# Need help choosing between two bikes - 58 year old non-technical rider



## BikesFloat (Jul 27, 2015)

I'm a 58 year old male; gym rat, avid hiker and backpacker. All cycling up to now has been for exercise on a Gary Fisher hybrid. Looking at fat bikes for bikepacking and off-pavement exercise. No big air or high speeds planned, just non-technical trails, park/forest service roads, gravel, some sand and snow.

I need help choosing between two fat bikes which are priced similarly, but have slightly different sets of components. Which set will best match my riding style? For example, would I be better off with a better crankset and bottom bracket or better brakes and tires?

Here are links to the two bikes if you're willing to take the time to look them over ...

Save up to 60% off new Rockshox Bluto Equipped Fat Bikes and Mountain Bikes - MTB - Motobecane Sturgis Bullet 2x10 SRAM

On Sale Framed Minnesota 3.0 XWT Fat Bike w/ Alloy and Bluto Fork 2015


----------



## owtdorz (Apr 26, 2012)

I've hear good about the Minnesota. You should check out the fat bike forum on here.
Fat bikes - Mtbr.com


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

BikesFloat said:


> ...Looking at fat bikes for bikepacking and off-pavement exercise. No big air or high speeds planned, just non-technical trails, park/forest service roads, gravel, some sand and snow...


Then don't burden yourself with the extra weight and expense of a suspension fork, especially on a fatbike.

I think for that sort of riding you'd get more use out of a +size tyre bike, eg 29er+ or 27.5er+, unless most of your riding is on very soft stuff or snow.

Personally I think it's a case of 2 bikes, one a 3 season, the other for snow and sand... 

If you don't waste money on unnecessary suspension, it's more affordable.


----------



## BikesFloat (Jul 27, 2015)

Velobike said:


> Then don't burden yourself with the extra weight and expense of a suspension fork, especially on a fatbike.


Velobike, you are right! Just saved me $400-$500 and weight :thumbsup:. Anything about the remaining component sets that you'd prefer over the other for someone like me? I'm set on getting a fat bike.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

BikesFloat said:


> Velobike, you are right! Just saved me $400-$500 and weight :thumbsup:. Anything about the remaining component sets that you'd prefer over the other for someone like me? I'm set on getting a fat bike.


In your shoes, I'd buy a decent quality secondhand like a Surly, Mukluk, or one of the Alaskan makes. They'll probably already have decent components, but keep a bit up your sleeve for improvements when needed. Ride it for a few months and then decide whether or not to upgrade.

I've had a few fatbikes and I reckon the biggest difference between them is the tyres that are fitted - ie tyres make more difference than the frame geometry or any other feature.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Mountain Biking appears to have many an odd perception about what defines itself. Your description of use suggests a CX bike until you add snow into the mix. Keep the whole bike simple - no thrills equipment, you will not need it. Velobike has given a very practical assessment. The number of riders using a suspension bike defies belief on washboard smooth surfaces. Its just technology for the sake of it. 

Eric


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

If you live near an REI store, consider this bike. Pretty good deal on a fatty with a nice tange cromo frame. Drive train spec is a notch below the Framed, but otherwise pretty comparable. Never ridden one, but from what I read on the interwebs, it's pretty sporty. (cue newmarketrog).

Charge Cooker Maxi Bike - 2014 - REI.com


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Eric Malcolm said:


> ...Its just technology for the sake of it...


A wee rant 

I like a bike I can put away wet when I'm knackered.

I like a bike I can pick up after not using it for a while and it still works.

For cross country riding I've found the less gizmos on the bike, the better it works and the less to break. Also for the price of a bike fully teched up with all the magazine/editorial sales pitch "essentials" you can buy 2 simpler lighter bikes which is much more fun.

Suspension? You've got 10" in your arms and legs, if you're using all that up you're a downhill racer. Just use fatter tyres.

Gears? You don't need gears in your legs to run up a hill, and strangely your muscles will quickly adapt to doing the same with a bike. Oh, you want to go fast? Many endurance rides are won by guys on singlespeeds, maybe getting the right muscles working is more important than gears.

Dropper posts? A really expensive, useful thing that you don't really need unless you are downhilling racing.

Clip in pedals? More unnecessary tech. Then you have to buy the expensive shoes too. Flats and walking shoes give you far more options, especially in the hike a bike bits that discourage the fancy shoe wearers. (I'm not convinced that there's any real benefit in the pulling up with the upward leg for anyone who has not trained for it, ie real racers - or should I say, I think any benefit is outweighed by the disadvantages)

Now if all that money saved in gizmos is spent on a set of topnotch wheels and the bike frame, for the same money as a teched up ordinary grey porridge bike, you'll have a lightweight weapon.

If you just love tech and gizmos, then by all means load the bike up with them, that's fun too, but the most important part of the bike equation is your muscles and reactions adapting to the bike whichever type you buy, and your body will adapt just as well to a simpler lighter bike.

Rant over. 

Edit: just realised my signature says it all, in much simpler terms. I'm getting too verbose. :blush:


----------



## SeaHag (Jul 14, 2011)

I agree with the assessment that you do not need suspension for the applications you are envisioning.

With bikepacking in mind, I think you would do well with this purchase: Save up to 60% off new Fat Bikes and Mountain Bikes - MTB - Motobecane Lurch X9 SRAM

I bought the same bike last year and have well over a thousand miles of year round riding on it with zero issues but a constant smile on my face when I ride it. The Lurch has a chromoly frame like the Charge Cooker linked to at REI, but has a MUCH better component spec in the drivetrain department. It also has more mounting options for bike packing racks with the mounting bosses on the front fork.

I intend to eventually buy the bike packing gear myself and have some multi-day adventures.

FWIW: I'm a big 6' 250# rider and I've been very pleased with the strength and rigidity of this frame. I prefer to do the majority of my climbs standing on the pedals with this bike rather than dropping gears and spinning because it is so stiff putting all my weight into the pedals propels the bike forward better than anything I have yet ridden. My fatbike has become my favored weapon for the majority of trails in my area. It can go through/over nearly anything and it jumps way better than I hoped it would. No bent rims or loose spokes so far and I beat it pretty hard.


----------



## t0pcat (May 7, 2012)

If you like the mukluk pm me


----------



## BikesFloat (Jul 27, 2015)

SeaHag said:


> With bikepacking in mind, I think you would do well with this purchase: Save up to 60% off new Fat Bikes and Mountain Bikes - MTB - Motobecane Lurch X9 SRAM


Just ordered one. Thanks for planting the seed!


----------

