# Fat chance is back!



## banks (Feb 2, 2004)

:rockon::rockon::rockon:
http://fatchancebicycles.com/


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

none of the rumors I've heard fills me with much hope


----------



## TBarnaby (Aug 1, 2008)

What have you heard?


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

He could tell you but then he'll have to kill you.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

If they stood behind 26in wheels for example or at least concept of of what should be a trail bike that goes against the grain of the bike industry then it would be awesome. I doubt that's gonna happen.


----------



## WTB-rider (Jul 25, 2004)

We'll see.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Not to be Debbie Downer... 

But stick with handmade steel and there are already a million of them. Go with Chinese carbon and a decal and there are already a million of them. The big question, I would guess, is how many Fat City nuts there are as I don't see the market going too far beyond that...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Not to be Debbie Downer...
> 
> But stick with handmade steel and there are already a million of them. Go with Chinese carbon and a decal and there are already a million of them. The big question, I would guess, is how many Fat City nuts there are as I don't see the market going too far beyond that...


this... but then, the guy could be a genius, who knows?


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

I'm certain there's a whole lot of bike geeks that couldn't afford Yo Eddys back in the day, but now has grown up and gotten well paid jobs and gladly would trow a wad of cash at a neo-retro Fat Chance hardtail. I know I would. Chris Chance probably doesn't need to shift a million frames per year, and I believe there still is a market for him to enter.

This comeback is nothing but cool. Good luck!


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

Joined the site to see what Chris has up his sleeve.

Would be cool to see a Slim Chance re-issue.



Steve


----------



## wookie (Jan 24, 2007)

Dazed said:


> I'm certain there's a whole lot of bike geeks that couldn't afford Yo Eddys back in the day, but now has grown up and gotten well paid jobs and gladly would trow a wad of cash at a neo-retro Fat Chance hardtail. I know I would. Chris Chance probably doesn't need to shift a million frames per year, and I believe there still is a market for him to enter.
> 
> This comeback is nothing but cool. Good luck!


Yep, I'm in for one! I want a 29er Yo Eddy with discs & thru axles


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

I'm all for it, so long as they make something good.
Handmade steel Yo Eddy but built for modern stuff, so Discs and 4 inch fork... but no 29ers...I could maybe go a 650b... but would rather 26incher. And also not tapered HT...well not for me...

Then I'd be all for it.

But if it turns out to be some carbon 29er, then no thanks.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Fat tire recumbent and I'm in!


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Nothing would be cooler than a Fat, Fat Chance.

26" wheels still, so all the silly whining about no 29ers could be shelved......

Now if he went straight to 650B only, I'd know this was an "I'm out of liquid assets, let's restart an old brand" publicity stunt.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

mik_git said:


> ...And also not tapered HT...well not for me...


Non-tapered head tube? Might as well make it a 1" head tube then. Either way finding a fork will be impossible going forward. 

I'm interested in seeing what comes out, but like FilletBrazed said, it's a crowded market already. Unless he does something really inventive it's going to be tough. 650b hardtails with modern components that ride like the old bikes would be nice, but I'm not sure how many guys in the younger generation will care about the name.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Who knows? There might be a "my mom/dad used to ride one BITD" market.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

I'm in the minority over at Fatcogs too for suggesting he seize the Rivendell of production MTBs market.

I must be the only goof on earth who looked at that Gallus at NAHMBS 2012 and thought "yes please".


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

Dollars to donuts it is all fat bikes. 

Which is not my cup of coffee. But perhaps with enough donuts....Mikey, can I borrow some donuts?


----------



## datmony (Jul 12, 2012)

mainlyfats said:


> I'm in the minority over at Fatcogs too for suggesting he seize the Rivendell of production MTBs market.
> 
> I must be the only goof on earth who looked at that Gallus at NAHMBS 2012 and thought "yes please".
> 
> View attachment 922423


I will happily join your goof category!!! That is lovely. Same cranks I am running on my MB1. Love the crowned fork and the B17.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

mainlyfats said:


> I'm in the minority over at Fatcogs too for suggesting he seize the Rivendell of production MTBs market.
> 
> I must be the only goof on earth who looked at that Gallus at NAHMBS 2012 and thought "yes please".
> 
> View attachment 922423


That's a beautiful bike!


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

You are not alone, that's a great looking bike.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mainlyfats said:


> I'm in the minority over at Fatcogs too for suggesting he seize the Rivendell of production MTBs market.
> 
> I must be the only goof on earth who looked at that Gallus at NAHMBS 2012 and thought "yes please".
> 
> View attachment 922423


i am on the same page: go retro, functional and ignore the rest.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

I’m hoping for a new steel Chris-Cross. 

No carbon-- there are enough of those already.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

mainlyfats said:


> View attachment 922423


That is a nice bike, and from what I have read it is 650b. That wheel size doesn't bother me and it does make some sense based on how it is generating interest.

I really like the retro look. If Fat Chance is coming back, it would make sense to be in a similar retro niche, but mixed with some smart upgrades, such as disc brakes. Make a product that does not diminish the original, by being an exact copy, but still has the appeal.

John


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

yo-Nate-y said:


> Dollars to donuts it is all fat bikes.
> 
> Which is not my cup of coffee. But perhaps with enough donuts....Mikey, can I borrow some donuts?


You could run Nates on it, that's gotta be worth something.


----------



## CCMDoc (Jan 21, 2010)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Not to be a Debbie Downer ...


That movie didn't live up to its hype ...
Let's hope the new Fat exceeds it


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

Richard Sachs has an 8 year wait list for his frames. 

I’m just saying, I believe if Chris did the work himself, he’d sell all he could build.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Just watched Chance interview on mtbr.. > the worst possible strategy is asking what people want. You tell us what you think we need, Chance..
People have no say around creators.
Fat Chance was legendary cause they built something THEY thought it was cool.
Surly already does it: Surly creates bikes that change the way people ride and it sure is way cheaper than what a Fat Chance will cost.
Sachs builds the bike HE wants you to ride. As Grant Petersen does. 
Scot Nicol came up w/ a FS Mojo. He didn't ask what i wanted.. he came up w/ a bike that had it's juice and made me wonder, carbon or not.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

colker, relax, just because he’s asking, doesn’t mean that’s what he’ll do.

Initially, I had the same reaction you did, but then I thought about it a bit.
Chris has been out of the game for a while, so...

It doesn’t hurt to ask.

Why don’t you wait to see what he decides before being so critical?

As per your examples: if no body wanted any of the bikes you’ve listed, the creators If they wanted to actually make a living) would shift gears pretty quickly. 

You think custom builders are dumping 26’s for the heck or it? The buying public wants 29. (not me by the way) So 29 they build.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

colker1 said:


> Just watched Chance interview on mtbr.. > the worst possible strategy is asking what people want. You tell us what you think we need, Chance..
> People have no say around creators.


Agree. You don't ask, you tell.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

KDXdog said:


> Initially, I had the same reaction you did, but then I thought about it a bit.
> Chris has been out of the game for a while, so...
> 
> It doesn't hurt to ask.
> ...


I agree. Feel out the market to see what people are interested in, and then build the bike that you want that satisfies the demand.

I provided feedback on the bike I'd be most interested in buying. I'm mot sure if I'd actually buy one, and I'm not sure that Chris would actually build one.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

laffeaux said:


> I agree. Feel out the market to see what people are interested in, and then build the bike that you want that satisfies the demand.
> 
> I provided feedback on the bike I'd be most interested in buying. I'm mot sure if I'd actually buy one, and I'm not sure that Chris would actually build one.


If it were a new brand, for sure - market research is important. But for an established brand to ask "who are we? what are we doing?" is a squandering of the brand's equity.


----------



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)

I was hoping for a fat chance t-shirt, but nothing available yet. I would be stoked in something like this:

http://forums.mtbr.com/passion/fat-chance-tshirt-design-930197.html


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

delivering something the market wants is business 101. if people follow the above advise, FC would be closed again in short order  we'd all be collecting bikes again from a failed company. sad.


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

I'm encouraged that he even listed "trail" as an option, especially when paired with a distinct choice for "race XC". Trail bikes get no love these days.


----------



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)




----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

A steel modernized trail/woods bike with a 4" fork is what I see him doing. Like a Phoenix, but any wheel size you want and a longer fork.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

That sounds like a great bike.


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

Fillet-brazed said:


> A steel modernized trail/woods bike with a 4" fork is what I see him doing. Like a Phoenix, but any wheel size you want and a longer fork.


That's pretty much the only thing I'd be interested in.


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

A 6 inch forked lightweight steel hard tail that comes in around 26ish pounds in 650b would be interesting. In the tradition of the Wicked, which was pretty slack for it's time. Thru axle front and rear. Long TT designed for a short stem and a 740 bar. Limited edition Salsa components. Chain stay mounted brake caliper, reminiscent of the U-Brake. Sliding drop outs for single speed conversion. A composite steel or carbon fiber fork option that looks like the FC forks of old. And a carbon fiber quick flip lever seat collar clamp actuated hite-rite just to be different  

I'd bomb that.

But if he wants to make any sort of impact on the market, he has to come in with a full susser. Ritchey's current hardtails only have a cult following. I've only seen two in the last 8 years on the trails. I've seen more Canfield Yellis, which is kinda like the bike I described above.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

bing! said:


> Ritchey's current hardtails only have a cult following. I've only seen two in the last 8 years on the trails.


You've been riding the wrong trails.


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> You've been riding the wrong trails.


In all likelihood, you were one of those guys


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

I'm looking for the "like" button for your P650b! What year was it made? (Pretty new I'd think.)

Every year I look at the Ritchey hardtails and want about them for a bit. Not had one yet, but they're on my short list.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

I wouldn't hate seeing more of that bike..


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Jak0zilla said:


> I'm looking for the "like" button for your P650b! What year was it made? (Pretty new I'd think.)
> 
> Every year I look at the Ritchey hardtails and want about them for a bit. Not had one yet, but they're on my short list.


Ritchey introduced the P-650b frame last year (2013) at the NAHBS show. Mine is a bit unique in that it's a fillet brazed frame made by Tom. The production version is TIG welded in Asia.


----------



## Rick Draper (Dec 1, 2009)

I'd love to see them come back with a model like the Cotic Soul or the BFe, both are great bikes but if Chris made them they would be even greater with the touches he would add. Also 650b is a must, the industry has moved on now.


----------



## rolondo (Jul 19, 2005)

For goodness sake I hope he doesn't pull a Joe Breeze. I can't imagine Chance's name stamped on a Taiwan carbon frame. If he respects the Fat heritage and we end up with American made steel frames, then all is good. I'm fine with 29ers or 27.5's if that's the case. Hell, I would prefer a 29er if I'm being totally honest. I can even live with tapered headtubes if need be. But please, for the love of god, keep the frames welded in America. Stay away from hydroformed tubes. Please......make the name still mean something. Both Gary's (Fisher and Klein) can kiss my white hairy ass. Damn Trek. Grumble grumble.... Chris - Don't be a Gary. Just saying. ;-)


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Nice Laffeaux.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> Ritchey introduced the P-650b frame last year (2013) at the NAHBS show. Mine is a bit unique in that it's a fillet brazed frame made by Tom. The production version is TIG welded in Asia.


Ha! I KNEW (and hoped) it was you who got that one. I realized too late that 19" was the correct size for me , and regretted not bidding on it. Congrats. Went for a fair price , in my opinion. In fact , it is that very regret that has me thinking I should follow this "limited edition" Yo Eddy project a little more closely.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

rolondo said:


> Chris - Don't be a Gary.


Actually, wasn't Chris a Gary Klein after 1994, just not with Trek?


----------



## SMR (Apr 20, 2004)

rolondo said:


> For goodness sake I hope he doesn't pull a Joe Breeze. I can't imagine Chance's name stamped on a Taiwan carbon frame. If he respects the Fat heritage and we end up with American made steel frames, then all is good. I'm fine with 29ers or 27.5's if that's the case. Hell, I would prefer a 29er if I'm being totally honest. I can even live with tapered headtubes if need be. But please, for the love of god, keep the frames welded in America. Stay away from hydroformed tubes. Please......make the name still mean something. Both Gary's (Fisher and Klein) can kiss my white hairy ass. Damn Trek. Grumble grumble.... Chris - Don't be a Gary. Just saying. ;-)


I totally agree, but please don't disapoint us. Our expectations are high. I want a made in the US steel hardtail. 26 or 27.5 around 4" of travel and I'll pay. whatever updates are necessary are fine just give that old steel feel. And please make it look like a mt bike we recognize with no swooping tubes. Most f/s bike's have super long wheelbases, I want a bike that makes quick turns on tight singletrack. Thanks for coming back.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

SMR said:


> I totally agree, but please don't disapoint us. Our expectations are high. I want a made in the US steel hardtail. 26 or 27.5 around 4" of travel and I'll pay. whatever updates are necessary are fine just give that old steel feel. And please make it look like a mt bike we recognize with no swooping tubes. Most f/s bike's have super long wheelbases, I want a bike that makes quick turns on tight singletrack. Thanks for coming back.


This


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Spent much of yesterday with Chris at Interbike, then we both waited together for a couple more hours at the airport.

I'll boil down two hours of conversation for you: Do not worry about these bikes being made in Taiwan.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Repack Rider said:


> Spent much of yesterday with Chris at Interbike, then we both waited together for a couple more hours at the airport.
> 
> I'll boil down two hours of conversation for you: Do not worry about these bikes being made in Taiwan.


that's actually reassuring, CK. Thanks. I think people are overstressed. Just wait and see what happens.


----------



## scrublover (Dec 30, 2003)

bing! said:


> A 6 inch forked lightweight steel hard tail that comes in around 26ish pounds in 650b would be interesting. In the tradition of the Wicked, which was pretty slack for it's time. Thru axle front and rear. Long TT designed for a short stem and a 740 bar. Limited edition Salsa components. Chain stay mounted brake caliper, reminiscent of the U-Brake. Sliding drop outs for single speed conversion. A composite steel or carbon fiber fork option that looks like the FC forks of old. And a carbon fiber quick flip lever seat collar clamp actuated hite-rite just to be different
> 
> I'd bomb that...


You want one of these, then. They'll do a 650b if you ask nicely. Probably to a T/A rear even. I've been very, very happy on mine for a couple years now. I think there is enough room for me to even swap to 650 if I wanted, but not sure how much it'd really raise up the BB height. It's right on 25# without the bottle and Awesome Strap stuff. 
Chromag Bikes - Chromag Kamui.



















Put me in the "couldn't afford one back in the day and am excited/interested to see what comes" group.


----------



## rohloffdude (Aug 4, 2008)

Can't wait I am sure Chris will do something special I think he will go 27.5 because you can offer a better range of sizes and keep handling real. My preference would before steel but you never know ways of building frames and tube development in all materials has come a long way since the 90's not to mention components and fork options.
Best of luck I know I will be trying to get my hands on one what ever it is.
Steve


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Oooh, oooh.... I decided what Chris should build! 'Cause, you know... I'm sure he's watching this thread and cares what I think:

I too voted for the steel / trail / 26" option on facebook. But I think I'm starting to agree with some of the above comments about 650b and, truth is, I'd have a hard time justifying buying another 26er.

I think I'd like 650b geometry, but with *MASSIVE* tire clearance, so I can run some 3" wide 26+ tires with the same overall diameter, like these. Would have to be disc brakes, but that's probably a given anyway.

As has been pointed out, long 29erish chainstays on a Fat Chance would just be "wrong," and we no longer really need a front derailleur if eliminating it makes clearances work.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

This is pretty good company to hang around in.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

That's quite a line-up.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

scrublover said:


> You want one of these, then. They'll do a 650b if you ask nicely. Probably to a T/A rear even. I've been very, very happy on mine for a couple years now. I think there is enough room for me to even swap to 650 if I wanted, but not sure how much it'd really raise up the BB height. It's right on 25# without the bottle and Awesome Strap stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great looking bike and kind of what I was envisioning. I've never owned a hardtail like this but they look a fun ride. Especially for the east coast where I envision overall speeds lower than out west (where rear susp. comes into play more IMO).


----------



## skoda (Sep 27, 2010)

I spoke with Chris at the German Show in the early 90's, great guy! I was also one that couldn't afford a Fat at that time. He is The Man! What's wrong with 29'ers, they roll over s--t better, LOL!! He should stick with 26" and 650's. I'm waiting with baited breath!!!


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Repack Rider said:


> This is pretty good company to hang around in.
> 
> View attachment 923203


Was anybody uncomfortable during the taking of that picture?


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

Don't knock the body work, G.


----------



## scrublover (Dec 30, 2003)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Great looking bike and kind of what I was envisioning. I've never owned a hardtail like this but they look a fun ride. Especially for the east coast where I envision overall speeds lower than out west (where rear susp. comes into play more IMO).


Nah man, just as good out west as east. Buy or build one up, go have fun!


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Not Chris apparently.


girlonbike said:


> Was anybody uncomfortable during the taking of that picture?


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Especially for the east coast where I envision overall speeds lower than out west (where rear susp. comes into play more IMO).


You've never ridden out here, have you....


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> You've never ridden out here, have you....


Ridden Vermont Mt Snow, and in PA. Generally speaking, more technical but that's highly variable of course on either coast...


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

Meh, some things are best left in the past, IMO. Hope the best for him, though. I used to drool over his bikes back in the day. Hope he doesn't ruin that image for me.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

phsycle said:


> Meh, some things are best left in the past, IMO. Hope the best for him, though. I used to drool over his bikes back in the day. Hope he doesn't ruin that image for me.


Chris's contributions to mountain biking are not an "image" to be maintained for others. His interest in building bikes is as real as he is, and there is no one who has ever met Mr. Chance who would say a harsh word about this gentleman of the highest order. In the bike industry there are two true gentlemen (IMNSHO), Joe Breeze and Chris Chance. There might be others but I haven't met any, and I fall far short of the standard of public demeanor set by Joe and Chris.

Internet anonymity allows people with no accomplishments to insult the accomplishments of those who have them. No one on this forum, and I include myself, has the standing to criticize Chris Chance for ANYTHING, including his decision to quit building bikes, but especially not for the bikes he chooses to build.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

Repack Rider said:


> Chris's contributions to mountain biking are not an "image" to be maintained for others. His interest in building bikes is as real as he is, and there is no one who has ever met Mr. Chance who would say a harsh word about this gentleman of the highest order. In the bike industry there are two true gentlemen (IMNSHO), Joe Breeze and Chris Chance. There might be others but I haven't met any, and I fall far short of the standard of public demeanor set by Joe and Chris.
> 
> Internet anonymity allows people with no accomplishments to insult the accomplishments of those who have them. No one on this forum, and I include myself, has the standing to criticize Chris Chance for ANYTHING, including his decision to quit building bikes, but especially not for the bikes he chooses to build.


He had a company called Chris Chance once - I had one of his early road bikes - but, respectfully, resurrecting Fat Chance is all about "image" or brand identity. I have no doubt he's better than the bike industry - an industry I toiled in for a dozen years and also know a bit about - but expectations are high. I'd be willing to bet you that every contrarian voice is, for the most part, a concerned student of mtb history trying to protect a bright light amongst the dim bulbs.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

mainlyfats said:


> resurrecting Fat Chance is all about "image" or brand identity.


His name is his name. What name should he be using to build bikes under, since you apparently do not approve of Fat Chance?


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

Repack Rider said:


> His name is his name. What name should he be using to build bikes under, since you apparently do not approve of Fat Chance?


I read that not as him "not approving" but him saying that expectations are high and people don't want to be let down. It would be amazing is Chris were actually taking up the torch, but even if that isn't possible, people want something that will carry on the legacy we love.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

Repack Rider said:


> Chris's contributions to mountain biking are not an "image" to be maintained for others. His interest in building bikes is as real as he is, and there is no one who has ever met Mr. Chance who would say a harsh word about this gentleman of the highest order. In the bike industry there are two true gentlemen (IMNSHO), Joe Breeze and Chris Chance. There might be others but I haven't met any, and I fall far short of the standard of public demeanor set by Joe and Chris.
> 
> Internet anonymity allows people with no accomplishments to insult the accomplishments of those who have them. No one on this forum, and I include myself, has the standing to criticize Chris Chance for ANYTHING, including his decision to quit building bikes, but especially not for the bikes he chooses to build.


Not sure where I was being overly critical or harsh. Like I said, I wish him the best, but I still think it's best to leave this one be. Maybe create another brand, if he's wanting a "comeback." I see this as nothing but a ploy to leverage his past "success" to sell a few frames.

Thanks for the personal attacks.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

Repack Rider said:


> Chris's contributions to mountain biking are not an "image" to be maintained for others.
> 
> ....
> 
> Internet anonymity allows people with no accomplishments to insult the accomplishments of those who have them. No one on this forum, and I include myself, has the standing to criticize Chris Chance for ANYTHING, including his decision to quit building bikes, but especially not for the bikes he chooses to build.


Maybe "memories" is a better word than "image". I don't think anyone is suggesting that Chris Chance's bikes or brand are about "image". But I have to say, Fat Chance is a brand name that for those of us who were around MTB in the 90s, really means something. Now that the brand is gone, we have fond memories of those bikes, the desire to own one, and how they were as cool as they were functional. They were bikes built with integrity by someone who had integrity.

Given that legacy, I agree it would be a shame to see the Fat Chance name tarnished by being put on a second rate product. If Chris Chance is at the helm doing things his way, I don't see that happening.

My take on this might be different to most, being in Australia. I have only ever seen a handful of Fat Chance bikes in the flesh as very few were imported here in the day. Those that did were imported by diehard MTBers who wanted something special. For some it might have been about the "image" and for others it might have been about having a bike made by someone who cared about the sport and their contribution to it.

Either way, bring forth Fat Chance reborn.

Grumps


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

Repack Rider said:


> His name is his name. What name should he be using to build bikes under, since you apparently do not approve of Fat Chance?


I'm glad he's a nice guy and he can do whatever he wants as far as Matt from Winnipeg, a librarian, married with a kid is concerned. Do I twinge a little at him "bringing back" Fat Chance, for fcuking sure I do. I've spent more than 10 years helping to build the brand's goodwill as a collector, restorer and sh!t-talker over on Fatcogs.

Fat Chance was an orphan we adopted. We kept it fed and warm and loved and - thanks to Uncle Scott, not Chris - shared family stories. Of course it's only right the kid should go back to the dad - but there are a bunch of us out there who will watch this closer than you will because we have more invested in it than you do.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

Everybody relax.


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

Luckily, Chris Chance does what he wants with his own company/name/trademark. I for one am looking forward to see what's in store.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Ridden Vermont Mt Snow, and in PA. Generally speaking, more technical but that's highly variable of course on either coast...


Ah, so two of the more rocky, technical, physically demanding areas on the whole east coast.

Makes sense, viewed from that perspective. But yes, we have way more to offer than rooty, rocky chunkfests, though we do have plenty of that too.

As for the rest of the current dust up?

Just makes my old Fat, all that cooler now!


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Vlad said:


> Everybody relax.





Dazed said:


> Luckily, Chris Chance does what he wants with his own company/name/trademark. I for one am looking forward to see what's in store.





MendonCycleSmith said:


> As for the rest of the current dust up?
> 
> Just makes my old Fat, all that cooler now!


I agree with these guys. Seriously. You can tell Chris has been getting back into bikes in the last few years and it's his name and his talent so he can do whatever he wants with it and we should wait and see what happens. He has a life to live and we should support his decision. We are not forced to buy into his vision but the least we can do is support him, as a person, for the bikes that we have that we treasure.

Don't fret. It'll be okay. Ibis and Salsa went big and does that hurt our love for the vintage ones? Not for me, personally. Whatever he decides, it's just conjecture at this point so let's see what he's got under his sleeves.

Didn't work out for ORT so I hope it does for Chris Chance.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

Since I wasn't doing this the first time around, I won't have the attachment that others have, but there are 2 totally different subjects.

As a collectable, the original ones will always be treasured more, and not just bikes. A pre-CBS early 60's Fender is worth more than anything new, Tobias basses, pre-Trek bikes (Fisher, Klein, etc.)... You can buy a brand new Gerry Lopez limited edition Lightning Bolt and it will never be worth the same, or viewed the same as an original GL Bolt. Anything short of being offered at Walmart, there should have no impact to the originals.

As a current offering, that is a tougher row to hoe. I don't know how many people will put their money down on a re-birth "Made in USA" steel hardtail. Even the Ritchey steel frames are imported. I know that there are builders out there who are able to offer a non-imported frame, but there has to be a viable niche for one more. Ideally, it will appeal to a larger segment of riders, as in younger.

I would think a long forgotten/overlooked design is the softail. With larger wheel sizes and lower tire pressures, is that a way to go? I have no clue. If I could build whatever I wanted and not worry about the cash flow, I would build what I wanted regardless. If I need a cash flow and want it to be successful, I would need to know the market and build something better than the next guy.

Just my opinion, which may not mean anything.

John


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

70sSanO said:


> ...If I could build whatever I wanted and not worry about the cash flow, I would build what I wanted regardless. If I need a cash flow and want it to be successful, I would need to know the market and build something better than the next guy...


That pretty much sums up my fears. As with any business, I'm sure he's in it to make money. This means appealing to the masses, which means just another carbon, Ti, or maybe steel framed bike with no other product differentiation other than the name. And the name will carry you only so far, IMO. Just look at the history of "comeback" brands. Best of luck to him, though.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

I don't see it as a bad thing if he goes to Taiwan or works w/ carbon... like Ibis did. The old Ibis and the new Ibis are very different animals. Both are top in their own game. You want vintage west cost flair done in steel? Ibis.. You want avant garde suspension and materials? Ibis.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

The fact that he's asking the fans for input points to his character, one that is well respected obviously, but frame building is not an altruistic pursuit. He's doing this for himself. Aint nothing wrong with that.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

mainlyfats said:


> I'm in the minority over at Fatcogs too for suggesting he seize the Rivendell of production MTBs market.
> 
> I must be the only goof on earth who looked at that Gallus at NAHMBS 2012 and thought "yes please".
> 
> View attachment 922423


I think that bike is hideous. I have to turn my eyes away.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

colker1 said:


> i am on the same page: go retro, functional and ignore the rest.


Not only is it hideous to look at, it is not functional. Reverse sloped top tubes are about the dumbest, least practical design detail to ever hit mountain biking. Dumber than under the chainstay U brakes.

If Chris Chance was to try to have a business making bikes like that, he'd probably sell about 5 bikes a year.

Old designs belong on old bikes. Bring on the long travel forks, tapered steer tubes, and disc brakes for crying out loud!

(Steel and 26 is still ok with me  )


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

girlonbike said:


> Was anybody uncomfortable during the taking of that picture?


Ha!

:lol: :lol:


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

It's funny how we love the "cutting edge" technology of 1992, yet worry that a builder from that time period will have moved beyond that era.

I'd love to see a Chris produce a steel frame with modern brakes, suspension, and either 650b or 700c wheels. But if opts for a carbon full suspension, I see that as the next logical step for a builder who pushed the boundaries 20 years ago. It's not a bad thing.

And Chris should definitely be able to use his name to sell bikes. It's his name.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> It's funny how we love the "cutting edge" technology of 1992, yet worry that a builder from that time period will have moved beyond that era.
> 
> I'd love to see a Chris produce a steel frame with modern brakes, suspension, and either 650b or 700c wheels. But if opts for a carbon full suspension, I see that as the next logical step for a builder who pushed the boundaries 20 years ago. It's not a bad thing.
> 
> And Chris should definitely be able to use his name to sell bikes. It's his name.


Yes. HIs name does not belong to his fans.. it belongs to him. As much as i like his bikes from back then.. they were not traditional in 1989.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> If Chris Chance was to try to have a business making bikes like that, he'd probably sell about 5 bikes a year.


Chris will sell 5 bikes "like that" within the first 5 minutes of letting us know what he's decided to do.

If you don't like vintage, why are you in this forum? Hit the wrong category?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

KDXdog said:


> Chris will sell 5 bikes "like that" within the first 5 minutes of letting us know what he's decided to do.
> 
> If you don't like vintage, why are you in this forum? Hit the wrong category?


I'm sure you and your 4 buddies would love them, but that's no business.

A new bike with old bike technology is not vintage, and there is no market for it.

I'm here because I always thought the old Fat Chance bikes were cool, and I'm old enough to remember. I'm also interested in possibly buying a high end steel hard tail one of these days, and if Fat Chance is coming back, I could be a customer. But it would have to be a modern steel hard tail, to compete with Transition, Canfield, Kona, IF, RSD, Spot, Surly etc.

And I still say reverse sloping top tubes are ugly and dumb, and I thought the same thing in the 80's. :yesnod:


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> And I still say reverse sloping top tubes are ugly and dumb, and I thought the same thing in the 80's. :yesnod:


I agree with you here. It really looks out of sorts except with track bikes but I think I've seen that bike in the flesh and it's jacked up on that stand. I remember it having a horizontal top tube.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

girlonbike said:


> but I think I've seen that bike in the flesh and it's jacked up on that stand. I remember it having a horizontal top tube.


You did, and it does


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Chris has his own announcement online, and rather than speculate on his motives and intentions and what a bad idea it is for this guy to make bikes again, you could just *go to the source*.

Of course, knowing about stuff is not nearly as much fun as wild and insulting speculation. On second thought, don't go there.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

smilinsteve said:


> I'm sure you and your 4 buddies would love them, but that's no business.
> 
> A new bike with old bike technology is not vintage, and there is no market for it.
> 
> I'm here because I always thought the old Fat Chance bikes were cool, and I'm old enough to remember. I'm also interested in possibly buying a high end steel hard tail one of these days, and if Fat Chance is coming back, I could be a customer. But it would have to be a modern steel hard tail, to compete with Transition, Canfield, Kona, IF, RSD, Spot, Surly etc.


Wo, wo, I only see one "High-end steel" in that line up, and they're a "break-off" of Fat. Hopefully Chris Chance doesn't see the others (Kona, Surly, etc.) as competition for his new line up.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

Repack Rider said:


> Chris has his own announcement online, and rather than speculate on his motives and intentions and what a bad idea it is for this guy to make bikes again, you could just *go to the source*.
> 
> Of course, knowing about stuff is not nearly as much fun as wild and insulting speculation. On second thought, don't go there.


Seriously, guy, please realize this is a public forum and people will have differing opinions. I don't think anyone here intends any ill-will on Chris Chance or his "new/old" company, and I think the comments from both sides justify that. The only person emotionally disturbed by this seems to be you.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

phsycle said:


> Wo, wo, I only see one "High-end steel" in that line up, and they're a "break-off" of Fat. Hopefully Chris Chance doesn't see the others (Kona, Surly, etc.) as competition for his new line up.


I.F. and RSD both use Reynolds 853. The others are there more for examples of "modern" than for "high end". Although the prices are pretty high end.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Repack Rider said:


> Chris's contributions to mountain biking are not an "image" to be maintained for others. His interest in building bikes is as real as he is, and there is no one who has ever met Mr. Chance who would say a harsh word about this gentleman of the highest order. In the bike industry there are two true gentlemen (IMNSHO), Joe Breeze and Chris Chance. There might be others but I haven't met any, and I fall far short of the standard of public demeanor set by Joe and Chris.
> 
> Internet anonymity allows people with no accomplishments to insult the accomplishments of those who have them. No one on this forum, and I include myself, has the standing to criticize Chris Chance for ANYTHING, including his decision to quit building bikes, but especially not for the bikes he chooses to build.


I personally love Joe but also love Steve and Charlie. Rody is a super nice person as well. JP is nice. Damn. I can sit here all night listing nice pioneers. Can't wait to meet Chris.

And. I have accomplishments. Some are even wonderful.


----------



## wookie (Jan 24, 2007)

phsycle said:


> Seriously, guy, please realize this is a public forum and people will have differing opinions. I don't think anyone here intends any ill-will on Chris Chance or his "new/old" company, and I think the comments from both sides justify that. The only person emotionally disturbed by this seems to be you.


You may want to Google Charlie Kelly


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

KDXdog said:


> If you don't like vintage, why are you in this forum? Hit the wrong category?


Strange question. I like vintage bikes, but a new Fat Chance built exactly like back in the day still wouldn't be vintage.

I'd much rather like to see new Fat Chances with the old "Fat City" vibe and quality, but built with modern geometry and parts. A rigid well made steel 29-er with short chainstays, long front-center, semi slack head angle, a 44mm ID head tube for those wanting a modern suspension fork with a tapered steerer, and that unmistakable Fat Chance look. (Most importantly the rigid fork crown design, if I'm honest.) If that came in the old team colors and with the old logos, it would be stellar. I think I'd be all over such a bike.


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

phsycle said:


> Wo, wo, I only see one "High-end steel" in that line up, and they're a "break-off" of Fat. Hopefully Chris Chance doesn't see the others (Kona, Surly, etc.) as competition for his new line up.


They're certainly competition, but I agree that IF, Rivendell, Soma, Gunnar, Vassago etc. are brands more likely for Fat City to be compared with.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Dazed said:


> They're certainly competition, but I agree that IF, Rivendell, Soma, Gunnar, Vassago etc. are brands more likely for Fat City to be compared with.


I can't even find a mountain bike on the Rivendell website, nor can I find any indication of the tubesets they use.

Vassago apparently uses a house brand or generic chromoly, so I don't know how you figure they rise above a Transition or Canfield, which also have their own 4130 tubesets, or a Kona Explosif, which is made with Reynolds 520.

But that's my whole point. I have been looking around at steel hard tails for a while, and if you want a high end (853, prestige, OX platinum etc) frame, outside of custom builders, there aren't that many choices. So, I think Fat Chance could actually fill a niche and take some market share. But they would do it by offering super cool modern bikes, not some retro grouch collectables. If I was Chris Chance, that would be my business plan.


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

double post...


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I have been looking around at steel hard tails for a while, and if you want a high end (853, prestige, OX platinum etc) frame, outside of custom builders, there aren't that many choices. So, I think Fat Chance could actually fill a niche and take some market share. But they would do it by offering super cool modern bikes, not some retro grouch collectables. If I was Chris Chance, that would be my business plan.


Vassago "Black Label" steel frames are made in the US by Zen Bicycle Fabrication from True Temper OX platinum tubes. I didn't check the available products from the brands I listed, I must admit, but they are frame builders in the same league. That's about what I meant, so I do agree that they're not really competing in the same market segment as a Yo Eddy 2.0.

Both a Vassago Verhauen and a Soma Juice would fit your description, I think, and other frames worth looking at would be the Cotic Solaris and maybe even the Chromag Surface.

Oh, and for the record: IMO, a 4130 or comparable tubeset doesn't really need a Tange, Reynolds or True Temper sticker to be good.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I can't even find a mountain bike on the Rivendell website, nor can I find any indication of the tubesets they use.
> 
> Vassago apparently uses a house brand or generic chromoly, so I don't know how you figure they rise above a Transition or Canfield, which also have their own 4130 tubesets, or a Kona Explosif, which is made with Reynolds 520.
> 
> But that's my whole point. I have been looking around at steel hard tails for a while, and if you want a high end (853, prestige, OX platinum etc) frame, outside of custom builders, there aren't that many choices. So, I think Fat Chance could actually fill a niche and take some market share. But they would do it by offering super cool modern bikes, not some retro grouch collectables. If I was Chris Chance, that would be my business plan.


 You obviously know a lot about the high end of production bikes like Kona but there is another lever high above and this forum is mostly about it.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Dazed said:


> Oh, and for the record: IMO, a 4130 or comparable tubeset doesn't really need a Tange, Reynolds or True Temper sticker to be good.


Yeah, I get that, but all these steel bike sellers talk about their super special 4130 tubeset made just for them, and how can you know if it's any good or not? At least with a label like 853, you know what you are paying for.

If a company with house brand tubes published the specs on their tube set, e.g. wall thicknesses, tensile, density, weights etc, and you could compare to the known brands, then I wouldn't care about the sticker.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

colker1 said:


> You obviously know a lot about the high end of production bikes like Kona but there is another lever high above and this forum is mostly about it.


Which forum? 
If you are talking about this thread, its about Fat Chance coming back, according to the website, to do a limited run of new Yo Eddy frames. We don't know much more than that; not even the frame material or wheel size. It's probably a fair assumption that it will be a high end and pricey frame, but we really don't know, and therefore don't know what market niche it will fall in to.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Yeah, I get that, but all these steel bike sellers talk about their super special 4130 tubeset made just for them, and how can you know if it's any good or not? At least with a label like 853, you know what you are paying for.


It doesn't matter. You don't buy the tubing but the builder's idea of how a bike should handle... you buy into his artistry, talent, intuition and experience.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> I can't even find a mountain bike on the Rivendell website


Hunqapillar

They also stilloffer the Bombadil, but only as a custom.....


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> Yeah, I get that, but all these steel bike sellers talk about their super special 4130 tubeset made just for them, and how can you know if it's any good or not? At least with a label like 853, you know what you are paying for.


If it's a long running highly respected company with an excellent reputation, you'll just have to assume they aren't trying to pull a fast one on you, and slide a gas pipe frame under yer tush.....

Also, Jamis makes the Dragon in 853, so there's one production, out of the box, non custom option at least.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

colker1 said:


> It doesn't matter. You don't buy the tubing but the builder's idea of how a bike should handle... you buy into his artistry, talent, intuition and experience.


To a point, but an artist can only do so much with a lead pipe. If I was buying a frame from a custom builder (I have considered Waltworks or Eriksen), then I could talk to them and they could tell me what tube set they recommend and why. When you are paying for service like that, you need to trust your builder and his knowledge of the tubes.

For a production bike its different. And for the new Yo Eddy, we don't know what's in store. Just because it will have the Fat Chance name on it, that doesn't mean it will be the high end loving creation of Chris Chance or a Taiwanese production run with Fat Chance stickers (like a mid level Fisher for example).

If the new Yo Eddy come with "specially selected 4130 tubes", its going to be hard for me to get excited about it compared to an 853 frame, to be honest.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> To a point, but an artist can only do so much with a lead pipe. If I was buying a frame from a custom builder (I have considered Waltworks or Eriksen), then I could talk to them and they could tell me what tube set they recommend and why. When you are paying for service like that, you need to trust your builder and his knowledge of the tubes.
> 
> For a production bike its different.  And for the new Yo Eddy, we don't know what's in store. Just because it will have the Fat Chance name on it, that doesn't mean it will be the high end loving creation of Chris Chance or a Taiwanese production run with Fat Chance stickers (like a mid level Fisher for example).
> 
> If the new Yo Eddy come with "specially selected 4130 tubes", its going to be hard for me to get excited about it compared to an 853 frame, to be honest.


if you are buying for the tube label, if it's that important then don't buy custom or classic vintage. Buy a new Kona.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Hunqapillar
> 
> They also stilloffer the Bombadil, but only as a custom.....


Is that what you call that?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

colker1 said:


> if you are buying for the tube label then don't buy it. Buy a Kona.


Is it better to buy it for the name than for the tube? Then buy a Fisher.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> If it's a long running highly respected company with an excellent reputation, you'll just have to assume they aren't trying to pull a fast one on you, and slide a gas pipe frame under yer tush.....


Do you have an example of a company that uses no name steel tubing that you would consider a high end frame because of their reputation?



> Also, Jamis makes the Dragon in 853, so there's one production, out of the box, non custom option at least.


I forgot about the Dragon. Nice bike.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Is it better to buy it for the name than for the tube? Then buy a Fisher.


Yes. I buy for the name of the builder. I don't care what steel or aluminum is used on a Ferrari nor on a Nagasawa, Sachs, Soulcraft, Pegoretti, Renne Herse, Cunningham, Scoboni, Ritchey..


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Do you have an example of a company that uses no name steel tubing that you would consider a high end frame because of their reputation?
> 
> .


I know of builders who refuse to discuss tubing brands. Does that count? Btw.. Fat Chances used their own 4130 made by True Temper.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Is that what you call that?


you think that's not a mountain bike?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

colker1 said:


> you think that's not a mountain bike?


I'm not interested in a symantic argument, but that bike has slick tires, handlebars that would be dangerous on any kind of non smooth downhill, and cantilevers that are bad, even for cantilevers. Call it what you want. 
It was brought up that Rivendell would be more a more logical comparison for the new Fat Chance then some of the brands I mentioned. I certainly hope not.


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Y
> If a company with house brand tubes published the specs on their tube set, e.g. wall thicknesses, *tensile, density*, *weights* etc, and you could compare to the known brands, then I wouldn't care about the sticker.


A few of these are given as long as the (AISI) 4130 label isn't a blatant lie, and I really want to believe that it usually isn't.

Either a material conforms with the AISI 4130 spec, or it doesn't.

Of course,that doesn't say anything about the frame/tube design itself, as you know.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

smilinsteve said:


> I'm not interested in a symantic argument, but that bike has slick tires, handlebars that would be dangerous on any kind of non smooth downhill, and cantilevers that are bad, even for cantilevers. Call it what you want.
> It was brought up that Rivendell would be more a more logical comparison for the new Fat Chance then some of the brands I mentioned. I certainly hope not.


Semantics are what we do here!

As for the build, you're missing the point. They offer completes, built the way they would want them built up, but also offer frame sets, which obviously, can be built any way you like.

Tubing name means little to me. Colker brought up Pegoretti who was my thought as well.

A *proper* builder will have deep knowledge of their craft, their specific approach, and the tubing that best suits each case.

Dario builds out of a mix of tubes, and in certain cases, employs someone like Columbus to make stuff to his exact spec, but it still generally goes unbranded.

He's built frames for more TDF winners than any other builder in history. I tend to trust his hands and mind, more than the tubing sticker.

I'd say the same thing about most long standing, respected builders, to say you need to have it be X in order to be acceptable, borders on insulting I'd think....


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Dazed said:


> A few of these are given as long as the (AISI) 4130 label isn't a blatant lie, and I really want to believe that it usually isn't.
> 
> Either a material conforms with the AISI 4130 spec, or it doesn't.


4130 (Chromoly) is just one of the high-end steels. There are others to choose from. Reynolds has traditionally offered high-end tubes that are not 4130. Reynolds 531 (which was used from the 1930s until today) is manganese-molybdenum, not chromium-molybdenum. Reynolds 853 is not called chromoly in any of Reynold's literature (although Reynolds does offer less expensive chromoly tubesets). Reynolds highest end steels are stainless, which are definitely not 4130 in any way. So don't get too worried about if a frame is 4130 or not. 

And as to high-end frames using "off brand" steel, look no further than Rivendell. They do not use the latest and greatest, lightest tubesets. They use tubes that are "stout, but reasonable in weight" that are likely sourced from an Asian supplier. Grant knows that a lightweight tubeset does not make for a good off-road touring bike and chooses what will work better.

Chris will build something nice out of nice materials. You can bet on that because that's what he did in the past. I wish him luck and can't wait to see what he makes.

I love seeing retro steel frames in the marketplace, but they don't sell like hotcakes. How many guys in the forum have rushed out to buy a Rivendell, one of Raleigh's steel road bikes, or had a custom builder make them a retro ride? Probably not a lot. If guys on this forum aren't buying this stuff in great numbers, do you think that the general public will?


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> 4130 (Chromoly) is just one of the high-end steels.


I do know that, of course.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> I love seeing retro steel frames in the marketplace, but they don't sell like hotcakes. How many guys in the forum have rushed out to buy a Rivendell, one of Raleigh's steel road bikes, or had a custom builder make them a retro ride? Probably not a lot. If guys on this forum aren't buying this stuff in great numbers, do you think that the general public will?


I actually ride Rivendells as my "road-ish" bike and my "tour-ish" bike. As someone who's fond of the aesthetics of clean, classic detailing and of the technical merits of steel, they appeal to me as one of the few off-the-shelf options available. And, as a mountain biker foremost, they're pretty much the only road bikes that have ever made sense to me - because they prioritize comfort, durability and the ability to use reasonably-wide tires which, in turn, allow you to actually go places.

At least they _were_ the only option. Now EVERYBODY builds "adventure bikes" or "all-rounders" or "gravel grinders." It's always been interesting to me to note how most people refer to Rivendell as "retro," and Grant as a retro-"grouch" when, they are actually way ahead of most trends - if not directly responsible for creating them. Take the re-popularization of the 650b wheel size, for instance. This is where it started.

If you think about it somewhat laterally, I could actually sort of see this being a good business model for Fat Chance: Innovate where it makes sense (new tire sizes, brake technology, best shock damping, etc.), stick with proven methods where they can't be improved upon anyway (versatile, tried-and-true geometries, steel construction, etc.), shun the stupid trends-for-the-sake-of-marketing trends (press-fit bottom brackets, ever-increasing handlebar clamp sizes, etc.), and emphasize craftsmanship.

Given how respected and revered his old products still are, I would think that it would be hard for Chris to put out something that he knows will eventually become obsolete or forgotten. He should strive for "timeless," but the bikes don't have to appear retro to be that.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

Chris has been away from the biz, but hasn’t been frozen alongside Walt Disney.

He’ll pick up on the timeframe as he’s indicated: a modern version of the Yo.

I trust him. 

Or would you rather this: he generates interest, make some for the inter-bike, then cashes out by selling his name off to Trek. Would that make some of you happy?


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

KDXdog said:


> Or would you rather this: he generates interest, make some for the inter-bike, then cashes out by selling his name off to Trek. Would that make some of you happy?


Specialized please?

Trek already owns more than a mouthful of VRC brands that they've pissed all over as it is....


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Specialized please?....


Trying to imagine what that would be like. Fatback Bikes sued. Surly would receive a cease/desist on everything referencing "fat." Charge bikes also sued--bearing too much resemblence to Chance.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> It's funny how we love the "cutting edge" technology of 1992, yet worry that a builder from that time period will have moved beyond that era.
> 
> I'd love to see a Chris produce a steel frame with modern brakes, suspension, and either 650b or 700c wheels. But if opts for a carbon full suspension, I see that as the next logical step for a builder who pushed the boundaries 20 years ago. It's not a bad thing.
> 
> And Chris should definitely be able to use his name to sell bikes. It's his name.


Yes, all these builders that we cherish were absolutely cutting edge in their day. They were never retro.

To me, Ibis is the same now as they were then, only now it's thirty years later and technology has changed.

The only company that was retro-ish back then, IMO, was Bridgestone in the '90s. And that was after a period of being very much cutting edge in the '80s with their narrow rims, drop bars, low spoke counts, short stays, long top tubes, steep angles, etc.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

phsycle said:


> Trying to imagine what that would be like. Fatback Bikes sued. Surly would receive a cease/desist on everything referencing "fat." Charge bikes also sued--bearing too much resemblence to Chance.


Nah. They'd let you license it for a fee.

Grumps


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Yes, all these builders that we cherish were absolutely cutting edge in their day. They were never retro.
> 
> To me, Ibis is the same now as they were then, only now it's thirty years later and technology has changed.
> 
> The only company that was retro-ish back then, IMO, was Bridgestone in the '90s. And that was after a period of being very much cutting edge in the '80s with their narrow rims, drop bars, low spoke counts, short stays, long top tubes, steep angles, etc.


Maybe Ritchey was slightly retro in keeping w/ 1in headtubes, horizontal top tubes and no suspension.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

colker1 said:


> Maybe Ritchey was slightly retro in keeping w/ 1in headtubes...


I can think of a few other words besides retro for 1in headtubes.

John


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> Maybe Ritchey was slightly retro in keeping w/ 1in headtubes, horizontal top tubes and no suspension.


Yeah, Ritchey did fight change a little as well in the 90s. I think with the race team being sponsored by Alsop they sorta adopted that set up (no suspension forks until mid '90s) with the non-team bikes as well. I'd venture to say Tom was maybe stubborn whereas Bridgestone/Grant Peterson really went against the grain with a touch of spite.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> I'd venture to say Tom was maybe stubborn whereas Bridgestone/Grant Peterson really went against the grain with a touch of spite.


Looks like Grant Peterson is still going against the grain.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

He is and always will.


CS2 said:


> Looks like Grant Peterson is still going against the grain.


----------



## M-Train (Jan 12, 2008)

This has been good reading: informed opinions, knowledgeable comments, passionate responses and some internet pissing contests for amusement. I think I'll go ride my Monster Fat that is in completely unoriginal condition this weekend.
I say good for him. Can he not do what he wants with his name and build whatever he feels like?
Wasn't it called Fat City Cycles?
To the people who are so passionate and emotionally invested in someone else's business: we are talking about bicycles here.
I have a Fat Chance that I love. I also have some mid-level production bikes that are also fun to ride. I can appreciate peoples love and passion for their hobby or livelihood and understand their affection for well-made products and the artistry and craftsmanship of a beautiful bike. But disdain for other choices is rather silly and myopic (unless we're talking about 29ers, they're pretty lame).
At the end of the day, the only people getting too worked up about this should be the ones who are actually involved in it.


----------



## erol/frost (Jan 3, 2004)

Why go forward looking back? If that is what he`ll do. I don`t know. Going full-retro will only take you so far. Ibis did it right I believe. Steel is nice. And that`s it. If you want a steel bike you have hundreds of frame builders ready to take your order. It will be interesting to see in what direction Chris will take the business


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

Wouldn't it be funny if Independent Fabrication builds his frames?


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Vlad said:


> Wouldn't it be funny if Independent Fabrication builds his frames?


I was going to suggest Chris Igleheart.


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

Just what I thought, and voted! ...well, almost. 



> The new 2015 Fat Chance Yo Eddy votes were tallied and, to no surprise, the majority of you wanted a steel trail bike. However, wheel size was split down the middle between 27.5" and 29". So, instead of choosing one over the other, we are going to produce both. The first round of limited edition frames are going to be a steel Yo Eddy with trail geometry, your choice of 27.5" or 29" wheels, plus modern updates like disc brake mounts, tapered head tube and 142mm x 12 / 15 QR axle systems.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

I'm glad he's back and think that he made the right decision. Looking forward to seeing the final product.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

I wonder if they'll offer a rigid version or an option for a sus corrected fork. Kind of sounds like "no." No matter what, I think I'd rather have a 44mmm straight head tube, that could easily work both ways, than a fugly tapered one. At the end of the day, I would think that most people who buy this are going to care about aesthetics and timelessness more than whatever the current, passing trend in steerer standards might be. Maybe I'm alone in thinking tapered headtubes are ugly, though.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

iamkeith said:


> Maybe I'm alone in thinking tapered headtubes are ugly, though.


I think they look fine on large diameter tubing (aluminum or carbon) but are bit funky looking on steel frames.

Here's the new Ritchey taper head tube. I prefer the older version (aesthetically).

https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/09/Ritchey-P-650b-detail.jpg


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Here's Chris admiring his own handiwork at Biketoberfest in Fairfax last Sunday.


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

I guess a "tapered" HT might actually be a 44mm straight HT.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

laffeaux said:


> I think they look fine on large diameter tubing (aluminum or carbon) but are bit funky looking on steel frames.


I agree, and that RItchey (as beautiful as it is otherwise) is an example. The lower section of the headtube just doesn't sit right with the skinny downtube.

Anyway, this is all going to be irrelevant when the industry goes to 2" steerers.



Repack Rider said:


> Here's Chris admiring his own handiwork at Biketoberfest in Fairfax last Sunday.


Cool. I expect the owner of the bike was excited to show it off to Chris as well. Good to see Chris getting a kick out of seeing his old bikes being aprpeciated.

Grumps


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> I think they look fine on large diameter tubing (aluminum or carbon) but are bit funky looking on steel frames.
> 
> Here's the new Ritchey taper head tube. I prefer the older version (aesthetically).
> 
> https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/09/Ritchey-P-650b-detail.jpg


I can live with it.. i wish though i could still find more bikes without front susp. or susp corrected forks. I wish all companies had at least one MTB w/ rigid forks in their line up. I know most people see susp forks as a necessity and i respect the market but i feel i get a better cycling experience without them and bikes look better w/ longer head tubes.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

I just hope he doesn’t do the “bent” down tube. I hate the way that looks.


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

Besides graphics, what will distinguish these new bikes as a Yo Eddy? Constant diameter chainstays? Bullet ends? 29.4 seatpost? Toptube cable routing? Mythical handling?


----------



## babbalanja (Jan 20, 2008)

DoubleCentury said:


> Besides graphics, what will distinguish these new bikes as a Yo Eddy? Constant diameter chainstays? Bullet ends? 29.4 seatpost? Toptube cable routing? Mythical handling?


A segmented fork?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

DoubleCentury said:


> Besides graphics, what will distinguish these new bikes as a Yo Eddy? Constant diameter chainstays? Bullet ends? 29.4 seatpost? Toptube cable routing? Mythical handling?


It's not a yo.. it's a different bike. why not call it wicked or Kicker? It's neither of those as well. He is calling it a Yo because that's what the masses want.. the myth, the name. I hope he makes some cash. Cash is good.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

Yeah, I don't like the way bent downtubes look. I get why they do it, though.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

That said, I'm glad Ritchey and Breeze are offering steel hardtails again. I'm kind of bummed that they're not built around 26" wheels.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Vlad said:


> That said, I'm glad Ritchey and Breeze are offering steel hardtails again. I'm kind of bummed that they're not built around 26" wheels.


Ritchey offers a 26er still: P-Team Mountain Frame


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

What type of BB do you think the new Fat's will have? I would assume threaded but hey...I like my PF....

Edit: Interesting reading through this thread..man...what a bunch of retro-grouches! Its 2014...its going to be 29er/650b..duh. Its going to have discs..duh..the headtube/BB is debatable in terms of threaded vs. PF and tapered vs. straight. So everyone just wants a 1992 Fat? Really? I have been riding since then and can tell you...as cool as the old stuff was, I have no desire to sweat out miles on my early '90s 26" with top mounts, 1.5" travel fork, and slammed out geo compared to my current 29er HT. Do I still which I had some of those bikes will all the cool 3-D violent bits hanging in the garage? Yes! (admittedly I shouldn't have sold the '93 steel GT..or the '95 Specy FSR...or the '97 Homegrown) I also realize this is the retro forum but this is 2014 and we are discussing new bikes...bring on the 2015 Yo in all its tapered/29er/disc/thru-axle glory!!!

I remember riding my buddies' mid-'90s purple Yo and thinking that was a great riding bike.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Vlad said:


> That said, I'm glad Ritchey and Breeze are offering steel hardtails again. I'm kind of bummed that they're not built around 26" wheels.


Which is why we all buy old steel bikes and hang out here. As much as I want a 29er I can't bear to sell any of my old bikes to finance one.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> What type of BB do you think the new Fat's will have? I would assume threaded but hey...I like my PF....
> 
> Edit: Interesting reading through this thread..man...what a bunch of retro-grouches! Its 2014...its going to be 29er/650b..duh. Its going to have discs..duh..the headtube/BB is debatable in terms of threaded vs. PF and tapered vs. straight. So everyone just wants a 1992 Fat? Really? I have been riding since then and can tell you...as cool as the old stuff was, I have no desire to sweat out miles on my early '90s 26" with top mounts, 1.5" travel fork, and slammed out geo compared to my current 29er HT. Do I still which I had some of those bikes will all the cool 3-D violent bits hanging in the garage? Yes! (admittedly I shouldn't have sold the '93 steel GT..or the '95 Specy FSR...or the '97 Homegrown) I also realize this is the retro forum but this is 2014 and we are discussing new bikes...bring on the 2015 Yo in all its tapered/29er/disc/thru-axle glory!!!
> 
> I remember riding my buddies' mid-'90s purple Yo and thinking that was a great riding bike.


So.. why are you talking to VRC enthusiasts if you don't like VRC technology? 'cause you want something w/ a yo eddy decal?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

colker1 said:


> So.. why are you talking to VRC enthusiasts if you don't like VRC technology? 'cause you want something w/ a yo eddy decal?


I would love to ride a modern version of the 'Yo that is what I thought this thread was about. While I certainly understand VRC as I have a place in my heart for that time frame and all the cool stuff that went with it in terms of bike technology, I can't imagine why someone would think it is a great business decision to re-introduce a bike in 2015 using technology/standards/etc. from the early 1990s. Sure, you guys here would buy them up..but that is about it. If you want an older 'Yo, buy one on ebay..for those that have progressed past that time (but still appreciate it I might add), a modern version would be v. cool. Hardly just slapping a sticker on bike if Chris Chance makes it.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> I would love to ride a modern version of the 'Yo that is what I thought this thread was about. While I certainly understand VRC as I have a place in my heart for that time frame and all the cool stuff that went with it in terms of bike technology, I can't imagine why someone would think it is a great business decision to re-introduce a bike in 2015 using technology/standards/etc. from the early 1990s. Sure, you guys here would buy them up..but that is about it. If you want an older 'Yo, buy one on ebay..for those that have progressed past that time (but still appreciate it I might add), a modern version would be v. cool. Hardly just slapping a sticker on bike if Chris Chance makes it.


The modern version of the Yo Eddy is a Jones. Probably better..


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

TiGeo said:


> Edit: Interesting reading through this thread..man...what a bunch of retro-grouches! Its 2014...its going to be 29er/650b..duh. Its going to have discs..duh..the headtube/BB is debatable in terms of threaded vs. PF and tapered vs. straight. So everyone just wants a 1992 Fat? Really? I have been riding since then and can tell you...as cool as the old stuff was, I have no desire to sweat out miles on my early '90s 26" with top mounts, 1.5" travel fork, and slammed out geo compared to my current 29er HT. Do I still which I had some of those bikes will all the cool 3-D violent bits hanging in the garage? Yes! (admittedly I shouldn't have sold the '93 steel GT..or the '95 Specy FSR...or the '97 Homegrown) I also realize this is the retro forum but this is 2014 and we are discussing new bikes...bring on the 2015 Yo in all its tapered/29er/disc/thru-axle glory!!!


THIS ^^^ !



colker1 said:


> So.. why are you talking to VRC enthusiasts if you don't like VRC technology? 'cause you want something w/ a yo eddy decal?


Like he said, its the VRC forum, but we are talking about a new bike. Maybe this conversation shouldn't be in the VRC forum, but in a sense, even a new technology steel hard tail is somewhat Retro, relatively speaking.

An 1983 Stumpjumper and 2015 Stumpjumper FSR are both Stumpjumpers, but have very little in common. If you want the old one, you need to buy an old one because no one is going to waste time building a new one like that.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

TiGeo said:


> I would love to ride a modern version of the 'Yo that is what I thought this thread was about. While I certainly understand VRC as I have a place in my heart for that time frame and all the cool stuff that went with it in terms of bike technology, I can't imagine why someone would think it is a great business decision to re-introduce a bike in 2015 using technology/standards/etc. from the early 1990s.


I agree. If Chris makes the Yo Eddy exactly was it was in 1995, very few will sell. Regardless of the high-cost of Fats on eBay, a new frame will cost more. Why not buy an old Fat if you want old technology?

To sell bikes Chris has to sell modern bikes. Hopefully they are inspired by the old design, and have "retro features" but otherwise ride like a modern bike.

I like riding old bikes. I like riding new bikes. I'd likely not be interested in a new bike built to old standards - what's the point?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^I agree with you guys...it will still be somewhat "retro" with just the name on a steel frame. Looking forward to seeing the final design...I am sure it will be a nice riding bike!


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

This whole endeavour is making me realize how smart Scot Nichol is.

Bikes will come and bikes will go, but brands can't be crowdsourced.



laffeaux said:


> I agree. If Chris makes the Yo Eddy exactly was it was in 1995, very few will sell. Regardless of the high-cost of Fats on eBay, a new frame will cost more. Why not buy an old Fat if you want old technology?
> 
> To sell bikes Chris has to sell modern bikes. Hopefully they are inspired by the old design, and have "retro features" but otherwise ride like a modern bike.
> 
> I like riding old bikes. I like riding new bikes. I'd likely not be interested in a new bike built to old standards - what's the point?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> I agree. If Chris makes the Yo Eddy exactly was it was in 1995, very few will sell. Regardless of the high-cost of Fats on eBay, a new frame will cost more. Why not buy an old Fat if you want old technology?
> 
> To sell bikes Chris has to sell modern bikes. Hopefully they are inspired by the old design, and have "retro features" but otherwise ride like a modern bike.
> 
> I like riding old bikes. I like riding new bikes. I'd likely not be interested in a new bike built to old standards - what's the point?


We want bikes w/ an attitude.. that's what the Yo Eddy was about. A bike that didn't ask what you want but showed a new dimension.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mainlyfats said:


> This whole endeavour is making me realize how smart Scot Nichol is.
> 
> Bikes will come and bikes will go, but brands can't be crowdsourced.


This. He didn't ask.. Hey kids, tell uncle what game you want to play. On the contrary.. he resisted 29ers. He told steel goodbye. He went w/ overseas hightech. He has his style and is not a follower.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

It is indeed a really interesting comparison between Ibis and whatever the new Fat City might become. I agree that Scott Nicol has done it well. He makes the only carbon fiber, full-suspension bikes that pique my interest. And it's not because of an attachment to the ibis of old, but because they're so damn superior to everything else. When my one-and-only modern(ish) full suspension frame does finally crap out, I know that's what I'll buy to replace it. 

But, clearly, Fat Chance is not in the same place as Ibis at this point. Unless I'm reading the press releases incorrectly, the forthcoming Yo is intended as a limited-edition, maybe even "collectable" bike. Unless someone was going to hang it up and not ride it, there's nothing wrong with this, either. With the exception of that single, modern, full-suspension bike that I mentioned, and which I consider to be completely DISPOSABLE, I only buy bikes that I can imagine keeping forever and riding indefinitely. Even though bikes are a priority to me, I don't necessarily have the funds or desire to keep up with every single marketing or technological fad that comes along. And I sure couldn't justify buying a disposable bike, that happens to say Yo Eddy on it, just for the prestige factor.

So, while a modern geometry and wheel size and tire clearance are great and should be expected, I don't think that the Yo market would support the incorporation of every newest idea and "standard" under the sun. I don't think the comments in this thread indicate that people want to re-live 1990. I think they indicate that they don't want to re-live 1995, (or 2008, or 2014), when it all of a sudden became impossible to find a replacement fork for your favorite and otherwise perfectly-good bike, just because the industry trend-makers decided they needed to come up with some new hype in order to boost sales. 

Unless someone has been buying and riding quality mountain bikes for a long time, they might not get this, though - which I understand. I just think I'd prefer a rigid fork. Or at least whatever headtube size and dropout configuration and disc brake mounting tab and derailleur hanger format that will remain usable for the longest. Sometimes, that's going to be the option that's been around the longest.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

iamkeith said:


> but because they're so damn superior to everything else.


I'm just curious how you arrived at that statement.



iamkeith said:


> just because the industry trend-makers decided they needed to come up with some new hype in order to boost sales


I think the vast majority of the new standards offer a benefit. I'm glad I'm not riding cotter pin cranks and 7/8" cast iron quill stem any more. Not that you can't have fun or ride that stuff, but things have changed.. Riding styles have dramatically changed and limitations have been relocated far from where they were which, I think, is really cool.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> I'm just curious how you arrived at that statement.
> 
> I think the vast majority of the new standards offer a benefit. I'm glad I'm not riding cotter pin cranks and 7/8" cast iron quill stem any more. Not that you can't have fun or ride that stuff, but things have changed.. Riding styles have dramatically changed and limitations have been relocated far from where they were which, I think, is really cool.


Can't argue with that logic.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

iamkeith said:


> So, while a modern geometry and wheel size and tire clearance are great and should be expected, I don't think that the Yo market would support the incorporation of every newest idea and "standard" under the sun.


Regardless of your opinion on the latest standards are, you either build a bike that conforms to them, or you build a bike that uses old standards and the number of usable components drops dramatically.

I prefer the look of non-tapered head tubes. However, the number of high-end straight 1-1/8" steerer forks being made today is nearly zero. In a year or two don't expect to find any new forks. (1-1/8" head tubes have gone the way of the 1" head tube.)

Same goes for front QR hubs. You may not like through axle forks, but buying a suspension fork that uses a 9mm QR is pretty difficult to find today.

Rear spacing is a place where the 135mm rear standard would still work, but in the "spirit" of a YO which was designed around the widest tire available at the time, a 142mm rear end makes more sense.

And although a lot of people still love the 26" wheel, it's rapidly going away. It will likely not be phased out, but if you plan your production run around a 26 tire, you'll not be in business for long. Current demand is for larger wheels.

If you want a bike that will last a long time and work with modern parts, you have to go with modern standards (like them or not).


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Just think about the return of vynil records and the debate gains another perspective. I will also applaud Jeff Jones for designing his bikes around rigid forks.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Fillet-brazed said:


> I'm just curious how you arrived at that statement.


I should have qualified that with "of the modern bikes I've tried." I also should have said "if I were to buy one today (or at the time I was comparing.)" Who knows what I'll actually pick when the time comes. I liked the mojo better than the specialized and Santa Cruz bikes that I sampled. I haven't even ridden the Ripley, yet.



laffeaux said:


> Regardless of your opinion on the latest standards are, you either build a bike that conforms to them, or you build a bike that uses old standards and the number of usable components drops dramatically.
> 
> I prefer the look of non-tapered head tubes. However, the number of high-end straight 1-1/8" steerer forks being made today is nearly zero. In a year or two don't expect to find any new forks. (1-1/8" head tubes have gone the way of the 1" head tube.)
> 
> ...


I totally understand this, for most of the examples you cite. I guess I bristle when someone says you're a retro-grouch unless you are willing to be spoon fed every single new standard that comes along. In terms of the steerer tube, for example, I'm painfully aware of how hard it is to keep past formats running. But, given what we know from experience, someone would have to be crazy to think that a 1/1/8"-to-1 1/2" headset isn't going to disappear in a few years, too. That's why I like the 44mm or some yet-unknown but equally-versatile idea that can run a few different formats and possibly be relevant a little longer (and at least look nicer in the process.) But, since there's really no way to know where things will head, I'll take a rigid fork thank you. At least for this bike.

In terms of hubs and axles, I'd probably actually go further than most. Thru axles are fine, but I think front hubs should be 135mm wide, following Jones' and Paul's lead. In fact, I think it's crazy that most already aren't.

But what about direct-mount rear derailleurs? Are those the future just because Shimano says so in 2014? Or will they be a flash in the pan like rapid-rise? My money is on a conventional hanger being relevant and available for a good long while. Or what about 35mm handlebar clamps? Seriously? Are these really going to be measurably superior to 31.8?

Obviously, I'm not an expert and most of you guys can predict this stuff better than me. I'm just saying that I'd be pretty reluctant to pay a premium for a niche-market bike that I would get materially attached to, if I knew it was going to become obsolete or hard to keep running. I refuse to hoard forks for any more bikes, gosh darn it.


----------



## fat-tony (Sep 6, 2005)

The way I have been looking at this whole new launch of Fat Chance , whether right or wrong, is if Chris Chance would have continued his line of frames without folding back in 2000 +/-, what frame would he be building today? That is your answer. His frames always seem to mold to the newer technology of the day (within reason), but still maintain his beliefs in frame building.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

So what is your vision of his vision Tony? 


fat-tony said:


> The way I have been looking at this whole new launch of Fat Chance , whether right or wrong, is if Chris Chance would have continued his line of frames without folding back in 2000 +/-, what frame would he be building today? That is your answer. His frames always seem to mold to the newer technology of the day (within reason), but still maintain his beliefs in frame building.


----------



## fat-tony (Sep 6, 2005)

jeff said:


> So what is your vision of his vision Tony?


A steel 650B single speed Yo Eddy with rigid Yo fork! Disc mounts.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

fat-tony said:


> A steel 650B single speed Yo Eddy with rigid Yo fork! Disc mounts.


Yyyyeeesssss!


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

This bike:

Independent Fabrication?s Limited Deluxe Redux Gets Igleheart Fork & (OMG!) Purple Ano Chris King Hubs!


----------



## fat-tony (Sep 6, 2005)

KDXdog said:


> This bike:
> 
> Independent Fabrication?s Limited Deluxe Redux Gets Igleheart Fork & (OMG!) Purple Ano Chris King Hubs!


That "Fabuloso" color looks a lot like a "Milka" (Team Violet) chocolate bar wrapper color to me. : )


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

iamkeith said:


> I refuse to hoard forks for any more bikes, gosh darn it.


LOL. I guess you've stockpiled enough and are moving on to stems?


----------



## wookie (Jan 24, 2007)

How do you intend to build your 2015 Yo Eddy? I'm leaning towards USA made CNC machined parts. Kind of a new meets old style bike. Excluding my vintage stuff, I'm on all carbon bikes. I'm an 80s NORBA child from New England though, so I'm thinking of going in a different direction. Fats remind me of racing in Lynwoods & upstate NY in the 80s. Looking forward to an updated Fat


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...il&utm_term=0_fb306e9262-193b562244-182427145

Dunno if I want a "trail HT" but still goodies to be had...


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

What? No forks?


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

well I imagine it will be built around using your own supplie 5in or so suspension fork.


----------



## Retro Dude (Jun 7, 2010)

wookie said:


> How do you intend to build your 2015 Yo Eddy? I'm leaning towards USA made CNC machined parts. Kind of a new meets old style bike. Excluding my vintage stuff, I'm on all carbon bikes. I'm an 80s NORBA child from New England though, so I'm thinking of going in a different direction. Fats remind me of racing in Lynwoods & upstate NY in the 80s. Looking forward to an updated Fat


Hey Wookie - What parts of upstate NY did you race in? I put on races for 10 or 11 years.


----------



## wookie (Jan 24, 2007)

Retro Dude said:


> Hey Wookie - What parts of upstate NY did you race in? I put on races for 10 or 11 years.


Frankly, I don't remember. It was a long. .. time ago. Was the Rockhopper East in NY? I'd have to look at some old race #s. I remember watching Daryl Price/the Specialized team & Team Fat a lot. Was the Cannondale Cup series in upstate NY?

Sadly, I won't be picking up a new FC this go. $2500.00 is too steep for my blood. I bought an 87 Wicked w/ a box crown fork instead.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

What's the verdict on the new Fats? Anybody seen or ridden one? I have my eyes on a 27.5er.


----------



## El Sapo Rojo (Feb 24, 2011)

Posted in another thread, but appropriate here. Saw the frames being painted. Very cool. Big money paint jobs. Some personalized, signed by Chris.


----------



## Mr. Claus (Oct 5, 2015)

laffeaux said:


> You've been riding the wrong trails.


Laffeaux, do you still have this bike? Dumb question right? Do you have more pictures of it on another thread? I picked up a ~2011 or 2012 P-29'er a couple years back and like it rather well, great climber, running it full rigid, but obviously mines TIGed, but man I had no idea there was the option of a fillet brazed version of either one (29 or 650b)? Also, looks like you're in Boise (not stalking), but I'm driving out to the Bitter Root valley in MT where my Mom and Sister live, I'm thinking of going through Boise this time then over the Saw Tooth, could you recommend a couple good rides? I'll have my P-22 and maybe an ole fillet rock lobster, do you have a bike museum up there in Boise? Sorry for the long message and I take it you're a VRC ninja? Best to you Benjamin


----------



## dubya3 (May 1, 2016)

My new Yo! Shipped out this morning. Can't wait to get my hands on it and built 









Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Sexy!

Wheel size??


----------



## dubya3 (May 1, 2016)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Sexy!
> 
> Wheel size??


27fiver, it's a 2.1. I'm last minute ordering a matching rigid Yo! fork too.

I love the paint job but I probably should have waited to order all the components until I saw the frame, I'm not sure how all the red ano stuff will look now. Either way I'm going to treat it as my 4th child!









Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

I think it'll look great, but I'm a red ano fan,, so there's that....


----------



## dubya3 (May 1, 2016)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> I think it'll look great, but I'm a red ano fan,, so there's that....


In all honesty, I love the way it turned out but I originally envisioned a more yellow rear. I'm curious to see how the red looks with everything. The cherry red turned out exactly what I hoped for, like the old Wicked color.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## dubya3 (May 1, 2016)

Brakes & chain still need to go on, as well as remove fork decals and replace with "stealth black" ones but it's all finished up for the most part.









Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

That does look nice.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I love the paint on that frame. You can see more paint jobs on Ventanas Facebook page. Youll have to scroll down.


----------



## dubya3 (May 1, 2016)

Vader said:


> I love the paint on that frame. You can see more paint jobs on Ventanas Facebook page. Youll have to scroll down.


Is that the current Fat painter? I finished the build tonight, I've only rode tar and flat dirt but the ride is everything I imagined. Crappy night time photos but you guys get the point.

I could lose some brake hose but it'll work for now.









Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> I can't even find a mountain bike on the Rivendell website, nor can I find any indication of the tubesets they use.
> 
> Vassago apparently uses a house brand or generic chromoly, so I don't know how you figure they rise above a Transition or Canfield, which also have their own 4130 tubesets, or a Kona Explosif, which is made with Reynolds 520.
> 
> But that's my whole point. I have been looking around at steel hard tails for a while, and if you want a high end (853, prestige, OX platinum etc) frame, outside of custom builders, there aren't that many choices. So, I think Fat Chance could actually fill a niche and take some market share. But they would do it by offering super cool modern bikes, not some retro grouch collectables. If I was Chris Chance, that would be my business plan.


Gunnar


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

CS2 said:


> Gunnar


HOw do those hardtails handle? Their geometry on the 26in was weird on paper but i never felt tempted to ride one.


----------

