# How are 3 inch wide tires in the snow?



## 0gravity (Mar 9, 2007)

Anyone have experience running 27.5+ wheels and 3 inch tires in the snow? I'm considering a hardtail 27.5+ that could handle the moderate winters in Pennsylvania instead of a dedicated Fat-bike. But I've heard if you ride in the snow, 3 inch tires won't cut it, and that you need a full fat-bike. Curious if anyone has experience / insight. Thanks!


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

Haven't ridden 27.5+ in the snow but have a little time in snow on 29+. That said their are obviously two answers either they work or don't. Those answers will vary depending on who you ask, snow conditions, numerous variables...etc..

But if you can decide if a Fat Bike fits your riding style/needs beyond a few snow days then you'll have your answer. It really doesn't matter what others say about 27.5 in the snow. Do you want a fatbike? 

I've had good luck in 3 inches of dry powdery snow with my 29+.


----------



## 0gravity (Mar 9, 2007)

Matterhorn said:


> ...But if you can decide if a Fat Bike fits your riding style/needs beyond a few snow days then you'll have your answer. It really doesn't matter what others say about 27.5 in the snow. Do you want a fatbike? I've had good luck in 3 inches of dry powdery snow with my 29+.


I would prefer not needing a fat-bike because PA winters are hit or miss. If a 27.5+ with 3 inch tires would do OK enough in the snow, then it would be a more practical purchase and would offer double-duty as a bike for spring/summer/fall too when I absolutely do not want a full fat-bike.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Not worth the effort. I ran 26 x 3" tires this last winter( Boston, MA) Minor improvement, not much.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

27.5+ seems like it would be good all year in the PA rocks/roots and some snow. Like I said my 29+ easily handled 3 inches of snow and I will take it deeper if/when I get the chance.

What are you riding now?


----------



## newmarketrog (Sep 26, 2008)

Matterhorn said:


> 27.5+ seems like it would be good all year in the PA rocks/roots and some snow. Like I said my 29+ easily handled 3 inches of snow and I will take it deeper if/when I get the chance.


and a true fatbike will handle the roots/rocks/snow in pa even better than a plus bike will. why go part way when you can go all of the way?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

leeboh said:


> Not worth the effort. I ran 26 x 3" tires this last winter( Boston, MA) Minor improvement, not much.


^ this.

they're a little better than regular 2.2-2.4 tires but not as much as you would hope. as far as riding through 3" of fresh powder, you can do that on any knobby tire, you don't need a 3" tire.

a fatbike really is the only answer for snow riding. and even that doesn't work in some conditions, like if the snow is too deep and unpacked.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

newmarketrog said:


> and a true fatbike will handle the roots/rocks/snow in pa even better than a plus bike will. why go part way when you can go all of the way?


Why go part way into the ocean when you could go all the way? Now I'm not suggesting anyone try that so don't be upset.

That said I'd tend to agree. Go all the way, or at least try full fat. Even if it is only for the women it will surely attract.


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Why not buy an inexpensive fat and equip it with plus size wheels?....then you get two bikes in one and more options for different conditions is a PLUS!
:thumbsup:


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

NH Mtbiker said:


> Why not buy an inexpensive fat and equip it with plus size wheels?....then you get two bikes in one and more options for different conditions is a PLUS!
> :thumbsup:


For me, because fat bikes have incredibly boring geometries. Steep HTA, long chain stays... At least a B+ can be built with a tucked rear end and playful front end.

I had high hopes for the On-One Fatty Trail, but it was boring too (and got almost immediately discontinued)


----------



## newmarketrog (Sep 26, 2008)

06HokieMTB said:


> For me, because fat bikes have incredibly boring geometries. Steep HTA, long chain stays... At least a B+ can be built with a tucked rear end and playful front end.
> 
> I had high hopes for the On-One Fatty Trail, but it was boring too (and got almost immediately discontinued)


you need to ride more and worry less about silly things like angles, short this, long that, more slack whatevahthefvck.

bottom line, fatbikes can do EVERYTHING that + bikes can do, but the same can't be said if you reverse the two. if you want + tires, get a + bike.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

There are plenty of nimble and playful fatbikes out now. 

Let's put it this way, I have a fatbike with 90mm rims and 5" tires in winter and 65mm rims and 3.8" tires for summer. If I didn't have a full suspension bike I'd be running 27.5+ instead of the 65mm rims in the summer.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

06HokieMTB said:


> For me, because fat bikes have incredibly boring geometries. Steep HTA, long chain stays... At least a B+ can be built with a tucked rear end and playful front end.
> 
> I had high hopes for the On-One Fatty Trail, but it was boring too (and got almost immediately discontinued)


There are lots of short/slack fatbikes out there. I have one here in my garage (my wife's) that's 415mm stays and 68 head angle, and that bike is from the days before the Bluto and 190mm rear spacing. Fall project is a ~42cm full suspension fattie for this winter.

To better address the original question: if you want to ride in wintry/snowy conditions, just go full fat. If you want to, you can build up another wheelset with 27.5/29+ stuff for drier/thinner conditions, but you probably won't use 'em much. The full fat is going to kick too much ass in snow/wet/slimy/etc. You may or may not like it in the summer, but in the winter you'll probably love it.

-Walt


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

newmarketrog said:


> you need to ride more and worry less about silly things like angles, short this, long that, more slack whatevahthefvck.
> 
> bottom line, fatbikes can do EVERYTHING that + bikes can do, but the same can't be said if you reverse the two. if you want + tires, get a + bike.


I owned a cheap fat bike... A Framed Minnesota 2.0 with 'trail geometry'

It didn't get ridden much and got sold in 6 weeks as it was steep, long, heavy and boring.

If a bike isn't fun, what's the point?


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

newmarketrog said:


> you need to ride more and worry less about silly things like angles, short this, long that, more slack whatevahthefvck.
> 
> bottom line, fatbikes can do EVERYTHING that + bikes can do, but the same can't be said if you reverse the two. if you want + tires, get a + bike.


I'm glad you enjoy your Fatbike

BTW:



Walt said:


> There are lots of short/slack fatbikes out there. I have one here in my garage (my wife's) that's 415mm stays and 68 head angle, and that bike is from the days before the Bluto and 190mm rear spacing. Fall project is a ~42cm full suspension fattie for this winter.


PS: this sounds fun :thumbsup:


----------



## 0gravity (Mar 9, 2007)

Walt said:


> ...To better address the original question: if you want to ride in wintry/snowy conditions, just go full fat. If you want to, you can build up another wheelset with 27.5/29+ stuff for drier/thinner conditions, but you probably won't use 'em much. The full fat is going to kick too much ass in snow/wet/slimy/etc. You may or may not like it in the summer, but in the winter you'll probably love it.
> -Walt


Thanks everyone who responded. Consensus seems to be to just go full-fat if I expect a bike to perform in the snow. I like that idea of having a second wheel set with 27.5/29/29+ so I can use the bike in spring/summer/fall too.


----------



## tedo (Apr 4, 2012)

0gravity said:


> Thanks everyone who responded. Consensus seems to be to just go full-fat if I expect a bike to perform in the snow. I like that idea of having a second wheel set with 27.5/29/29+ so I can use the bike in spring/summer/fall too.


Look into the Salsa Beargrease. Very slack/fast short fatbike geo.

I have one, with a set of 27+ summer wheels and it kicks ass. Second set of 65mm 4 inch studded for winter in Vermont...

Very quick nimble bike.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

I rode my Krampus a bunch of times last winter in the snow and used those rides to justify buying a full fat. The 29x3.0 just don't have the float I needed. On the hard snow it was great but that's about all.


----------



## MTB-Monster (Jul 8, 2015)

Since you're in the PA area I think you're fine, but fat bike is the way to go if you want to get dirty.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

The tire width helps on packed snow, but it won't help much on slickery stuff like ice. Many times I have headed up the hill on a fat bike to find that a bunch of skinny tired bikes have already been there. Wider tires may float better, but it really depends on the snow condition and the terrain.

I agree that some fat tires and some fat bike geometries are a bit doggy, but there are tires and geometries to fit all needs, you just need to shop around.

Personall, for winter weather, I'd rather have some 3" tires with studs than 4" tires without studs. But I'll probably get 4" tires with studs because those actually exist 

BTW, I don't think a Framed 2.0 is a good basis for evaluating the performance of a fat bike. I'd consider that geometry doggy.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

0gravity said:


> Anyone have experience running 27.5+ wheels and 3 inch tires in the snow? I'm considering a hardtail 27.5+ that could handle the moderate winters in Pennsylvania instead of a dedicated Fat-bike. But I've heard if you ride in the snow, 3 inch tires won't cut it, and that you need a full fat-bike. Curious if anyone has experience / insight. Thanks!


Since I sold my fatbike I've been running my 26 x 2.4" tires in snow when we have it [1 - 2 weeks max/yr] here in coastal BC. Works a whole lot better than I had expected. I have yet to miss a day of riding because my tires are not full fat.

The main thing to understand is there is all kinds of snow/ice conditions. The more consolidated it is the less a wide tire matters. Ice is a problem that is really only solved by studded tires. You know what winter is like in your local area better than anyone else.

Going from a 2.1" tire to a 2.4" tire makes a huge difference in how a bike handles soft conditions. Same from 2.4" to 3" and beyond.

For sure a 3" tire will get you through a lot of winter conditions just fine. Remember people were winter biking singletrack back before fat tires so it's not like a 4" or 5" tire is necessary once it's winter just because.

Having said that if you get a lot of deeper fluffy snow days you aren't going to do as well on a 3" tire as full fat. Does missing some riding time bug you a lot or would you be just as happy to wait a week or two for the snow to pack down? You have to answer that for yourself.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

newmarketrog said:


> you need to ride more and worry less about silly things like angles, short this, long that, more slack whatevahthefvck.
> 
> bottom line, fatbikes can do EVERYTHING that + bikes can do, but the same can't be said if you reverse the two. if you want + tires, get a + bike.


That said - he's just plain wrong. The Farley has shorter chainstays than last year's Stache for instance.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

06HokieMTB said:


> But, i'm glad you enjoy your Fatbike... thanks for being a d!ck about my opinion and telling me to ride more. I didn't know that you knew me that well? lolz


You have the right to your opinion - but you're a bit off base on the whole geometry thing. Plenty of great, playful fat bikes.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

How wide of a tire will a Trek Stache+ fit in the back? Could you fit a VTF 275x3.25 in the rear and a run a full fat up front? 

I too have no interest in the wide BB, wide rear hub, and special cranks of a true fat bike, but I'd be ok with running fat up front. 

That and you could never call the incredibly short chainstays of the Stache+ as not being fun.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

PHeller said:


> How wide of a tire will a Trek Stache+ fit in the back? Could you fit a VTF 275x3.25 in the rear and a run a full fat up front?
> 
> I too have no interest in the wide BB, wide rear hub, and special cranks of a true fat bike, but I'd be ok with running fat up front.
> 
> That and you could never call the incredibly short chainstays of the Stache+ as not being fun.


While not quite as short as the Stache, the Farley is a legit short chainstay bike, with lots more options for wheels.
Special cranks?

Stache will accommodate 3.25" tires.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

If you don't like the wide stance, have someone build you a fattie with an 83mm shell (lots of crank options these days). You're limited to 4" or so on tires but that's plenty for most people and you only add 5mm on each side to the Q factor, which for all but the most sensitive won't be noticeable.

Waltworks Bicycles: Kevin's low-Q fatbike complete!

Another one:
Waltworks Bicycles: New Year's Random Photos

-Walt


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

If one is interested at all in a fatbike, or aspects therof, and investing in only one bike - the fat bike is a no- brainer. Then you can put whatever sized wheels and tires you feel like. Mid- fat you're limiting your options. That's fine as long as that suits your purpose.

I was tempted by the Stache, but the Farley will do everything it will and more. Different strokes.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

Gambit21 said:


> You have the right to your opinion - but you're a bit off base on the whole geometry thing. Plenty of great, playful fat bikes.


Awesome to hear. Please point me in the right direction and a name a few? All of the model's I've looked up weren't very interesting, geo-wise. (I looked at frames that are readily available... there are a few custom fatty's that are $$$ or hard to obtain)

In fact, I started a thread about it a while back, just to see what else was out there:

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/slackest-most-progressive-fat-bike-frame-one-944831.html

The Stache looks awesome with it's super tucked rear end and trail geo. Too bad it's a PressFit BB and rediculously expensive for a overseas made alloy frameset.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

I ride a Santa Cruz LTC up here in Edmonton AB (close to Arctic ). I picked up a Borealis Echo Fatty this August and have been riding it all winter (which starts in November with snow and ends in May). I rode it for the end of the summer too and pretty much forgot about my Santa Cruz - it was just that much fun. Crazy stable on long steep descents and great for climbing steep loose stuff tood and nimble - great bike. Its fine in the snow with 4" wheels on 85mm rims. My buddy rides a 5" tire on a Surly and he get a wee bit better traction but not alot. I think his traction is better because he weighs alot more than me and get his arse over the seat and squishes into the snow really well. Bottom line (IMO of course) -> no fatty i have seen is much use in the snow when its over 6" of new stuff. Once a few brave energetic people get out there and cut a tracks its fine. Cutting the tracks is fun too but lotsa slipping around.

I have just purchased 29+ 50mm wheels (dont have them yet) for the Echo. I am looking forward to seeing how they compare with the 85mm/4" tires wheels i have now. I suspect the funometer will rise appreciably.


----------



## RaleighX (Mar 30, 2011)

On groomed singletrack my Stache 29+ x 3.0 rips with little issues. I'd say its 85% that of a fat bike without all the negatives.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Keep in mind that most places that groom singletrack specifically for fat bikes don't allow anything under 3.7" and for good reasons. 

But if you're just going to ride packed (not groomed), multi-use trails and the snow is consolidated enough and/or not very deep, a 3" can work, at least sometimes. Personally, I'd still rather have a fatter tire than 3" for general riding on snow.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Smithhammer said:


> Keep in mind that most places that groom singletrack specifically for fat bikes don't allow anything under 3.7" and for good reasons.


What are the good reasons? ps. What is groomed versus packed single track?


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

TimWebber said:


> What are the good reasons?


Because fatter tires can ride groomed trails in a wider variety of conditions without tearing them up, simply as a result of a wider footprint. The skinnier the tire, the harder the snow needs to be in order for the tire to not have an impact.

Grooming takes a fair bit of time and effort, in addition to special machinery. As a result, it's generally considered poor etiquette to tear it up by riding skinnier tire bikes, or even a fat bike when conditions are too soft, and ruts are being left. This isn't my opinion - it's a fairly common guideline just about anywhere that grooming specifically for snow bikes happens.



> ps. What is groomed versus packed single track?


A groomed track is one that has literally been 'groomed' with a device, like this:










A packed trail is any trail that has had various traffic on it - bikes, skis, snowshoes, etc. that is rideable as a result of compaction over time, like this:










But the tire width restriction is really only a concern if one rides in a place with specifically groomed trails. Regardless, you are going to limited in what snow conditions you can ride with a skinnier tire, and even a 3" tire vs. a 4" or 5" can make a big difference.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Ahh, ok. Thx for the good information! Not alot of groomed around here. Mostly single track that we snowshoe to get rideable when it dumps...or lay tracks by riding/pushing it.


----------



## fritZman (Jan 9, 2004)

TimWebber said:


> Ahh, ok. Thx for the good information! Not alot of groomed around here. Mostly single track that we snowshoe to get rideable when it dumps...or lay tracks by riding/pushing it.


Likewise. In my region of Ontario we get very nicely packed trails (ironically packed by FBs) that have no resemblance to Smithhammer's pictures. Frankly, our trails are so well packed my son blasted around on his CX last weekend.









Having previously ridden a FB gen 1 tire (3.8" @ 4-5psi) for a couple of years, I can say that my 3" NN @ 8psi rides about 80-90% of it's capabilities.

What does that mean in real life? Depending on your area, waiting an extra few hours for packing after a large snowfall (> 3"), or riding a few hours earlier in the day in + 0C/32F temps. No biggie for me as I like trail speed and am therefore willing to adjust my ride time to get that.


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

fritzman - Can you show or let me know what bike setup you're running the 3 in NN's on? Still trying to figure out a decent tire for my 29er conversion and sounds like you've had success running the new NN. Thnx!


----------



## fritZman (Jan 9, 2004)

NH Mtbiker said:


> fritzman - Can you show or let me know what bike setup you're running the 3 in NN's on? Still trying to figure out a decent tire for my 29er conversion and sounds like you've had success running the new NN. Thnx!


I'm running a 2016 Norco Torrent 7.2. Super fun ride.


Alex MD 40 rims (40mm internal)
3.0 (actual 2 7/8") Nobby Nic Performance tire 
Tubeless converted
9-10 psi front and 11/12 psi rear on dirt
7-9 psi front/rear depending on conditions in winter
Rider weight ~220 kitted up, bike is 27lbs

More details/thoughts are in the Torrent thread http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-29/norco-torrent-986759.html


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

3" works for me in the Mid Atlantic US region as we don't typically get a lot at once (though had a record 2-3' dumped on us last weekend eheheh).

Picture below was from 2013 (George Stewart took the most awesome photo). We had a mix of conventional and various forms of fat bikes out for what started out < 2" and ended up around 7" snow accumulation by the time we got back to the parking lot.

I was riding a 3" Knard up front and 2.4 RaRa back on a rigid SS. Everyone seemed to do fine up til ~5". At that point that fat tire setups had slight advantage. Some depends on the type of snow and temps (going up or comin down for example)- this was heavier and packed down as it was ridden on. It was darn cold out that day too!


----------



## kryten (Mar 8, 2012)

TimWebber said:


> I ride a Santa Cruz LTC up here in Edmonton AB (close to Arctic ). I picked up a Borealis Echo Fatty this August and have been riding it all winter (which starts in November with snow and ends in May). I rode it for the end of the summer too and pretty much forgot about my Santa Cruz - it was just that much fun. Crazy stable on long steep descents and great for climbing steep loose stuff tood and nimble - great bike. Its fine in the snow with 4" wheels on 85mm rims. My buddy rides a 5" tire on a Surly and he get a wee bit better traction but not alot. I think his traction is better because he weighs alot more than me and get his arse over the seat and squishes into the snow really well. Bottom line (IMO of course) -> no fatty i have seen is much use in the snow when its over 6" of new stuff. Once a few brave energetic people get out there and cut a tracks its fine. Cutting the tracks is fun too but lotsa slipping around.
> 
> I have just purchased 29+ 50mm wheels (dont have them yet) for the Echo. I am looking forward to seeing how they compare with the 85mm/4" tires wheels i have now. I suspect the funometer will rise appreciably.


This is my second season riding Edmonton river valley single track in winter. I was on Bigfoot with 4" tires/80mm rims last season and Fatty with 4" tires/70mm rims this season. Summer ride is Giant Trance on 2.4"s.

Do you think with regards to the winters we get here lately, 27.5+ would be ok for our trails year round? Norco's Torrent 7.2 got me thinking it could be a do it all bike for me for all year riding for this place.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

kryten said:


> Do you think with regards to the winters we get here lately, 27.5+ would be ok for our trails year round? Norco's Torrent 7.2 got me thinking it could be a do it all bike for me for all year riding for this place.


I really dont know the answer to this but hope to find out. My thinking is that while its super cold here, we dont really get alot of new snow. That means the trails are generally well packed. Last year i rode my Santa Cruz all year (29/2.4 tires) and i made it. On packed snow it was fine except that i found it harder to keep in the track than i do with my current 4" tires. I really dont mind running 4" tires but, for fun, I want to try 29*3's to see how they compare!


----------



## Sethrollsmidfats (Dec 14, 2016)

I sort of disagree with all these full fat bike lovers...they are cool but personally here in PA with as much snow as we get, i dont think the full fat is a must, it couldnt hurt but they are definitely more boring. My mid fat (3 in wide) i think is absolutely perfect.. even in the snow. Still have a bigger footprint allowing some float but the thing still rolls and tracks awesome. It stays nimble enough and light enough and like you said.. u dont have to or need to keep changing wheels and tires out, just run the same 3 inch wide through the snow as you would the dirt in the summer. Maybe add some studs if you find you still need more traction but i love my specialized fuse and wouldnt change a thing, not even in the snow.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

I sold my fatty when moving to the coast because we get so little snow here and have no beaches to ride. Last week we had the most snow in years so I got out on steep rocky/rooty techy trails with my normal bike and 2.4" tires. I rode 95% of what I would normally ride just forgoing a few steeper features. I actually think I did better with 2.4's than I would have with my Plus bike or fatty because the skinnier tires dug down to where the traction was. :thumbsup:










Best part was I had fresh tracks on most trails.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

0gravity said:


> Anyone have experience running 27.5+ wheels and 3 inch tires in the snow? I'm considering a hardtail 27.5+ that could handle the moderate winters in Pennsylvania instead of a dedicated Fat-bike. But I've heard if you ride in the snow, 3 inch tires won't cut it, and that you need a full fat-bike. Curious if anyone has experience / insight. Thanks!


I built a Salsa Bucksaw last year and because I got a great deal, built 27.5+ wheels, with the intention of building a set of 26x65mm wheels later. As luck would have it, it dumped about 6-8 inches of snow in Philly after I got the build done. The 3" tires were useless. I had better results on my gravel bike with 35mm cx tires. I ultimately got a set of Bontrager Hodags in 27.5 x 3.8 and while they were not as good on 45mm rims as 26" fat, they were good enough for our climate. Ultimately, I found that 27.5+ is fecking awesome for 85% of the time in PA, but horrible for the snow. Fatter or skinnier are both better.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Float on top or cut through the snow...Anything deeper than 3 inches of fresh and my plus size tire is bad. However, anything less and in packed snow (which is 95% of the time here in Edmonton) its fantastic on 29*3 chupacabras.


----------



## Sethrollsmidfats (Dec 14, 2016)

The past few winters in PA have mostly just been a couple of inches here and there if that, and my plus is really fun in it. If PA gets more than 6 inches then im leaving the bike in the garage anyway and breaking out the snowmobile. Lol


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

I'm in agreement with some others here, totally depends on the snow. I rode packed trails in the winter back in the day, dogg, on 2.1" tires and believe it or not, still had fun.

But full fat is cool too, especially when the snow is soft or loose. The geo on my ice cream truck is pretty fun.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

newmarketrog said:


> and a true fatbike will handle the roots/rocks/snow in pa even better than a plus bike will. why go part way when you can go all of the way?


I ride with buddy he uses 4.8 inch and I use 3 inch....

Pretty even riding styles...Sometimes he is ahead sometimes I am ahead.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

0gravity said:


> Anyone have experience running 27.5+ wheels and 3 inch tires in the snow? I'm considering a hardtail 27.5+ that could handle the moderate winters in Pennsylvania instead of a dedicated Fat-bike. But I've heard if you ride in the snow, 3 inch tires won't cut it, and that you need a full fat-bike. Curious if anyone has experience / insight. Thanks!


Better than 2.5", worse than 3.5".

Nothing gets traction on ice without studs, so it's really about float and penetration. A narrower tire is going to slice through packed snow, which is why <4" tires are not allowed on groomed trails.

If you have thin patches of snow where you can consistently punch through to dirt as you ride, 3" tires are probably fine. This is what I ride in mixed snow/dirt and during the shoulder seasons.

In Tennessee, I never road fat, it wasn't necessary because snow was a short lived thing, but in WA fat is necessary because we have real snow that stays on the ground for months.


----------



## not2shabby (Sep 19, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> The tire width helps on packed snow, but it won't help much on slickery stuff like ice. Many times I have headed up the hill on a fat bike to find that a bunch of skinny tired bikes have already been there. Wider tires may float better, but it really depends on the snow condition and the terrain.
> 
> I agree that some fat tires and some fat bike geometries are a bit doggy, but there are tires and geometries to fit all needs, you just need to shop around.
> 
> ...


3 inch studded...expensive as fvck though.
45NRTH Tire Wrathchild 27+ Studded 2017 *New* - FAT BIKES CANADA


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

I rode the other day in a few inches of snow. The traction was there, I just felt slower trying to plow through the snow on the climbs. Downhill was almost exactly the same as with no snow (Purgatorys). 

We are sitting at about 12" of snow now, but the temp is hovering around 10 degrees so I am waiting to take it out again for a more thorough review.


----------



## Calgarytrev (Jul 28, 2014)

these are recalled and won't be out anytime soon


----------



## Scandy101 (Feb 10, 2015)

I wasnt too impressed by 29x3 in the snow. its ok if your on really packed stuff, noticeably better than a normal size tire. but the second you hit anything very deep/soft you're sinking pretty bad. I want to try out the duro crux, 29x3.25 and big nobs, maybe aired way down it'll do pretty well, but i just dont see it being a fat bike alternative for actual snow riding.


----------



## Kyle201 (Jun 24, 2011)

I ride mostly downhill on hiking trails with my old-school Duro Leopard 26 x 3's and they work quite exceptionally for most snow conditions. They bite through the less deep snow, and float/bite pretty good on the packed stuff. I'm able to run them as low as 5 psi @ 190ish lbs geared.

Maybe one day they will make a modern plus tire as aggressive and grippy as these bad boys.

That said, when the snow gets deeper and softer I will be switching to a 5" Vee 2XL rigid front, and keep the 3" rear however.


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

Just back from a ride on our local trails, was actually helping groom first and then rode for a bit. Bike is a Stache 5, tires started out at 7.5-7.9psi and dropped them down to approx 6psi (haven't checked yet).

On the harder packed stuff riding was pretty good, but we had approx 1" of soft powder cover some of what we groomed and that was a bit more of a challenge in which we did end up walking.

This section wasn't too bad:









But this section and you can see how we were grooming it - the trail had already been used before us was a decent walk. But then there was another set of tire tracks and if it was the same guy we passed he also walked and was on a 26"x4+.." tire.









This was our first true ride on a packed trail in deeper snow, there is definitely a technique to it as well. In future we will probably stay closer to the trail head and slowly venture further out.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

I'm thinking about this issue quite a bit- I live in Western NY and we get quite a bit of snow. There isn't any purpose built singletrack in town, so if I got a fat bike it would spend most of its life on snowmobile trails, and seasonal roads that don't get plowed. I would not be spending much time on truly deep snow, as the snowmobile clubs around here groom, and if they haven't groomed, the roads and trails still get worn in a bunch by the sleds.

I previously rode quite a bit on packed in snow on a rigid 29er, which was OK at best. The buddy I did most of that riding with insists that a plus bike is plenty for most snow riding, and more fun the rest of the year. 

For my situation - what would you recommend? I could probably get a pretty good deal on a Fuse carbon, which could serve as my year round bike if it's good enough on snow to make it fun (ish).


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Looks like you are walking?


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

TimWebber said:


> Looks like you are walking?


The 2nd pic was taken while grooming I was trying to show how we were actually grooming it. The 1st was taken while riding.

playpunk - I have limited experience in the snow still so can't whole heartily give you a solid answer but what I can say is if the trails around here are consistently packed (and we did talk about using a skidoo to groom them - although not permitted in our forest here) I would be fine riding them. Knowing how hard a bunch of sleds pack a trail I would think you should be fine, particularly as you used to ride a 29er rigid in the snow.

I'm not sure how much bigger a tire you can squeeze into the Fuse, is there a 27.5x3.25"? or if that 1/4" make that much of a difference...? again, I'm still new to the + bike.

But you are looking for fun(ish)...! and as for the other 3 seasons that bike would be a whole lot of fun too!


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

We have gotten about 10 inches total so far with more on the way tonight. I haven't been able to get the bike out like I wanted, but I rode around the neighborhood a little today. With the roads plowed, it felt like a normal bike. As soon as I hit the snow I had to gear way down in order to plow through it, but it handled it like a champ. I thought my feet digging into the snow as I pedaled would be a problem, but the only real problem I had was snow packing in the rear derailleur and causing the chain to be a bit off-line.

The snow is holding the bike up.


----------



## screamingbunny (Mar 24, 2004)

once trails are moderately packed they work well


----------



## RVbldr (Sep 10, 2015)

Found out today that the 3" Pergs on my 2016 Spec SJ 6F just aren't good enough for any snow deeper than about 3". With some underlying slush and snow on top, combined with some previous truck tire ruts, it was a tough go today at Rattlesnake Lake (North Bend, WA). I figure I had the front tire slip out 6-7 times today, so keeping the speed down was mandatory. Otherwise, a really nice Christmas Eve 15 mile ride! Yea, I put a mud fender on today as defense against the mud and slush - worked great since I didn't really need the suspension.


----------



## Calgarytrev (Jul 28, 2014)

The 2.8's on my Bucksaw just wouldn't cut it in Alberta Canada. Once the snow actually started I had to go to something wider to make our trails rideable which were 27.5 hodags studded with grip studs. Larger than anything I can get in the plus catagory and some solid studding from grip studs. My friends on ice spiker pros and plus tires are saying they just can't believe the difference as there stuck right now and I'm still riding!


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Out on my Chromag Primer with plus size 3" tires in about 2" of new snow in Edmonton AB ....Not quite the same traction as my 4" nates but super fun and faster.


----------



## Calgarytrev (Jul 28, 2014)

Love the primer! 2" is ok but 5" drifts in kananaskis is unridable. It's just dependant on where your riding. If I want flexibility to go where I want I need a little wider than 3" but on a little bit of snow shoe or traveled trails 3" is all good and much better than ice spiker 2.25's!


----------



## Magicscreen (Dec 10, 2016)

This was from earlier today. My beloved Krampus with the stock 3" Knards. We were on packed trails that were soft and melty @ 38F. Dropped the pressure way down to ~ 7f/8b. Even at that pressure it was very tricky, and the ease with which the tires slid out from under me was a little white-knuckly disappointing.

I think the Knards are probably part of it -- they are great on a variety of dry surfaces, but lateral stability in the wet, and particularly wet snow, is not their thing. They are better on packed trails at colder temps, but pretty miserable in anything over about 4 inches; the shallow tread packs full of snow and you are done. I'd like to try a different tire, if any of you have suggestions.

When I ride with my friends on full fat it's pretty obvious that the advantage of a 4.8 Bud/Lou over the 3.0 Knard is a substantial one, under virtually any snowy conditions.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Calgarytrev said:


> Love the primer! 2" is ok but 5" drifts in kananaskis is unridable. It's just dependant on where your riding. If I want flexibility to go where I want I need a little wider than 3" but on a little bit of snow shoe or traveled trails 3" is all good and much better than ice spiker 2.25's!


Totally agree. I ride my 3" up to about 3" of new snow and switch up to fat bike with 4" after that. Anything above in and around 4" and above is pretty tricky no matter what you do.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

In my experience, one needs a 5 inch tire with very low pressure - like 3 psi, to ride in snow. And the tire should be studded so you don't slip on a patch of ice. And without those two things, I wouldn't bother.

And yes, it is expensive to get a special bike just for that. I did, and I would not buy it if I were starting over. 

So I would suggest skipping the fat bike, getting a second wheel set, and getting studded tires for riding on plowed roads in the winter, and trails without deep snow.


----------



## Dirt Road (Feb 6, 2016)

A ride on my fuse today revealed that I shudda got a full on fatbike. Pretty sketchy with a few out of control moments. Can't get greedy with steering inputs. Dropped the seat and hoped for the best. Midfat is not recommended but doable on packed trails.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Actual fat bikes are not good on snow either.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

rsilvers said:


> Actual fat bikes are not good on snow either.


Not sure where or how you ride but me and at least 120+ fat bike owners that I know of here will all say that statement is completely wrong. When compared to skinny bikes fat bikes do it far better. I can ride year round because of it. Ya I can't blast my local trails at the same speed as I do during the summer but I still get the smiles. Can ride in far more conditions, well unless snow is over 6-8" deep there is literally no time I can't ride.

Thing is going full out 4.8 or bigger isn't always the answer. Because one type of snow sucks to ride in doesn't mean all of it does. I learned this the hard way. Everyone worships Nate's here for general riding. They are OK, I went Barbegazis front and rear and my fun level increased greatly.

That's the only challenge to fat bikes. It takes a lot of riding and trying new things, riding in all snow types etc to get a feel for what works when.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

tigris99 said:


> Not sure where or how you ride but me and at least 120+ fat bike owners that I know of here will all say that statement is completely wrong. When compared to skinny bikes fat bikes do it far better. I can ride year round because of it. Ya I can't blast my local trails at the same speed as I do during the summer but I still get the smiles. Can ride in far more conditions, well unless snow is over 6-8" deep there is literally no time I can't ride.
> 
> Thing is going full out 4.8 or bigger isn't always the answer. Because one type of snow sucks to ride in doesn't mean all of it does. I learned this the hard way. Everyone worships Nate's here for general riding. They are OK, I went Barbegazis front and rear and my fun level increased greatly.
> 
> ...


I have Nates in the back and Gnarwal up front right now. The really do grip well but I kinda liked my summer husker du's. Fast and fun dropping my foot to corner n stuff. Half the fun for me is trying out new stuff and seeing how it works.

I think i get the essence of what rsilver is saying...if there is > x inches of new snow (where x is a pretty small number) riding gets squirly no matter what bike you are riding but...IMO....a fat bike with good tires for the conditions > plus size > regular. No surprise i guess.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

Did another group ride this morning. Temperature was about 5 degrees with windchill sitting at about -10 deg. Everything froze... brakes, dropper, even the tire sealant froze. I saw a couple of people with insulated water bottles that had their water start freezing up, lol. I recommend a thermos with some hot coffee in it 

I will agree that the 3" tires do best on an already packed trail, otherwise you need to have some skillz to stay on the bike. However, they are way faster than the typical fat bike on the trail. I noticed that the fat bikes had trouble dropping off into the deep stuff too though... No matter what, there is no such thing as a sharp turn in the snow, lol. I rode (pushed) to the top of the hill and tried to do the switchbacks on the way down and couldn't turn at all without almost falling. I ended up just pointing straight down the hill and going for it. Once the tires getting into 2-3' snow, it wanted to endo on me so I just put my weight WAY back and hung on for dear life.

So much fun! 10/10 would do it again.


----------



## not2shabby (Sep 19, 2014)

Thustlewumber, what fenders are those?


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Thustlewhumber said:


> View attachment 1114324
> 
> View attachment 1114325
> 
> ...


Nice looking countryside. Where are you?


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

not2shabby said:


> Thustlewumber, what fenders are those?


Those would be the MuckyNutz Face and Butt fenders. The rear fender works great with the dropper and installs in about 5 seconds and removes in about 1 second.


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

I was going to try to make one of those rear seat fenders or possibly a long one that goes up in front of the rear wheel along the seat tube, just haven't gotten around to it as yet. There are plans online for the front.

Here is my version, works amazing! Cost me $2 for 3 sheets of plastic from the dollar store (made 3). I used the plastic cutting board stuff. I know some guys used the plastic from a duotang binder but that plastic was really thin, I'm confident the material I found will last easily all winter and then some.

















If interested PM me your email address and I'll email you the template.


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

osteo said:


> I was going to try to make one of those rear seat fenders or possibly a long one that goes up in front of the rear wheel along the seat tube, just haven't gotten around to it as yet. There are plans online for the front.
> 
> Here is my version, works amazing! Cost me $2 for 3 sheets of plastic from the dollar store (made 3). I used the plastic cutting board stuff. I know some guys used the plastic from a duotang binder but that plastic was really thin, I'm confident the material I found will last easily all winter and then some.
> 
> ...


That's awesome! I'll drop you a PM for sure!


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

Plus 2.8 tires for me, first real test at a Fat bike Fest, 10km loop. 
Lucky to have packed snow most of the lap, could not see the fat bikes being way faster than me or having a definite advantage. Today, in these conditions. My son run skinny tires and he did ok as well so the conditions were very specific. A few times where a got stuck it looked like big fat tires got stuck before me. Looking forward to the next ride on snow, it's a lot of fun, fat tires or not.

A GoPro of today's race - 




And the Plus+ Smuggler


----------



## krelldog (Feb 17, 2015)

Gambit21 said:


> That said - he's just plain wrong. The Farley has shorter chainstays than last year's Stache for instance.


Love my Farley for snow riding. Very nimble and snappy for a fat bike.


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

I've been having a tonne of fun on my 29+ Waltworks in the recent snow. Certainly for the kind of snow we typically get in the UK I don't feel they are inferior to a fat bike.





































Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MrIcky (Oct 2, 2007)

On 29x3, my experience is: packed snow- it doesn't matter, just about any bike will handle it. Up to 12 inches unpacked it does fine with Minions at about 9lbs. I didn't feel at a loss against fat bikes at this point. Over that and the 29x3 were out of their comfort zone.


----------



## JDHutch (Sep 29, 2017)

RaleighX said:


> On groomed singletrack my Stache 29+ x 3.0 rips with little issues. I'd say its 85% that of a fat bike without all the negatives.


100% agree. I'm riding my Stache 29+ in the snow, groomed singletrack, and loving it. Can't believe I'm biking in the snow and for a relative newbie mountain biker like myself this bike has extended my season and is perfect.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

I appreciate all the input and experiences shared here.
Only had my bike in the snow once since getting it in mid March and it felt surprisingly stable. It was a wet heavy 4 inches or so but the 27.5 x 3 did well. 

Just a few hours ago, I got my first real test of how I hold up at winter temps and I'm really excited now. Had a planned ride for the evening and we knew it was going to be sub 40's as of a few days ago-forecast. We didn't have any snow or ice to ride on but the planned destination was off-limits. We three were almost there when the roads became glare ice and the grade was just too much for most traffic. We opted for another nearby park/open space that was no snow but the 22 f temp (dropping to 15 when we were wrapping up) was just the test and experience I was looking for. 

I'm hooked now. Our typical snow comes in fast and leaves wet heavy stuff that melts off fast. Often it's a warm day prior and again after so I'm not too concerned about missing many ride opportunities due to bitter cold dry powdery snow of 5 - 8 " that can happen, just not very often.

I've done some night rides before but this one was doubly fun and exciting because it's the gateway for me knowing the temps were not an issue at all. ~ Winter ready !


----------



## neotree605 (Mar 24, 2016)

0gravity said:


> Thanks everyone who responded. Consensus seems to be to just go full-fat if I expect a bike to perform in the snow. I like that idea of having a second wheel set with 27.5/29/29+ so I can use the bike in spring/summer/fall too.


I went in on a felt fat bike for a couple seasons summer and winter can't afford two bikes. After one summer on the felt my elbows were hurting it needed a fork .. Not sure about anywhere else but up In mb canada a fat bike fork is over 1k. So now I replaced the felt with a cujo outfitted with 3.0 tires as my year round bike. Aired down I get around on the same trails as before just fine. Not knocking fat bikes at all just my own situation couldn't afford to park it for the summer!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Thread resurrect...

Will report back soon when I have some Bulldozers 29x 3.25 up and running with diy studs on i39 carbon rims. Plan to run on on mostly hard-paced conditions and fresh snow under 3 inches deep. I live on a pond so studs are essential here.


----------



## arc (Sep 9, 2004)

I tried them with Kold Kutters and never found a snow condition they were good at (no groomed trails around here). Plan on spending a lot of time going slow and babysitting the front tire. It's going to wash out a lot.

The Kold Kutters were pretty good at softer ice. The solid see through ice at really cold temperatures was too hard for the studs to really dig in, the whiter ice was more fun especially when you get the hang of sliding both tires around a corner. Unfortunately the sidewalls are too fragile for this type of riding. I had trouble keeping enough sealant inside the tire, especially the rear.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

arc said:


> I tried them with Kold Kutters and never found a snow condition they were good at (no groomed trails around here). Plan on spending a lot of time going slow and babysitting the front tire. It's going to wash out a lot.
> 
> The Kold Kutters were pretty good at softer ice. The solid see through ice at really cold temperatures was too hard for the studs to really dig in, the whiter ice was more fun especially when you get the hang of sliding both tires around a corner. Unfortunately the sidewalls are too fragile for this type of riding. I had trouble keeping enough sealant inside the tire, especially the rear.


What is doing in the sidewalls? I have a Bud/Lou that are in their 5th season of snow riding and have never had enough pressure in em to remove the wrinkles, along with several pair of 3.0's that do winter with enough pressure to raise the edge knobs off the concrete. I don't tend to do the Ice Capades thing but so ride snow from Thanksgiving to mud season.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

I found the Kold Kutters great on all ice for a few rides but after hitting pavement a few times they were useless. 

On hardpacked I'm not sure they will help alot. 3.25 on three inches of fresh snow will be challenging at every turn or incline u suspect!!


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Looking into getting 3-400 chinese carbide studs and possibly mixing them with these studs from Woody's at about $60 for 100...

https://www.woodystraction.com/produ...5/grip-it-13mm

Plan on screwing them into XR4 29 x 3 tires (better knobs) for more bite this winter. Had previously run the 3/8 in Kold Kutters but wanted to go with a shorter carbide solution but still keep the cost down over Grip studs. Will report back when I have some these on hand. Thanks for write-up above! :thumbsup:


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I gave away two sets of cold cutters, never needed them


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

2.4" 29er tire (tubeless with low PSI) up front does fine for me in up to ~6" of new snow. I've also ridden 3.0" fronts on my single speeds and found them to be not dramatically different. 

Never have used studs (in the Washington, DC metro area) and in the last 10 years, I crashed a couple of times due to lack of traction while turning,


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

Edub, in 6 inches of new snow you might be able to go down a straight trail fishtailing. You will not be turning corners nor climbing much of an incline. No way.


----------



## TimWebber (Jan 29, 2016)

...if however, the snow is packed but not yet getting translucent (beginnings of ice), any size of wheel or tire is gna be fine. When it becomes more icy from either use or above zero temps followed by below zero temps (32f for u), studs will become necessary.


----------

