on trails and racing here in AK are on carbon bikes. That sounds snobbish of course, but there are many benefits, weight, poor heat-transfer, the vibration thing. I'm totally sold on it, even if my current ride suddenly explodes into a million carbon shards. Getting on a carbon bike with carbon rims and wide studded tires totally transformed my riding this year, I'm out riding much more and the bike is more capable, from lofting it over obstacles to reducing the heat-sink effect. Now, you can get most of these benefits by using carbon for most of the components, but then your metal frame choice won't really have any advantage, just be a bit heavier, and if it's approaching the weight of carbon, it won't be structurally sound enough to be decently stiff. If you can swing it, I highly recommend it, along with the carbon wheels.

Listen , you don't like Carbon, I get it . You think its the devils spawn, I get it , You want to ride around on 15 /16 pound race bikes I don't get it. You want to use the same old so called bullet proof stuff I get it.
Don't tell me " I don't know what I am talking about" I have used carbon bikes for years, very light ones and had no issues whatsoever. I have a friend who is a expert carbon builder works for a pro team and developed his own carbon and he has taught me what is possible .
SO DONT TELL ME I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT .

IF YOU WANT TO STATE YOUR OPINION FINE BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO INSULT ME " who actually know what they're talking about "

Ti frames don't break

 

[King Boonen]

Carbon is the way to go ...any bike can crash and wreck including titanium.
To much anti carbon on here. Carbons not made out of paper. Carbon bikes are made to ride and you shouldn't be scared to ride light stuff. Technology has moved on and it serves its purpose.

Ray, very few people are anti-carbon. In fact, many people here are very much pro-carbon. They just happen to be pro-steel, pro-aluminium and pro-titanium as well. They have considered the question asked, applied their knowledge of the materials properties and suggested what they believe is the best material for the job. Many people here have a very good knowledge of the different materials, their properties and many years experience owning and working with all of them. They also know a lot about different manufacturers processes and ability with these materials so they know who they would suggest for the different materials too depending on application.


If the OP had come in asking for the fastest, lightest fatbike possible then people would have been suggesting a carbon frame from Pivot/Specialized etc., carbon rims (I know HED make some. maybe Enve?), and a multitude of light parts. Bu the OP didn't, so that's not what they suggested. Accusing everyone of being anti-carbon is the kind of thing that starts the arguments you were complaining about.

Carbon is a fantastic material for building bikes. It has some very big pluses but also some very big negatives. Every single mechanic I've ever spoken too has told me they favour titanium/steel over carbon for their everyday/touring/sportive etc. bikes. They all love carbon. Those that race have ridiculously expensive carbon bikes they treat much better than the old Genesis Equilibrium they take out for wet club rides, but they almost all agree that the benefits of carbon are much less important when you are not racing.

No one is anti-carbon (except me ), it would be silly to be.

 

[AJ101]

Adding some more into the mix I would definitely opt for steel for a fatbike. The rotating mass of the wheels and tyres will have a bigger impact on the responsiveness of the bike than the frame weight. So the frame is going to be about comfort and durability. Personally I would want my fatbike to be about indestructibility rather than speed, and carbon doesn't inspire that confidence in me so steel all the way. You can't really go wrong with something like the Surly Moonlander that thing will last forever

 

[Benotti69]

If i was sponsored to ride carbon and not paying for the bikes, yeah Carbon. But if i am going to pay for it, it will be steel (preferably Ti)

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

If i was sponsored to ride carbon and not paying for the bikes, yeah Carbon. But if i am going to pay for it, it will be steel (preferably Ti)

Agree..carbon has it's advantages but crash worthiness is not one of them.

Yes, yes, plenty of pictures of broken metal bikes but they also bend before breaking..

 

[ray j willings]

I don't care ...to many comments to many times. When you say "these guys no what they are talking about" it quite strongly implies that I don't.
Those guys just give an opinion. There's lots of other fat bike riders who disagree.
Its choice.
Steel ,titanium , carbon, do a google plenty of trashed frames all of them.
You crash a bike ,hit the frame hard enough its over no matter what.

KB Why does this not fit the bill for the OP ?
"Most people out on trails and racing here in AK are on carbon bikes. That sounds snobbish of course, but there are many benefits, weight, poor heat-transfer, the vibration thing. I'm totally sold on it, even if my current ride suddenly explodes into a million carbon shards. Getting on a carbon bike with carbon rims and wide studded tires totally transformed my riding this year"

A nice light fat bike will do the job fine?

I ride my carbon bike in the rain . There's no issue with that. I don't see carbon getting rusty. Its just as easy to clean a carbon bike.
If you treat your bike crap you have a crap bike no matter what its made of.
Its just nonsense that its just for race days. Look at my bike we have been all over Europe for years up and down mountains wind rain sun, No problems. Its all a load of nonsense , living in the past. If I was touring I want the lightest most reliable bike. Riding a big heavy bike is a thing of the past. Your all kidding yourself' if you think they are better .
I did not start a argument I just posted a photo of a top fat bike. The comments came after.
Go check.

 

[AJ101]

No one is anti-carbon (except me ), it would be silly to be.

I am as well, mainly because I don't like the increased potential for sudden unexpected failure (I don't check my bikes a huge amount, just jump on and ride), and I'm not in a rush so don't mind the extra weight that comes with steel.

 

[ray j willings]

No one is anti-carbon (except me ), it would be silly to be.

I am as well, mainly because I don't like the increased potential for sudden unexpected failure (I don't check my bikes a huge amount, just jump on and ride), and I'm not in a rush so don't mind the extra weight that comes with steel.

Go tell that to the top pros who jump /ride on carbon bikes loaded with carbon components .

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

I don't care ...to many comments to many times. When you say "these guys no what they are talking about" it quite strongly implies that I don't.

Nope - if I was referring to you ray, i would have replied with one of your quotes

Its all a load of nonsense , living in the past. If I was touring I want the lightest most reliable bike. Riding a big heavy bike is a thing of the past. Your all kidding yourself' if you think they are better

Nope - just to be clear here, NONE of the top touring / expedition bike manufacturers use carbon fames.....Koga, Santos, Surly, Salsa, CroMotion, Dawes, Thorn, Raleigh etc etc.....all use Ti, Steel or Alu & there is a good reason for that

 

[Benotti69]

No one is anti-carbon (except me ), it would be silly to be.

I am as well, mainly because I don't like the increased potential for sudden unexpected failure (I don't check my bikes a huge amount, just jump on and ride), and I'm not in a rush so don't mind the extra weight that comes with steel.

Go tell that to the top pros who jump /ride on carbon bikes loaded with carbon components .

Movistar had a few canyons go pop at last years vuelta iirc and did not want the media or fans to see.

Pro teams are not in the habit of pi$$ing off sponsors so will not be putting up images of broken carbon frames on their twitter feeds. But they do exist, Nys has snapped a few treks in training, again iirc

Carbon works fine, but steel is fine for 99% of peoples rides.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

KB Why does this not fit the bill for the OP ?
"Most people out on trails and racing here in AK are on carbon bikes. That sounds snobbish of course, but there are many benefits, weight, poor heat-transfer, the vibration thing. I'm totally sold on it, even if my current ride suddenly explodes into a million carbon shards. Getting on a carbon bike with carbon rims and wide studded tires totally transformed my riding this year"

A nice light fat bike will do the job fine?

I ride my carbon bike in the rain . There's no issue with that. I don't see carbon getting rusty. Its just as easy to clean a carbon bike.
If you treat your bike crap you have a crap bike no matter what its made of.
Its just nonsense that its just for race days. Look at my bike we have been all over Europe for years up and down mountains wind rain sun, No problems. Its all a load of nonsense , living in the past. If I was touring I want the lightest most reliable bike. Riding a big heavy bike is a thing of the past. Your all kidding yourself' if you think they are better .
I did not start a argument I just posted a photo of a top fat bike. The comments came after.
Go check.

No one said it didn't fit the bill, they just suggested what they felt is more appropriate for the OP. Carbon mountain bikes are a faff. I've ridden long rides with people on them who have had to take torque wrenches out just in case they need to adjust something. I've seen carbon bars and frames snap in half (never seen it on the road) with no indication because carbon fails catastrophically, especially under the forces exerted while mountain biking. Generally steel and titanium alloys are more forgiving than carbon which is also worth considering if planning long days in the saddle over rough terrain.

Add to all this the fact the bike is going to be used in the snow which means hidden obstacles and the fact the OP seems to be wanting a "workhorse" bike and many people here obviously think the added expense for a carbon frame would be better invested elsewhere.


As for an argument. There wasn't one. JRS posted something and you took it to be about you. I know there is a history of people taking digs at you at that might make you think he was, but I didn't see it like that. He was just posting a video to a very well renowned guy and his opinion.

If you want to take things like that, it was your first post that was the first to criticise others opinions:

"To much anti carbon on here."


You know I have no problem with you Ray. I really enjoy your posts and views on things because it makes me think in a different way. I have also reported posts in the past that were obviously just made to troll you, but in this case I honestly think you've got the wrong end of the stick and gone off on it. That's understandable after what's happened, but maybe it's best to just wipe the slate clean, assuming things are only directed towards you if it's really obvious and generally ignore anyone who's only aim is to anger you.

 

[Irondan]

As you can see, I deleted a few posts here. I've spoken to those in private who needed to be spoken to.

It's time to move on with the discussion at hand.

Please stick to the forum rules.

 

[AJ101]

No one is anti-carbon (except me ), it would be silly to be.

I am as well, mainly because I don't like the increased potential for sudden unexpected failure (I don't check my bikes a huge amount, just jump on and ride), and I'm not in a rush so don't mind the extra weight that comes with steel.

Go tell that to the top pros who jump /ride on carbon bikes loaded with carbon components .

Yep they also have the advantage of thorough workshop checks and replacement bikes every season (or more if needed). In that position I'd go carbon as well, but personally I need a bike to last a whole lot longer without worrying if it's taken a gouge or bad chainsuck so steel remains my preferred choice.

 

[Master50]

I am of the opinion that anything metal can do, carbon can do better. That said as long as it is correctly designed to do it.
Interesting the Tilford video that he still uses 3 chainrings and bar ends.
I hear you can always weld a broken steel frame but in truth I have never seen anyone weld a high quality frame other than on a tour where the bike frame cannot be replaced. I cannot say I have ever met anyone riding a broken metal frame after getting it welded nor have I ever seen a metal frame with a new tube to replace a bent or dented one. I did have a steel frame fixed for a minor bent chainstay but that tube was not wrinkled.
I have seen Carbon frames repaired for all sorts of damage, except of course for the legendary exploded frame. Now as to Fat bikes. My opinion is they derive most of their comfort from the fat tires. The wider everything will add some stiffness as well as impart greater stresses on certain parts. To me I would want to reduce the weight as much as possible but in the end it will be the engineering that ultimately matches the stresses and the frame material for best balance. Carbon can be adjusted easier than metal but both can do the job and I would just go for lighter which puts me in the Carbon corner.

 

[AJ101]

I've got a Roberts cross bike that has been repaired by the builder after a crash crumpled the top tube / head tube so it can be done. Still rides fine on heavy duty off road, but I understand in today's throw away society you don't get to see those sort of fixes much these days.