9/16/14 6:04 AM

I'm trying to tell myself I don't want one of these, but how awesome would it be to commute in deep snow on one of these

http://carverbikes.com/frames/carbobeast/

shod with these

http://45nrth.com/products/tires/dillinger-5

Carver is the Bikeman brand (Davis Carver is the owner).

I'm not planning to get one, but I can dream....

Fat Bike guys out there, how do you like them?

9/16/14 6:26 AM

I have friends in New Haven who love theirs (Surly seems to be the preferred brand). They've been able to get around even when auto traffic was stopped.

9/16/14 6:58 AM

I keep thinking those same thoughts! My current studded tire Carver 96er does great on ice and hard-packed snow but bogs down in the fluffy stuff. Kind of wish I had waited for one of these beasts!

David

9/16/14 7:43 AM

Should be a "go anywhere" bike but I'd be reluctant to pay the premium for carbon for that use. As Andy noted, Surly frames are the preferred brand due to low cost and durability. Yeah, they will weigh more but weight isn't a big consideration in winter conditions.

9/16/14 8:18 AM

Sure, but that assumes you are thinking rationally....

And maybe weight is a factor if your mode is flotation. :)

Anyway, as I said, I'm not planning on getting one.

9/16/14 8:26 AM

They have Ti too. STA not published that I saw. Is that type of STA angle I see there typical for these?

9/16/14 2:59 PM

quote:

---

weight isn't a big consideration in winter conditions

---

9/16/14 3:17 PM

Looks like that tyre is too fat to fit a Surly Pugsley (on the specs it's one inch wider than the max width a Pugsley will accept). A couple of friends here have Pugsleys, but for soft sand, not snow. There's an interesting account of an 18 day trip across the remote outback of Western Australia on a Pugsley here, with a good set of photos: http://www.wildworks.co.nz/csr/home.php

9/17/14 5:13 AM

There was a guy riding a Salsa Beargrease (their carbon frame) at the Dirty 40. He seemed to be having a great time and he finished ahead of us...

If I had more use for one, I'd definitely consider a carbon fattie. There are some snow conditions where my 29er just won't work (deep powder, soft and slushy) and I suspect that a fat bike would be able to negotiate them. It's frustrating to be motivated to ride and not be able to due to the conditions.

While weight may be less of a consideration when you're going slower, it's always a consideration as far as I'm concerned. Light bikes are simply more fun to ride than heavy ones.

9/17/14 6:29 AM

At D2R2 a year ago a guy was riding a Fatback. We chatted awhile, and then he rode away from us. I thought "this guy is riding away from us on tractor tires." He was riding the 180K and I think he finished in 9 1/2 hours, which I would consider a great ride by anybody on any bike. I saw a Fat Bike lying around this year, but didn't see the rider.

9/17/14 7:31 AM

quote:

---

Carbon doesn't rust. Is that good enough reason to pay the premium? It's up to the individual to decide.

---

9/17/14 8:55 AM

I'll second Dave's comment. Bike commuting in New York and Wisconsin winters taught me some of the hazards, including the "surprising slide" and other cool maneuvers.

Granted, a fatbike may be less likely to experience some of those events, they're still possible. And while I recognize that carbon is just fine for rough riding, I well remember one day on the way to work being passed by a semi that forced me onto an *extremely* rough patch of compressed snow and ice with crevices and a "rumble strip" formed out of ridges created by equipment tires.

The only way I managed to stay upright (on my 3-speed Trek 650) and not go under the truck was through the miracle of studded tires.

If you're well-equipped with studs, you're far less likely to lay the bike down than if you aren't, but it still happens, and, I suspect, a lot more often in winter than in other seasons. You can take Rivendell's "fork wars" video for whatever it's worth, and I know CF is strong stuff, but for commuting generally, and for winter conditions in particular, I remain a fan of steel.

9/17/14 10:00 AM

Snow is softer than pavement or rocks :)

Of course you can always fall in any conditions, but I wouldn't hesitate to get a carbon fatbike for winter use if that was the bike I wanted. I've commuted for years on various studded tires and I've crashed on a mostly carbon roadbike. Of course you could damage a carbon fatbike but I wouldn't be unduly concerned about it.

And currently the 4 bikes I ride regularly are all steel.

9/17/14 10:12 AM

I had one- a cheap aluminum bikes direct. Although they float better than a 29'er, you still can't ride in deep snow. At least I could not. They are really slow, which doesn't matter, but I didn't find it all that much fun to ride. I sold it.

I think al makes the most sense on a fat bike. The big tires at 6psi remove any frame traits, so I vote light and cheap.

Someone is making a dual suspension now, and I do wonder why.

9/17/14 11:42 AM

I have difficulty believing winter commuting is harder on frames than serious mountain biking, which many riders had voted a resounding YES with their wallet on carbon frames! And the lack of horror stories from the trails and woods had convinced many others their next mtn bike could very well be carbon.

Granted, winter commuters are not trying to win races. But then, nor are the majority of mtn bikers. It's just more fun, as others observed, to ride a lighter bike! It doesn't matter if it's 30lbs, shedding 2 lb off 30 is still 2 lbs off!!!

I don't ride in the winter so my opinion is strictly as an observer. Still, I commute to work from time to time. I alternate between two of my bikes for commuting. I very much prefer the lighter one. Why? Because it's a lot easier to carry the lighter bike up and over stairs and other obstacles when the pavement is blocked by an illegally parked truck! A scenario even more likely to occur in the winter time!!!