spinnaker

But that is not where most people ride them. You see them on MUPs and on the road. That is what I don't get. Certainly they have their place as I already mentioned but I think many people are riding them just because they think they are the cool thing to do.

Kapusta

Huh, I guess it must be different depending where you are. Most I see (which is not that many) are on the trails. I don’t see any around town except for e-bikes.

I could see them being popular in BSO form, because they look cool. Sure, they make no sense, but really neither do most BSO mtbs for what they are used for.

aclinjury

what happen to wider tires roll better with less resistance????

Kapusta

Nothing happened to it.

All else equal (tread pattern, casing construction, psi), wider tires do roll faster.

xroadcharlie

When they say wider, They mean 28mm vs 25mm on ash fault.

Trust me. The 50mm tires on my Giant Sedona aren't even in the same league as the 28 or 32mm tires Giant uses on their road bikes on typical ash fault roads when inflated to the proper pressure for 15% drop. Not the same pressure.

On gravel, 38mm tires are better and will still be close to a smaller road tire on ash fault. IMO a good width for recreational riders.

Fat bike tires are best in soft sand where even mountain bikes with 2.35" tires will struggle. And those wide mountain bike tires are probably best in soft gravel and loose stones. Best tire width has a lot to do with how soft the surface is as well as the roughness.

YMiD1UNV

Fat tire bikes should all have carbon fiber body, or electric... It is extremely difficult to pedal on those monsters.

MattTheHat 

I’m just going to throw this out here...an electric mid-drive fat bike with some FattySlicks would be a really fun thing for night rides around the neighborhood for a hooligan such as myself.

And think of the number of blinding headlights that could be installed on such a beast!

-Matt

Happy Feet

Since when do recreational bikes need to make sense? Some of you guys would be a hoot at a unicycle convention.

Just go have fun and stop hate'n on stuff you don't have experience with.

BirdsBikeBinocs

If you ride in the woods it will get used. Strictly road, it will not.

Kapusta

The OP asked a question (are fat bikes going to be a slower choice for his uses?)

People answered (Yes)

What is the problem, here?

FWIW, I do have experience, thank you very much.

RGMN

e-fatties are an absolute riot to ride. Mix the all-terrain abilities of the fatty with seemingly endless power the electric drive gives and you can go just about anywhere with seemingly no effort or get some on-road speed that is just wrong in so many ways.

I find my fatty is my go anywhere/anytime bike. It is a lot of fun but it will never replace my other bikes.

Daniel4

I once rode 35km roundtrip on a fatbike through the snow-covered MUPs and shovelled city streets. It took me five hours and I was drained. Tire pressure was 5psi.

So use that as a gauge.

Happy Feet

Not everyone's talking about you

Could be in reference to the "I don't see why people ride those things" comments.

Happy Feet

How fast would you have done it on a road bike?

Kapusta

What? That’s crazy talk.

Happy Feet

I know. right!


The fat bike looks hard to pedal because of tire size but usually that is paired with a lower geared drivetrain so the effort isn't really that great. What one loses is top end speed. Generally, on a trail or even road, that is not an issue if one isn't wanting to go fast.

My fatboy weighs about 30lbs and can match my rigid mtb with a 42,32,22 crankset for climbing because they both have the same cassette. What it can't do is the same top end because it does not have the 42 chainring (only 32, 22). However, it does have 4.6" tires that can float over more stuff that the 2.35's of my mtb.

If I could fit 3" tires in my mtb frame I probably wouldn't have bought a fat bike but I can't. I think for an all around bike that would be the sweet spot.

fietsbob

so you finished the speed comparison trial of both options.. yet?

PDKL45

With a fatbike, you have the ability to run various wheel sizes. A 26x4.0 tire has roughly the same diameter as a 29x2.0 tire, so if you have two wheelsets, a fat 26" and a regular 29", you could easily run 29x2.35 Big Apple slicks for road and keep the 26x4.0 tires for the beach or winter. You can also fit 27.5x3.0 tires in the frame for trail riding. It's not something I do, but it is interesting to note that a single fatbike like a Surly Pugsley could be a tourer, a commuter, a trail(ish) bike and a fully blown fat bike with different wheelsets. You can even make a Krampug; a Krampus-Pugsley with 29x3.0 wheels in a Pugs frame.

That type of thinking was all the rage a few years ago, back around 2015 during "peak fatbike," but it doesn't mean that any of it is less relevant now. WTB even jumped into the mix with their roadplus 650x47B Horizon and 3 other models of tire. You can take a regular 700x28C endurance road bike with discs and switch it to 650x47B: https://www.wtb.com/collections/road-plus

Daniel4

My normal road bike in dry summer conditions is 16.5 km/hr average speed.

I don't take the same route in the summer as I had done in the winter.

aclinjury

Not slamdunk conclusion:

Then there's also the question: Why aren't track bikes use wider tires (say 32mm) with the same tread, carcass, rubber construction as a 23mm track tire that track riders are using?

Kapusta

Why did you waste my time with that? That is utterly irrelevant to the point you were responding to that I made. Those are completely different treads. One is slick, the other a semi-knob. They may well be different casings, too. (EDIT: looked it up, and they are different casings). How did that video in any way address my point?

Because they would be heavier. And with the smooth surface track bikes race on, the tire pressures are high enough that the RR between a 32 and 23 just does not make as much difference. What DOES make a difference is acceleration, for which tire weight is very important.

BTW, You do realize that when people say that wider tires "roll faster", they are just referring to rolling resistance, right? They are not saying that they are simply "faster" on a bike, where weight and aerodynamics of a tire are also considerations.

aclinjury

ugh, they showed that the skinnier road tire also rolled down faster than the cross tire on dirt, where the cross tire is supposed to have a rolling advantage. Dont tell me the road tire roll faster here too due to aero advantage.

and yes I know tire weight makes a difference in acceleration, but many wide tire proponents would also argue that what ever a wide tire give up in acceleration, it'll make it back up in rolling resistance. I'm still waiting for a definitive test that shows "wider rolls faster" when all things considered.

Caliper

Actually they showed that the two were virtually identical on a pretty smooth dirt path. Considering that the 28 was much further ahead on asphalt, it does show the trend that narrower tire will be slowed down more as the surface gets less smooth. Let's be honest though, that path was pretty smooth as dirt goes so the knobby tires were overkill and 28's were the choice for cobblestones not that long ago. It would be cool to see the same with 23's, or to get out with some rocks on there or some washboard. Actual dirt roads, not a prepared path that doesn't seem to get more than bike traffic. I know around me there are plenty of dirt roads I could run 23's on and would probably be faster. But only if I stick to certain roads. From a standpoint of being able to ride any dirt road in my area, going to 38 or 40mm was a massive difference in bumpy, loose and sandy areas. Being able to stay in the saddle and pedal over these spots vs being forced out of the saddle and working to control the bike makes a tremendous difference.

Kapusta

So, to answer my question about what this has to do with my point (which was "All else equal (tread pattern, casing construction, psi), wider tires do roll faster." the answer is "basically nothing".

No, it was because the wider tire was a semi-knob tread. It was also a different casing with a protection layer which is also likely slower, but just the tread alone easily accounts for the difference.. Again, this test has nothing to do with my point that you were attempting to refute.

Then why did you ask the question about why smaller tires are used in track racing if you already knew the answer?

Well, that is not the claim I was making. Nor is it what is meant when people say that a wide tire rolls faster (i.e., has less rolling resistance).

Your argument here is an example of an Ad hominem argument:
More specifically, it an Association fallacy

What does "all things considered" mean? If it means same casing and tread and psi, my statement is now pretty widely accepted throughout the industry. Schwalbe (who know a little bit about this) explains here: https://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_i...ing_resistance
They also address your question about why, if wider tires have less rolling resistance, are they not used in all sorts of racing.

bikingtotown

Yeah dont get a fat bike to ride on the road. Unless you want to make your ride harder and slower. Get a fat bike to go where you struggle on a normal bike. They're great for climbing slow and excel on soft terrain. They make great wherever bike for shinanagins and riding where ever you please. How much slower on hilly roads? Id say at very least twice as slow and hard then on road bike