# What's the deal with Fat Chance frames?



## top_ring (Feb 9, 2004)

I've been watching this forum for a while and have discovered that many posters have a certain love and respect for the Fat. I'm not unfamiliar with nice riding frames, and have owned a few but have never had a Fat. One sold on ebay for $1,025.00. Seems a little "cult-ish" to me. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7247059274&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

Would I pay that much for a frame?... Fat Chance! Would someone please explain the attraction to me.


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

Some people collect beanie babies too. I don't know either.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

The Fat Chance community is pretty intense. They remind me of Mac Users in the way that their enthusiasm for a decent product looks like a lifestyle. Similar to Mac , Fat Chance made excellent design choices and fostered a community spirit among owners. The bikes always looked unique and, arguably, had a distinctive ride. A lot of attention to details and numerous one-off customizations add to the mystique.


----------



## IttyBittyBetty (Aug 11, 2005)

*Fat Chance*

The frames are beautiful and wonderful to ride. I have had several offers from complete strangers to buy my Yo Betty! frame. I'm sure the fact that you can't get them anymore adds to their value.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

I think 'NOS factor' suckers a lot of people into paying more than they should for a frame.

Custom, low production number, or one-off FATs (or any other vintage mtb company) tends to jack prices of these frames.

I can't understand why so many people are paying several hundred dollars for cracked Yeti ARC frames either.


----------



## holden (Jul 27, 2004)

top_ring said:


> Would I pay that much for a frame?... Fat Chance! Would someone please explain the attraction to me.


Fat Chance was a great company with great bikes. Getting one is the last VRC bike on my List (though I do have a Rare/Unlikely List too...). Beautifully crafted frames. Bushpig said it well. You can also visit fatcogs.com for full Fat Chance immersion.


----------



## Disappointment to my Mom (Oct 11, 2004)

one word - Grellow


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

Maybe its an east coast thing  just kidding, I'd like to own a late 80's/'90's Wicked.


----------



## holden (Jul 27, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> I think 'NOS factor' suckers a lot of people into paying more than they should for a frame.


yeah, though, not to justify spending lots on frames, but from a buyer's perspective, there are so (So) few NOS/low-mileage desireable frames left, and of those, even fewer for sale. Finding unmolested VRC bikes is tough; fork swaps, chainsuck, parts abuse, decal scratches, etc.

if you're getting a used bike for restoration/show/reminiscing, that will cost a few hundred dollars additional plus time for resto, and even then it may not be a solid job (decals...), so paying a bit more for NOS is completely justified IMHO.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

I have noticed that it is near impossible to "save money" by fixing a bike up. I would prefer to pay a bit more for a nearly new frame, or perhaps even the NOS premium.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

i will try to explain;
first, the bikes themselves. the handling in tight, steep and gnarly terrain is spot on. from telepathic to magic, the adjectives pretty much describe what goes on..
second: the vibe. fat chance and the new england community pretty much defined a level of mountain biking that was part of a certain take on life. fat chance was not only an avant garde c ottage industry but also a community of riders and builders that carried a aesthethic, a way of life. for those who know all of this, strapping one of the fats from the sommerville era, is a statement that says: this is what is all about. for those who don't have all the knowledge or data, the ride is as good as it gets. suspension turned bikes into disposable machines: it's as good as the late shock technology. it eliminated a subtle quality from frame building. mountain bikes from the fat era had the aura of a samurai sword. they were for life. 
this is all gone.. no matter how much you pay for a custom these days (jones bikes are in the 10000 cost) there is no more sense of community.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

bushpig said:


> I have noticed that it is near impossible to "save money" by fixing a bike up. I would prefer to pay a bit more for a nearly new frame, or perhaps even the NOS premium.


I guess it probably is nearly impossible if the goal is like-new/NOS condition after resto/fix-up. If, however, you just want a clean, used ride, fixing up can save a lot of money. I have very little money invested in my Paramountain and I'd imagine I could sell it for a fairly high price just due to rarity. That being said, I've never seen a single Paramountain sell on Ebay or elsewhere; so I guess I don't have a firm figure on value... I'm *not *selling, by the way.

Of course, finding deals and doing the fixing take investments in time, but that's fun stuff!


----------



## top_ring (Feb 9, 2004)

colker1 said:


> i will try to explain;
> first, the bikes themselves. the handling in tight, steep and gnarly terrain is spot on. from telepathic to magic, the adjectives pretty much describe what goes on..
> second: the vibe. fat chance and the new england community pretty much defined a level of mountain biking that was part of a certain take on life. fat chance was not only an avant garde c ottage industry but also a community of riders and builders that carried a aesthethic, a way of life. for those who know all of this, strapping one of the fats from the sommerville era, is a statement that says: this is what is all about. for those who don't have all the knowledge or data, the ride is as good as it gets. suspension turned bikes into disposable machines: it's as good as the late shock technology. it eliminated a subtle quality from frame building. mountain bikes from the fat era had the aura of a samurai sword. they were for life.
> this is all gone.. no matter how much you pay for a custom these days (jones bikes are in the 10000 cost) there is no more sense of community.


Colker - I like the lifestyle retort, however, with respect to handling, I could say the same thing about my 97 Kona Explosif frameset. Don't laugh. Columbus Max OR _ovalized_ tubing, tiawanese welded, sloping top tube, and the purchase price was $150.00 used in near mint condition. It also handles the steep knarly terrain with some of your adjectives.

I'm not trying to be difficult. This is what I don't understand. How can they be SO different?
The material? The welding? The geometry? Perhaps the name says it all?

I'll never know, cause I won't pay 1K for a frame.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

holden said:


> yeah, though, not to justify spending lots on frames, but from a buyer's perspective, there are so (So) few NOS/low-mileage desireable frames left, and of those, even fewer for sale. Finding unmolested VRC bikes is tough; fork swaps, chainsuck, parts abuse, decal scratches, etc.
> 
> if you're getting a used bike for restoration/show/reminiscing, that will cost a few hundred dollars additional plus time for resto, and even then it may not be a solid job (decals...), so paying a bit more for NOS is completely justified IMHO.


True, I agree with you there.

I guess for myself...I like to ride the bikes, so perfection (paint/decals mostly) or NOS is not the number one thing I look for when buying. As long as the frame is straight and in safe working condition, I'll take a slightly used frame for several hundred less and ride it.

Worst case, paint and decals can almost always be sourced.

Other forum members will be quick to point out that I have several cracked, or cracked and repaired frames...I'm a sucker for a basket case resto (which, in the end should end up more expensive anyway  ).


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

top_ring said:


> Colker - I like the lifestyle retort, however, with respect to handling, I could say the same thing about my 97 Kona Explosif frameset. Don't laugh. Columbus Max OR _ovalized_ tubing, tiawanese welded, sloping top tube, and the purchase price was $150.00 used in near mint condition. It also handles the steep knarly terrain with some of your adjectives.
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult. This is what I don't understand. How can they be SO different?
> The material? The welding? The geometry? Perhaps the name says it all?
> ...


mind you, i didn't write it as a copy ad to sell NOS $1000 frames.. you can buy it for $300+ if you want a bike to ride and not a pristine garage queen. 
so.. if you ask: what's the difference? you may even like the kona more but they have diff. geometries from fats. tubing choice x geometry makes their handling. plus the cool paint jobs.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

Colker - you summed it up perfectly.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

I don't see a problem with paying 1000 for a NOS frame if it is something that you want. To get frame of similar quality today it would be right in the same price range so who cares when it was made. NOS frame prices are justified compared to used prices just like you can get a new Niner or Curtlo and lose half it's value after a season of hard riding.


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

Hi top ring!

I often see a brand X or Y of which I think, 'wow, that's is getting a lot attention' or 'wow, that goes pretty expensive' and I don't get what it is all about. I also often face that brand Z doesn't get what I would say it's worth. I think that is fun, but also good as the stuff would have been way more expensive as we all wanted the same. Everybody has its own reasons. You can be sure on it that there are people who think -by you saying; 'I paid only 150 for a mint Explosive'- 'Ouch, for only 3 times more you could have bought a Yo!'


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

...furthermore: Besides I do think FAT put more effort in a bike than about any at random mass manafacturer ...and besides a FAT is made by US craftsmen instead of being a result of a huge outsourcing operation overseas by a company more into marketing than bikes ...., I think we should not forget it is not all about rational factors. How to point out to the Japanese biljonair he could have better bought a pic of sunflowers instead of the Van Gogh??


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Elevation12 said:


> ...furthermore: Besides I do think FAT put more effort in a bike than about any at random mass manafacturer ...and besides a FAT is made by US craftsmen instead of being a result of a huge outsourcing operation overseas by a company more into marketing than bikes ...., I think we should not forget it is not all about rational factors. How to point out to the Japanese biljonair he could have better bought a pic of sunflowers instead of the Van Gogh??


don't forget the sealed tubes. the weight relieved tubes. the yo eddy fork... and the looks which are just.. killer: from the logos to painting to the whole harmony and visual balance of the bike. not even IFs touch the fats when it comes to the whole bike experience.


----------



## Williwoods (May 3, 2004)

This is a great discussion. I dont get why fat chances go for big bucks either. I know they are nice I know the reputation, did not know about the lifestyle soo much. good info. But why can you buy a nice condition Bontrager for half the cost of a Fat? I mean alot of the points made above could be made for Bontrager as well. I just dont get what makes Fat that much better. I have never ridden a fat so I guess i'll never know either. Maybe someone can explain to me why fat is more desireable than say a bontrager for example.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Williwoods said:


> This is a great discussion. I dont get why fat chances go for big bucks either. I know they are nice I know the reputation, did not know about the lifestyle soo much. good info. But why can you buy a nice condition Bontrager for half the cost of a Fat? I mean alot of the points made above could be made for Bontrager as well. I just dont get what makes Fat that much better. I have never ridden a fat so I guess i'll never know either. Maybe someone can explain to me why fat is more desireable than say a bontrager for example.


i like your points too and i was always curious why east coast bikes, fat and ifs plus rhygins were more expensive than salsa, bontrager and curtlo from the top of my head. ibis was expensive but dropped prices in the late nineties while IFs just went through the roof.
never rode a bontrager but i don't know if it would work in the kind of terrain fats shine: rocky, rutted, wet, slippery, do or die, slow speed woods.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

I understand the mystique of the Fats even if I don't feel that way. There is a certain brand from a certain time period to which I'm very partial and to pay $1k for an outstanding frame, doesn't phase me.

Part of what the mystique of this brand or any brand is exactly that: a mystique...a mystery. It's not easily explained to someone who doesn't feel that way. I hate to say it, but if you have to ask, you won't understand. Fats are great, I almost bought one some years ago for my first high end bike and one day I will probably buy a grellow Yo Eddy. A lot about these bikes are how excited they make someone. Take an old, say....Klein, I don't know if it is better than other high-end bikes, but it makes me feel that it is and that is worth a lot of dough. If offered a Jeff Jones frame worth, or should I say cost of $10k or a NOS 1990 Attitude, there is no doubt which one I will take. I don't feel the same way as the FAT COGS people about Fats, but I understand it.

One thing about this $1025 bike that I'm not sure about is that being a 2000 model, weren't they owned by Serotta(?)? To me, that would lower the value (not that Serotta is bad, but it's not the independent brand), but I could be wrong on the ownership issue. 

I don't understand the cracked Yeti selling for hundreds, that is beyond me.

'Guin


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> I understand the mystique of the Fats even if I don't feel that way. There is a certain brand from a certain time period to which I'm very partial and to pay $1k for an outstanding frame, doesn't phase me.
> 
> Part of what the mystique of this brand or any brand is exactly that: a mystique...a mystery. It's not easily explained to someone who doesn't feel that way. I hate to say it, but if you have to ask, you won't understand. Fats are great, I almost bought one some years ago for my first high end bike and one day I will probably buy a grellow Yo Eddy. A lot about these bikes are how excited they make someone. Take an old, say....Klein, I don't know if it is better than other high-end bikes, but it makes me feel that it is and that is worth a lot of dough. If offered a Jeff Jones frame worth, or should I say cost of $10k or a NOS 1990 Attitude, there is no doubt which one I will take. I don't feel the same way as the FAT COGS people about Fats, but I understand it.
> 
> ...


if i bought a yo now, it would be from 91-93. not because of the somerville nostalgia and mystique but i have a 00 2.5in corrected mojo and something is not .. perfect in the handling. the suspension corrected is not totally correct w/ me.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

A grellow Yo from 1991 just arrived at Chez Bushpig today


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> A grellow Yo from 1991 just arrived at Chez Bushpig today


just tell us the build! and post the pics.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

*Dance with the one that brought ya*

My daily ride is an 89 Fat Chance Team Comp Singlespeed that has been my daily ride since - wait for it - 1989.

I've had about 18 additional bikes in the interim. Some were crap, some were great, but where are they now? Not in my front room...

Lots of people have stories like mine and they all add to the mystique.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

A grand for a NOS frame or one in that condition isn't completely nutty. I mean, how much is a "modern" top end steel frame? Ours are 1250, some are even more than that. 1400+?

A NOS Fat is a pretty unique thing, considering they haven't been made for years you'd have something pretty standout if you built that up.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

colker1 said:


> just tell us the build! and post the pics.


It is up in the air at this point. It is unlikely to remain grellow though. It is a fall restoration project.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

I'm going to get flamed for this: 

it is a cult thing.

Indy Fab are most of the same guys that where Fat, they will make the exact same frame for you today if you shell out the coin and ask them to, but it won't have the goofy scull and crossbones or Fat logo (with a star in the A). People are buying nostaliga.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

In Germany they describe a lot of the VRC bikes as Kult.

Definitely an element of nostalgia, and nothing wrong with that


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> don't forget the sealed tubes. the weight relieved tubes. the yo eddy fork... and the looks which are just.. killer: from the logos to painting to the whole harmony and visual balance of the bike. not even IFs touch the fats when it comes to the whole bike experience.


Those sealed tubes are what causes the rust issue so common on old Fats... Guess it took years for that problem to surface. No pun intended. 

Not sure what you mean by "weight relieved tubes"...

Personally, Im not a fan of the Yo era bikes. Dont fancy the looks or the name.  I do like the old Wickeds and Team Comps however. Some of the big Fat collectors from the east coast say that they actually prefer the ride of the Wickeds over the later Fat Yo bikes.

Fats are nicely made, and have a big fan base on the East Coast... Not too many out here in CA.

And something like a Potts or one of those Marin County aluminum jobbies can make a $1000 Fat Chance seem downright cheap.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Most of it is likely nostalgia - otherwise, why would anyone care that the bike be "restored"? If these were just for riding, we'd only do the mechnical bits and then ride the bikes. Repainting would only be done to prevent rust!

I agree, too, that there's nothing wrong with it. It's just like classic cars - some people prefer the look, sound, feel, etc. of a muscle car or a vintage sports car or whatever. On paper, new cars outperform them in every way - probably the same could be said of suspension bikes vs. rigid; but owner preference drives decisions. People want a Fat (or other vintage MTB) just like the one they owned - or couldn't afford in my case - back in the 80s. You see the same with cars - people buy a '66 Mustang convertible just like the one their Dad had when they were growing up, etc....it doesn't accelerate, brake or handle as well as many brand new econo cars, but it takes you back to a previously lost time in life...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Joules said:


> I'm going to get flamed for this:
> 
> it is a cult thing.
> 
> Indy Fab are most of the same guys that where Fat, they will make the exact same frame for you today if you shell out the coin and ask them to, but it won't have the goofy scull and crossbones or Fat logo (with a star in the A). People are buying nostaliga.


ok.. so the IF guys can build me the exact same thing for ..$1500? i buy it at $1025. nostalgia is great!
btw, i hear yos are slightly stiffer in the BB than IFs. i prefer the look of the Fat stays over IFs. i doubt IF has the tubing to build me an exact replica and i prefer the Fat name on the downtube. it talks to me. bikes are not only about rationalization.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Those sealed tubes are what causes the rust issue so common on old Fats... Guess it took years for that problem to surface. No pun intended.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "weight relieved tubes"...
> 
> ...


     i knew someone in cali would bring the fat aluminum C... just to humiliate us poor fat aficcionados.   
i prefer the look of the wickeds. too bad i'm still waiting to ride both and decide which is tha fattest.

weight relieved BB and head tube.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

cegrover said:


> Most of it is likely nostalgia - otherwise, why would anyone care that the bike be "restored"? If these were just for riding, we'd only do the mechnical bits and then ride the bikes. Repainting would only be done to prevent rust!
> 
> I agree, too, that there's nothing wrong with it. It's just like classic cars - some people prefer the look, sound, feel, etc. of a muscle car or a vintage sports car or whatever. On paper, new cars outperform them in every way - probably the same could be said of suspension bikes vs. rigid; but owner preference drives decisions. People want a Fat (or other vintage MTB) just like the one they owned - or couldn't afford in my case - back in the 80s. You see the same with cars - people buy a '66 Mustang convertible just like the one their Dad had when they were growing up, etc....it doesn't accelerate, brake or handle as well as many brand new econo cars, but it takes you back to a previously lost time in life...


not to mention style.. the big issue. contemporary cars all look like downgraded mercedes. they all used the same autocad and wind tunnel when they were designed. old cars have personality. style. mustangs, jags Etype, cabriolet BMWs..
back to bikes, an ellsworth may be comfortable. a turner may climb better... but there is a big mistake in isolating the rider from the trail w/ suspension. first, the rider loses precision. second, most of us are not worried about shaving seconds from our rides, are we? why would i go all the trouble to get to the trail and then ride a bike that isolate myself from the trail?
an old bike not only is beautifull but to me, rides like a mountain bike should: like a bicyle. not like a techno monstrosity.


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

It is a well known fact that Potts' don't rust


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mwr said:


> It is a well known fact that Potts' don't rust


:thumbsup: oh yeah.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> :thumbsup: oh yeah.


GT Tequestas dont either, Matt. Good thing youre stocked up on those.


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> GT Tequestas dont either, Matt. Good thing youre stocked up on those.


It's a *Team Tequesta* dammit!


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

For me personally it comes down to one thing. Domed Stays.... :thumbsup: I got lucky when I got my NOS 94 buck shaver for $300 last year. I consider it the deal of a lifetime. Is it the perfect mountain bike? Honestly I prefer my nukeproof in most situations because being ti and relatively small sized ti tubing at that it is a lot more compliant.

But I will say that what FC put their effort into they really got right. The frames built up beautifully. Alignment was always spot on. The stays and bb put all the power straight to the wheel. Fit and finish were top notch. All the little fittings and joinery are perfect. No bontrager I have seen even comes close to this level of quality. Early ibis mojos were close but they were not as thoroughly designed imho.

Having said that there is lots to love with fats that you can't get any more from a production framebuilder. Sure you can get similar lovin from custom builders but custom builders who are close to the same level of workmanship as fats are all more money.. Think $1500 and up.

IF is not old fat folks any more. They are all gone. IF does some things in a similar manner to FC but a lot has changed as well. 
IF buys stock tubing from all over the map. FC had True temper custom make their stuff. Fat hot spun their stay ends IF doesn't so far as I know.
Do I like IF? Yeah I do (well mostly, I think their rigid forks are crap). But one has to understand that being a steel and ti frame shop in somerville is really all that they have in common with the fat city cycles of old. And that's probably a good thing seeing as how the FC model wasn't sustainable.


----------



## Arran (Jan 27, 2006)

I get the 'Fat obsession' without having experienced the 'Fat ride'. I myself have an 'Alien obsession' which some may not see as a parallel. I would so love to get my hands on an early '90's Fat of some description so I can finally 'experience the difference' but being on the other side of the world makes that all the more difficult.

I have only known one person who has owned a Fat (circa '90 Wicked?) and I would call him a deciple of Fat, even when he first got the bike... 15 years before they were considered 'Kult'. Therefore I deduce that there must be 'something' in the ride. It's not just a status symbol.

Funny story about that bloke. I organised a Dual Slalom race for a group of friends/Mountain Bike Club event in about '92 and my mate with the Fat had progressed to the semis (he was a good bike handler). 2/3 of the way down the run he had a healthy lead when the grub screw on his front Ringle' Mojo straddle wire hanger let go. Never seen a man fly so far without some form of assistance. Good times.


----------



## benja55 (Aug 10, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Personally, Im not a fan of the Yo era bikes. Dont fancy the looks or the name.  I do like the old Wickeds and Team Comps however. Some of the big Fat collectors from the east coast say that they actually prefer the ride of the Wickeds over the later Fat Yo bikes.


I have to agree: The Wickeds are my faves.

The Yo's were the beginning of the end of my Fat City love affair.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

lucifer said:


> IF is not old fat folks any more. They are all gone. IF does some things in a similar manner to FC but a lot has changed as well.
> IF buys stock tubing from all over the map. FC had True temper custom make their stuff. Fat hot spun their stay ends IF doesn't so far as I know.
> Do I like IF? Yeah I do (well mostly, I think their rigid forks are crap). But one has to understand that being a steel and ti frame shop in somerville is really all that they have in common with the fat city cycles of old. And that's probably a good thing seeing as how the FC model wasn't sustainable.


Hey,

I imagine at this point if Fat had stayed in Somerville, and was still in business, the theoretical Fat of today would not be the Fat of old either. Some of the guys were pretty young and destine to move on. Heck, people were jumping ship before Fat even moved to Glen Falls.

Early IF Deluxes are nearly identical to Yos in every way save the stay ends, which is a detail that would have faded anyway had Fat stayed in business, to your point about sustainablity.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Hey,
> 
> I imagine at this point if Fat had stayed in Somerville, and was still in business, the theoretical Fat of today would not be the Fat of old either. Some of the guys were pretty young and destine to move on. Heck, people were jumping ship before Fat even moved to Glen Falls.
> 
> Early IF Deluxes are nearly identical to Yos in every way save the stay ends, which is a detail that would have faded anyway had Fat stayed in business, to your point about sustainablity.


I was responding to the idea that you could buy a yo replica from IF today. Which you certainly can not. But yeah the early ones were close.

Honestly I wonder what it was that killed them.
The bikes were selling pretty well for a small brand (at prices that were very high for steel frames at the time.) and it seems like they should have had some economy of scale by that point. Maybe fat city never should have made the fat ti or shockabilly. Both are good bikes but neither was worth losing the company over.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

lucifer said:


> I was responding to the idea that you could buy a yo replica from IF today. Which you certainly can not. But yeah the early ones were close.
> 
> Honestly I wonder what it was that killed them.
> The bikes were selling pretty well for a small brand (at prices that were very high for steel frames at the time.) and it seems like they should have had some economy of scale by that point. Maybe fat city never should have made the fat ti or shockabilly. Both are good bikes but neither was worth losing the company over.


it died to become legendary.. if you see it in a tragic kind of way. the rest is silence.


----------



## Fatmikeynyc (Jun 20, 2005)

lucifer said:


> I was responding to the idea that you could buy a yo replica from IF today. Which you certainly can not. But yeah the early ones were close.
> 
> Honestly I wonder what it was that killed them.
> The bikes were selling pretty well for a small brand (at prices that were very high for steel frames at the time.) and it seems like they should have had some economy of scale by that point. Maybe fat city never should have made the fat ti or shockabilly. Both are good bikes but neither was worth losing the company over.


I've tried my best to refrain from posting to this thread, because I've just been afraid that I'd have to write way too much in order to explain why I think that Fat Chance frames have such an aura about them, but the post by Lucifer is interesting because I do have both an older Steel and a more recent Titanium Fat Chance and while both ride incredibly, the market demands in the 1990's were probably what led Fat City to veer from their focus on great steel frames and forks and go into the pricey research, development and production of Titanium and full suspension frames, which is ironic because nowadays things seem to have gone full circle back to small companies like Sycip and Vicious who seem to be doing just fine, possibly even learning lessons from the mistakes of others like Fat City? Anyway, looking at the Titanium and full suspension frames and having to keep up the attention to detail that went into their steel frames had to have been a major factor in the company's downfall, as the cost to make a frame and the custom bits and tooling and tubing must've made it quite difficult to show a profit...

Bottom line is that they're gone, they'll probably never be back so as supply decreases and interest in what once was increases, things inevitibly become pricey because regardless of the fact that a lot of the newer, less expesnive or comprably priced mass produced bikes may ride great and shift really well...BLAH BLAH BLAH...if you want an old Fat Chance, you're going to pay to get what you want!

It's like human nature to try to preserve a part of your life that you can't ever get back, but then again you sometimes can recreate it via eBay and a Fat wallet! 

Michael-NYC


----------



## root (Jan 24, 2006)

They ride nice, they're built nice, they look nice. Taken over past weeks.








Been kind of getting fat & lazy until recently, & I decided to bring the Fat out. 








I have to admit that the dually I ride is much less punishing and rides well, but the Fat technical handling is great, and climbing is so much nicer. And there's the nostalgia thing. It takes be back to the days when I first started mt. bike riding. In fact, my 1st mountain bike is still around, I gave it to my friend. My second mt. bike was a Fat (Monster) and it & I saw a lot of races and epic rides.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

Great pictures. You have Suntour on there?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

root said:


> They ride nice, they're built nice, they look nice. Taken over past weeks.
> I have to admit that the dually I ride is much less punishing and rides well, but the Fat technical handling is great, and climbing is so much nicer. And there's the nostalgia thing. It takes be back to the days when I first started mt. bike riding. In fact, my 1st mountain bike is still around, I gave it to my friend. My second mt. bike was a Fat (Monster) and it & I saw a lot of races and epic rides.


I can't tell you how cool it is to see someone flogging high end vintage. There have been some really clean, special 10th anniv. Fat builds that I've seen over the years...but they all seem to be garage queens.

Nice to see this one sees dirt time as was intended.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

There's one on ebay now. Tinc500's the seller...


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

root, nice 10th 

After starting the mega hits "fat chance thread" I guess I'm known as a FAT chance fan so for the purpose of this thread I'll try to be unbiased 

yup frame design moves on, certainly the sealed tubes thing wasnt a wise ideal, but FAT werent alone on this, I've seen plenty of sealed rusted through older yetis etc (amongst others), not an attack of yeti, I also love yeti 

popularity of FAT? When you see $1 bar end plugs making $45 you just know supply & demand is in effect. While private sales are always the way to pick up a bargain ebay will always throw up the crazy high prices due to the worldwide audience & FAT buyers are definately up there. remeber that $850 cook bros stem recently? that went on a yo eddy I'm personally really pleased to see that FAT is still in such high demand despite closing shop 6yrs ago 

(Tinc500 I'm gutted I didnt have the funds for the 10th when offered previously, mega appreciate the offer tho!).. watch that auction with interest


----------



## root (Jan 24, 2006)

Good eye! Suntour XC Pro cantis, Avid levers, XC Pro thumb shifters, XC Pro F&R derailleurs, XC Pro cranks, Ti (Paragon Machine Works, I think) BB, Shimano XTR rear cogset (just recently put on the XTR Ti set), Shimano 1st gen SPD (I forget the model #, 747?), Syncros bar,stem & seatpost, King headset, King front hub, Mavic 231, 1st gen Hugi rear hub, Mavic 230. Yeah, there's a part of me that says preserve it, but the other part that says it nice to ride and was meant to be ridden. I think I'll need to send it to someone for resto repaint though, there's rust.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mwr said:


> It is a well known fact that Potts' don't rust


Ummm...yeeeeah. :nonod:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

DeeEight said:


> There's one on ebay now. Tinc500's the seller...


This should be a popular one. I don't remember the last time I've seen a 10th come down the line. Been a while.


----------



## kingkahuna (May 25, 2004)

well, last night (wed night mtn series) was the first time I've flogged the YO since I bought it. 
Usually, the King gets wed night race duty, and the YO gets to be the easy going trail bike ( like ride with the wife, or out of shape friends time) It did take a lap or so to get the 'feel' back on the friction shifting while anaerobic, though

There is a distinct difference in the handling of the YO, and I've had my share of steel mtn. bikes. The Fat is very nicely setup for climbing, it climbs better than the Kona, even with my 5 yr old hutchinson tires on the Fat....

I paid a lot for the YO, but it was at a time when I had the $ in my pocket and the bike was available. I didn't really need it, but I lusted after one in high school, and it took me 15 years to get mine, and another year to reassemble it the way I wanted it. It's a very nimble, well-tracking, comfortable bike to ride, and well worth the price I paid for the bike used. Rides ten times better than the 853 Hot I had, which was way too noodley for a 200lb. guy. ( BTW, the Hot was a sweet bike, just decided I needed a stiffer bike)

I got a poster from the local shop when I was in HS, and had it laminated. Still have it, and it keeps the YO company at night.. I do admit a certain 'cultish' draw to the Fat, but I feel they earned it by making an excellent bike. 
Got lots of :thumbsup: during the race too....









and the King Kahuna learning from his elders....


----------



## jimmy (Jan 19, 2004)

*I had a 1989 Monster Fat for years*

But it was stolen about 7 years ago. Too bad. I replaced it with a 1994 Bonty Race, which I still have.


----------



## R332 (Jul 26, 2004)

Fat Chance built some of the nicest frames back in the day! I had a Wicked Fat brand new in about 1992 and loved the way it rode...too bad I ordered a frame that was too small for me :madman: 

FYI, I have a 1990 Wicked Fat 21" frame and fork FS if anyone is interested.


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 30, 2004)

*I can feel the difference...*

Since I built up my '99 Yo as a rigid SS, I've been riding it more often than my '97 IF Deluxe SS & 2000 IF Deluxe gearie. This is in large part due to the differences in handling, responsiveness and ride quality. 

















The FAT can be flicked into a tight turn without a shudder. It sprints up hills that I normally have problems on my gearie. The FAT is also better at precision descending. (probably helps that it has a rigid fork)

The IF SS definitely descends better at speed.(because it has a suspension fork) The IF is more compliant in the rear, but it's also very responsive when hammering out of the saddle. I ended up putting an offset Moots seatpost on the FAT to soften the rear. HUGE difference!

Heck, I can even feel a significant difference between my '97 and 2000 IF's- same fork and cockpit setup (different tubing). The '97 is "snappier" on the trail. The 2000 doesn't respond as quickly when sprinting from a slow roll. The rear is a little less compliant on the descents.

I'm currently building up a NOS '89 FAT. I'm on the fence as to whether it will be another SS or a vintage build 6-7 speed gearie. I've acquired most of the drivetrain, but starting to have second thoughts on the geared option. Either way, I'm looking forward to the ride comparison when it's finally built up.

In September I'm getting an IF Ti Deluxe SS to complete the package. I'm going on record as a FAnaTIc Fan...


----------



## vinny (Sep 30, 2004)

top_ring said:


> I've been watching this forum for a while and have discovered that many posters have a certain love and respect for the Fat. I'm not unfamiliar with nice riding frames, and have owned a few but have never had a Fat. One sold on ebay for $1,025.00. Seems a little "cult-ish" to me. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7247059274&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT
> 
> Would I pay that much for a frame?... Fat Chance! Would someone please explain the attraction to me.


Young, a fat was my dream ride, in 92/93. Fat Chance is to cycle what Bugatti is to cars: the most beautiful bikes ever made. My prefered one is without a doubt the second iteration of chance's FS, the one between the first AMP hybrid and the last with a rocker: it was a pureMac Pherson strut, with rear struts and swingarm made from steel with those wonderful dropouts. Gloss black and Lavander.


----------



## fatchanceti (Jan 12, 2005)

Did y'all see the Fat Ti frame the just sold on ebay yesterday for $2600? Holy crap. I'm kicking myself, as I sold my Medium Fat Ti (with King Headset and Carbon AMP B3 fork) to a local guy for something like $1100 a few years back. Argh.

FCTi


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

fatchanceti said:


> Did y'all see the Fat Ti frame the just sold on ebay yesterday for $2600? Holy crap. I'm kicking myself, as I sold my Medium Fat Ti (with King Headset and Carbon AMP B3 fork) to a local guy for something like $1100 a few years back. Argh.
> 
> FCTi


Yeah, but did you catch the complete dialed in SS'ed Fat Ti with the BIN of $1750 in better shape?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160008882904


----------



## PCfatty (Aug 24, 2005)

hey upchuck, i'm converting a yo into an ss and was wondering how you did yours. no chain tensioner? did you luck out or are you using one of thoes fancy hubs or bbs. thanks


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 30, 2004)

PCfatty said:


> hey upchuck, i'm converting a yo into an ss and was wondering how you did yours. no chain tensioner? did you luck out or are you using one of thoes fancy hubs or bbs. thanks


PCfatty, here's some pics of the setup I used for the drivetrain:








White Industries ENO crankset- 180mm arms w/ 32T ring.








WI ENO Eccentric rear hub laced to Mavic 717's. WI ENO freewheel.

So far, I've had no problems with maintaining chain tension. I've used a Surly tensioner in the past, but didn't care for the appearance.


----------



## PCfatty (Aug 24, 2005)

*thanks*

looks clean. i think i will be using a tensioner for now. i have a cool set of the original turbines in orange i'll be using w/ bash gaurd.

what year is your fat? i have a green/dark green fade made in ny i bought from my friend's gf for $600 (complete bike) about 6 years ago. it was my dream bike back in college and i has to have it.


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 30, 2004)

PCfatty said:


> what year is your fat? i have a green/dark green fade made in ny i bought from my friend's gf for $600 (complete bike) about 6 years ago. it was my dream bike back in college and i has to have it.


This one is a '99. My other one is an '89 Fat Chance in perfect condition. It's a metallic gray with yellow lettering. I've been slowly collecting parts for a vintage build, but I'm still toying with the idea of making it a SS...


----------



## N10S (Sep 27, 2004)

Root, I second scants comments on the 10th...very nice!!

I previously owned an 89 Wicked, but never really clicked with the bike. A while back I picked-up the early vintage Yo Eddy below and it has "the feel", I expected. I had her out last weekend up in the mountains of New Mexico (Cloudcroft area) just fast-tracking back rough mountain fire-roads and I was amazed at how true and solid the bike is, and how well the frame soaks-up hits. Its awesome when you can take a piece of history out for a ride and the performance is still on or above par compared to other current rigid bikes.

JR


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Fat City Cycles was ahead of its' time. Chris Chance built sweet frames. Reynolds steel, every tube except the seat tube is sealed before it is welded to eliminate rust, signature drop outs, perfect welds. While Fisher, Ritchey, Breeze, and Cunningham were rollin' fire roads on bikes with relaxed head and seat tubes, Chris and his bros were riding on bikes with steaper angles to handle the climbing and billy goating going on back east. Check out the angles of todays racing hardtails. Fat Chance you'll find much of a difference.
It's to bad Chris had to sell, but alot of his crew started a little company call Independent Fabrications so you can still buy some of the that Fat Chance steez.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

SicBith said:


> It's to bad Chris had to sell, but alot of his crew started a little company call Independent Fabrications so you can still buy some of the that Fat Chance steez.


Independent Fabrications? Never heard of it.


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Wow.... 
Maybe it's because you ride a slingshot.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

SicBith said:


> Wow....
> Maybe it's because you ride a slingshot.


Amongst other bikes.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

SicBith said:


> Fat City Cycles was ahead of its' time. Chris Chance built sweet frames. Reynolds steel, every tube except the seat tube is sealed before it is welded to eliminate rust, signature drop outs, perfect welds. While Fisher, Ritchey, Breeze, and Cunningham were rollin' fire roads on bikes with relaxed head and seat tubes, Chris and his bros were riding on bikes with steaper angles to handle the climbing and billy goating going on back east. Check out the angles of todays racing hardtails. Fat Chance you'll find much of a difference.
> It's to bad Chris had to sell, but alot of his crew started a little company call Independent Fabrications so you can still buy some of the that Fat Chance steez.


I think Cunningham, Salsa and Bridgestone were the first to have the steeper front ends. Fat didnt use steep geometry until the Wicked came out in 1987. The regular Fat had laid back Ritchey geometry.


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

It's a classic...
What else is in the quiver???


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

I think could be wrong, but I read an article on Cunningham and his travels east to talk with Chris about his bikes and their geometry. He freely admited to using steeper angles on his bikes after those visits.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

SicBith said:


> I think could be wrong, but I read an article on Cunningham and his travels east to talk with Chris about his bikes and their geometry. He freely admited to using steeper angles on his bikes after those visits.


I'd really like to see that article then.

I'm sure all the old school builders learned a bit of something from everyone else...but I can't see Charlie Cunningham heading east for the sake of getting learned by Chris Chance about mtb geometry.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

SicBith said:


> It's a classic...
> What else is in the quiver???


Not sure who that was directed to?


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> I'd really like to see that article then.
> 
> I'm sure all the old school builders learned a bit of something from everyone else...but I can't see Charlie Cunningham heading east for the sake of getting learned by Chris Chance about mtb geometry.


If I remember correctly a story like that was posted on FatCogs some time ago. The story was originally posted on www.frameforum.net I thought.

Edit: I checked back and it was the other Cunningham that praised the Fat geometry. No word on Charlie.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

SicBith said:


> I think could be wrong, but I read an article on Cunningham and his travels east to talk with Chris about his bikes and their geometry. He freely admited to using steeper angles on his bikes after those visits.


Thats actually kind of funny since Charlie already had his geometry figured out long before Chris ever dreamt of making a mountain bike.

Besides, it wasnt until 1987 that Fats got a steep head angle anyway.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Besides, it wasnt until 1987 that Fats got a steep head angle anyway.


When I think of early steep angled bikes, I think of Grant Peterson. When did Bridgestone steepen their angles? The '87 MB-1 had 71/73 angles (as well as sub-17" chain stays); did the '86 have similar angles?

What angles did Cunningham use? How early?


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> When I think of early steep angled bikes, I think of Grant Peterson


When I think of early steep angled bikes I think of the Stumpjumper Team, weren't they like 72/72?


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Wow...
I read the article in print somewhere, not on the web. I'm pretty sure Charlie did not go back there to get "learned" from Chance. I bet it was more of a "hey what are you doin' back here" kinda of trip. I'm sure they shared some herb, dirt, and ideas on frame geometry. To say Charlie had his angles down before he talked to Chance, Breeze, Ritchey, or any of the premier frame builders of the time is like rollin' down the trail staring at your front tire.


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

SicBith said:


> To say Charlie had his angles down before he talked to Chance, Breeze, Ritchey, or any of the premier frame builders of the time is like rollin' down the trail staring at your front tire.


 Nobody said anything about Cunningham and Breeze or Ritchey, all of whom knew each other before there was such a thing as a bona fide mountain bike. Moreover, the exceptional thing about Cunningham is precisely that while nearly everyone else derived their stuff from traditonal Excelsior geometry (not to mention building with steel), he did not.

Look for the recent Bike magazine article posted here a few months back. Not only does it mention Cunningham's steep angled road-inspired aluminum bikes of the late '70s and how they diverged from what everyone else in California was doing at the time, but it also discusses the first Fat Chance bikes -- in the early '80s


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

SicBith said:


> Wow...
> I read the article in print somewhere, not on the web. I'm pretty sure Charlie did not go back there to get "learned" from Chance. I bet it was more of a "hey what are you doin' back here" kinda of trip. I'm sure they shared some herb, dirt, and ideas on frame geometry. To say Charlie had his angles down before he talked to Chance, Breeze, Ritchey, or any of the premier frame builders of the time is like rollin' down the trail staring at your front tire.


Oh boy. Maybe youre just trolling..?

I dont think anyone in the know could say Charlie was a follower or someone to go and glean info from somebody else. If anyone in the industry "did his own thing" and did it arguably the best, it was Charlie. I would guess that by 1980 he had his geometry dialed in. He had experimental bikes in 1978 or 79 that were never heat-treated just so he could alter angles purely for finding the ideal set up.

Chris used a 69 degree head angle (just like a Ritchey, mind you) up until the Wicked came out in 1987. Thats just about 10 years after Charlie started building mountain bikes.

And like mwr said, Charlie didnt follow the Schwinn Excelsior geometry. He was the only one back then to do his own thing. In my opinion, if anyone was ahead of their time it was most definitely Cunningham.

Edit: By the way, I think pretty much all the articles on Charlie Cunningham have been posted here on this forum. Maybe we missed the one where he got his good geometry ideas from Chris Chance.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Not to stir the pot, but I recall an article from 15 some odd years ago that made reference to what SicBith is talking about. I do not remember the details or context, but I do recall the article. And IIRC, it was in something like Bicycle Guide.


----------



## Veloculture (Dec 18, 2005)

IF52 said:


> Not to stir the pot, but I recall an article from 15 some odd years ago that made reference to what SicBith is talking about. I do not remember the details or context, but I do recall the article. And IIRC, it was in something like Bicycle Guide.


we've all been around long enough to know half the junk printed is wrong unfortunately. maybe Cunningham was chatting with those east coasters about geometry's but he certianly wasn't getting schooled by them. Cunninham was way ahead of everybody else. thats not even up for debate.


----------



## benja55 (Aug 10, 2005)

*Steep angles came on quickly...*



laffeaux said:


> When I think of early steep angled bikes, I think of Grant Peterson. When did Bridgestone steepen their angles? The '87 MB-1 had 71/73 angles (as well as sub-17" chain stays); did the '86 have similar angles?


I'm pretty sure my old '85  Fisher Competition had 70.5 HA and 72SA, with 16.5" chainstays. It was one of the most neutral handling frames I've ever ridden.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Perhaps we're talking about Richard Cunningham?


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Perhaps we're talking about Richard Cunningham?


Mm not if these numbers are right http://www.blackbirdsf.org/xframe/xcr.html


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

All right 80's frame builder guy
Cunningham gets his props for sure. As I mentioned before, he did not "get" his geometry from Chance, they spoke about it, they bounced ideas off of each other, you know the stuff creative minds do, and I'm sure they both came away a little smarter.

I'm pysched that "pretty much all the articles" on Charlie have been posted here, and maybe you did miss this one, maybe you think I'm full of s***, but don't think that all the Mill Valley boys didn't get ideas from back east and the eastern boys did the same. That's why everybody's bike rides differently and why Cunningham, Chance, Joe B, Tom, Willits, Potts, and all the other premier frame builders are special. 

I'm really just saying that FAT CHANCE RULES


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Would I piss a lot of you guys off if I said Fat Chance owners are the 29'er owners of the vintage world?    


(I'm generalizing of course. Sarcastic with a bit of truth to it I think)


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Nail on the head.... just because it is written doesn't make it true. 
Cunningham was doing things differently and that's great. I don't believe anybody "schooled" anyone else (except I think Fisher got schooled by someone) anyway the jist of it is, all the frame builders bounced ideas off each other and we're the geeks ripping around on the stuff they made 20+ yrs ago because they did it right first.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

*Ooops. Wrong Cunningham.*



SicBith said:


> Wow...
> I read the article in print somewhere, not on the web. I'm pretty sure Charlie did not go back there to get "learned" from Chance. I bet it was more of a "hey what are you doin' back here" kinda of trip. I'm sure they shared some herb, dirt, and ideas on frame geometry. To say Charlie had his angles down before he talked to Chance, Breeze, Ritchey, or any of the premier frame builders of the time is like rollin' down the trail staring at your front tire.


Elevation2000 edited his post above:

"If I remember correctly a story like that was posted on FatCogs some time ago. The story was originally posted on www.frameforum.net I thought.

Edit: I checked back and it was the other Cunningham that praised the Fat geometry. No word on Charlie."

So did Richard "freely admit to using steeper angles upon returning from those visits"?


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Would I piss a lot of you guys off if I said Fat Chance owners are the 29'er owners of the vintage world?


Hey!!!! I ride a 29er! What's up with that?


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Elevation2000 edited his post above:
> 
> "If I remember correctly a story like that was posted on FatCogs some time ago. The story was originally posted on www.frameforum.net I thought.
> 
> ...


He said something like "nowadays rides' geometry all look the like Fat Chances of back in the day". Maybe he refered to Fat as with Fat the geometry got momentum? A bit like Audi that is considered the the driving force behind 4wd for roadcars with its Quattro. In fact Spijker & Bugatti had already a one running pre war ...and than there also was the Jensen FF ('66). Same for SAAB that actually wasn't the very first with a Turbocharger.

@rumpfy 
What is your definition of "the 29 rider of the vintage scene" ??


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Elevation2000 edited his post above:
> 
> "If I remember correctly a story like that was posted on FatCogs some time ago. The story was originally posted on www.frameforum.net I thought.
> 
> ...


The editorial was published in MBA last year. Richard's comments lead me to search out who was talking with who, and how geometry on both coast was being shared by whom.

There are a lot of dicks out there, not so many Richards.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

SicBith said:


> The editorial was published in MBA last year. Richard's comments lead me to search out who was talking with who, and how geometry on both coast was being shared by whom.
> 
> There are a lot of dicks out there, not so many Richards.


??

So, did you mean Richard Cunningham was the one who flew back east and upon his return changed his bikes instead of Charlie??


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

If anything they changed toward the slacker side depending on when this meeting/conversation happened. RC's very early bikes were generally parallel 72 or 71 degrees. As time went by the head angle slackened to 70.5 and 70.


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

The Wright brothers and Werner von Braun changed their designs after talking with Chris also.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Elevation12 said:


> @rumpfy
> What is your definition of "the 29 rider of the vintage scene" ??


Seems to me a lot of 29'er guys have tunnel vision. They ride 29" wheeled bikes and cast off all other disciplines of bike, refusing to recognize that their 29'ers are flawed and have pros and cons just like 26" wheeled bikes have. Their mentality is that 29"ers are the best, they're perfect, everything else is lame.

Seems to me a lot people only ride and collect Fats. I see a resemblance to 29"er folk in the way Fats are discussed and talked about. 
I think Fat Chance bikes are great. But I also think a lot of other bikes are great too.

Again, I'm stereotyping and generalizing with this statement...and I'm mostly just trash talking to stir the pot.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Seems to me a lot of 29'er guys have tunnel vision. They ride 29" wheeled bikes and cast off all other disciplines of bike, refusing to recognize that their 29'ers are flawed and have pros and cons just like 26" wheeled bikes have. Their mentality is that 29"ers are the best, they're perfect, everything else is lame.
> 
> Seems to me a lot people only ride and collect Fats. I see a resemblance to 29"er folk in the way Fats are discussed and talked about.
> I think Fat Chance bikes are great. But I also think a lot of other bikes are great too.
> ...


You mean this kind of stuff: "I'm really just saying that FAT CHANCE RULES", combined with lots of wacky information? 

Ok. Done stirring.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Sweet!*

I've got some things I'm working on and just need that final finishing touch. What's Chris' email??


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Seems to me a lot of 29'er guys have tunnel vision. They ride 29" wheeled bikes and cast off all other disciplines of bike, refusing to recognize that their 29'ers are flawed and have pros and cons just like 26" wheeled bikes have. Their mentality is that 29"ers are the best, they're perfect, everything else is lame.
> 
> Seems to me a lot people only ride and collect Fats. I see a resemblance to 29"er folk in the way Fats are discussed and talked about.
> I think Fat Chance bikes are great. But I also think a lot of other bikes are great too.
> ...


Yes, I think you're generalizing ...or at least it doesn't apply to me. I am not only in favour of Fat Chance and I do not have a tunnelvision. There is also Miyata, Miyata and Miyata.

 :thumbsup:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Fillet-brazed said:


> You mean this kind of stuff: "I'm really just saying that FAT CHANCE RULES", combined with lots of wacky information?
> 
> Ok. Done stirring.


LOL! 

FORD RULES! 49ers RULE! CALIFORNIA RULES!


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

mwr said:


> The Wright brothers and Werner von Braun changed their designs after talking with Chris also.


finally you guys are coming around.

Where did you find that info on FatCogs???:thumbsup:


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Let it go my friend. Don't hate Chis, hate the game


----------



## fat-tony (Sep 6, 2005)

What do you call a moutain biker that rides a Fat Chance that is a 29er?

Doublely obnoxious.


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

Careful....
The gods of early 80's frame building will thunder their wisdom down upon your head.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

fat-tony said:


> What do you call a moutain biker that rides a Fat Chance that is a 29er?


Speaking of 29er's, Fat City, and retro bikes....

The end-caps on the chain/seat stays on my Vicious Cycles 29er remind me of a certain frame building company. I'm pretty sure that Chris DID have some influence here.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

laffeaux said:


> Speaking of 29er's, Fat City, and retro bikes....
> 
> The end-caps on the chain/seat stays on my Vicious Cycles 29er remind me of a certain frame building company. I'm pretty sure that Chris DID have some influence here.


See Tony...this is just the kind of guy I'm talking about.

If you've ever met Laffeaux in person...Doublely obnoxious.


----------



## cibi (Oct 18, 2005)

Nice discussion :thumbsup:

Here's a movie from the Fat City Factory :

klick

Have some Kleenex ready :cryin:


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

cibi said:


> Nice discussion :thumbsup:
> 
> Here's a movie from the Fat City Factory :
> 
> ...


Excellent post!!! That's a great video. Where did you dig that up?


----------



## fatchanceti (Jan 12, 2005)

Just found these pics of my old Ti and thought I'd share. Sorry, not the highest resolution but this was one of its many incarnations (AMP carbon fork, Salsa drops w/Campy carbon levers, DA barends and dual wheelsets)


----------



## WeR138 (Aug 18, 2006)

How can you explain something to someone that is subjective? Either you feel it or you don't - not something that can be analyzed. Forget it.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

WeR138 said:


> How can you explain something to someone that is subjective? Either you feel it or you don't - not something that can be analyzed. Forget it.


Any post or person you're replying to specifically?

I agree...taste in bike is very....open to debate.


----------



## downhilljill (Apr 21, 2005)

cibi said:


> Nice discussion :thumbsup:
> 
> Here's a movie from the Fat City Factory :
> 
> ...


Wow, that video is COOL! Wonder where all those bikes are now....


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

downhilljill said:


> Wonder where all those bikes are now....


Broken, or the UK. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## WeR138 (Aug 18, 2006)

Rumpfy said:


> Any post or person you're replying to specifically?
> 
> I agree...taste in bike is very....open to debate.


The original post .. as well as the replies. Obviously we can't ride every frame builder so we tend to stay with what works for us. Unless you happen to have unlimited resources and space ... which seems to be the case with some popular auction site bidders.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

WeR138 said:


> Unless you happen to have unlimited resources and space ... which seems to be the case with some popular auction site bidders.


Yeah, I hate those guys.


----------



## WeR138 (Aug 18, 2006)

Rumpfy said:


> Yeah, I hate those guys.


So how's that Ti Fat working for you?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

WeR138 said:


> So how's that Ti Fat working for you?


Hmm....not me. Only Fat I have is an 89ish Wicked.


----------



## WeR138 (Aug 18, 2006)

Rumpfy said:


> Hmm....not me. Only Fat I have is an 89ish Wicked.


My mistake. I thought you bought Perry's bike in March.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

WeR138 said:


> My mistake. I thought you bought Perry's bike in March.


Frayed knot.


----------



## joeddy (Apr 3, 2005)

*Why a FAT*

Sometimes a pic say more than words! Don't be jealous guys.


----------



## L-Train (Apr 28, 2006)

*I'll Take That Stem And Saddle*

You can keep the rest.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

joeddy said:


> Sometimes a pic say more than words! Don't be jealous guys.


there are other bikes. the fat cult borders on idiocy sometimes... to tell people in this board, guys who have collections of rare and wonderfull bikes, that they are jealous of a fat is stupid..
hey maybe we need a vint fat only retro board.:nono:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

joeddy said:


> Sometimes a pic say more than words! Don't be jealous guys.


That's a pretty Fat right there. I do like that one. Just the right amount of 3DV.

I'll be happy with one grellow Fat.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

its all about the color for Rumpfy. 


I noticed my late 80s Fat Team Comp had noticably nicer workmanship than my 10th Anniversary had. Maybe they got lazy in the later years... or maybe it was just mine that was a bit sloppy.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

joeddy said:


> Sometimes a pic say more than words! Don't be jealous guys.


Isn't that Marc/rasaldul's?

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=161086


----------



## mrsmiff (Aug 22, 2006)

This thread is making regret not getting a prodeal on a custom yo eddy back when I worked for Trek. 
Despite getting 2 free (loaner) bikes a year, I was about to drop the cash to have my own Fat rather than borrow a trek.


----------



## wyatt (Apr 6, 2005)

*Jealous? Of What?*

You can still buy this bike. It's called Independent Fabrication Deluxe. I have owned four Fats. (2) Yo Eddy, a Buck Shaver, and Bro Eddy (now there's the masterpiece in the line that no one talks about), and the I.F. Deluxe has all the qualities a chromoly Fat has. Additionally, Mark Yardley of Fat wouldn't say he thought the ti version was better than the chromoly.

Have a great time with it. The forks are the coolest. I have a pink one just like that- pre-suspension length and the Big One Inch diameter which premiered on the that bike.

Yes, the cult is over the top, but that's what cults do or they are not good cults.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

wyatt said:


> Yes, the cult is over the top, but that's what cults do or they are not good cults.


Good point.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

wyatt said:


> You can still buy this bike. It's called Independent Fabrication Deluxe. I have owned four Fats. (2) Yo Eddy, a Buck Shaver, and Bro Eddy (now there's the masterpiece in the line that no one talks about), and the I.F. Deluxe has all the qualities a chromoly Fat has. Additionally, Mark Yardley of Fat wouldn't say he thought the ti version was better than the chromoly.
> 
> Have a great time with it. The forks are the coolest. I have a pink one just like that- pre-suspension length and the Big One Inch diameter which premiered on the that bike.
> 
> Yes, the cult is over the top, but that's what cults do or they are not good cults.


cults are silly and embarrassing. good bikes are not. cults make you pay ridiculous $ and get no value out of it.
other than that.. good post!


----------



## joeddy (Apr 3, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> Isn't that Marc/rasaldul's?
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=161086


Yes,it was!!!I'm the new and very,very proud owner,so please forgive me my words.
I'm no arrogant or so,I have also other classic bikes,but the Tenth is my personal reason why I ride a Fat,nothing more.Don't be angry on me. Maybe you understand me,if I told you,that I bought my new beauty two weeks ago!!

Greets from germany

Olli:thumbsup:


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 30, 2004)

joeddy said:


> Yes,it was!!!I'm the new and very,very proud owner,so please forgive me my words.
> I'm no arrogant or so,I have also other classic bikes,but the Tenth is my personal reason why I ride a Fat,nothing more.Don't be angry on me. Maybe you understand me,if I told you,that I bought my new beauty two weeks ago!!
> 
> Greets from germany
> ...


Olli, I think some mistook your enthusiasm for arrogance. It kind of got lost in translation.  
That is a beauty. You have every right to be gushing with pride. Heck, I'd be the same way. Enjoy her!


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 30, 2004)

I disagree on a number of points you made in such a short post.

- "Cults make you pay ridiculous $ and get no value out of it."

No one can make you pay ridiculous amounts of money for an item that isn't a necessary staple in life. It's a matter of choice. If you want something badly enough, you will pay the going rate. If you don't feel it's worth the money, don't pay. 
The value one places on an item is not purely based on the physical materials or skill used in manufacturing. Sentiment and rarity play a larger part in the inflated price of a FAT. 
The cult started several years ago when Fat City was still in business. The price for a FAT was even steep in the '80s. MTBing is more popular than ever, and those of us who started riding at that time have just grown up, have better jobs, and have more disposable income.

- "Cults are silly and embarrassing. Good bikes are not."

I agree that good bikes are not embarrassing. But I have seen some great bikes that I thought were silly looking. Some of Jones' creations have bordered on ridiculous, but they are true works of art and, from what I've read, perform flawlessly.

I better stop there. I have to go back to the commune and pick up my kids from home schooling. Our holy leader said we have an appointment with destiny this afternoon.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Upchuck said:


> I disagree on a number of points you made in such a short post.
> 
> - "Cults make you pay ridiculous $ and get no value out of it."
> 
> ...


respect. i share the love for fat city AND bicycles so first i highly respect a fellow poster's opinion.. so;
is VRC a cult? no.. it's more an ideology and a vision. common sense and ideology. 
common sense: we ride old bikes that lost comercial value but as we know didn't lose any refined riding qualities.
ideology: when we dedicate ourselves to outdated machines we show society how progress is relative and the market value is dubious.
the exact opposite is paying a lot of money to have something exclusive or somehing that is in market's demand. it's a possessive trip, an ego trip and has no depth or power to challenge technology and market. 
it's ridiculous cause you end up giving value where it doesn't belong: to the machines themselves. when i ride an old bike cause i love it and not cause it's valuable(not saying one who buys a yo eddy is moved by snobbery only), i place the value on the human activity. not on the machine.


----------

