# Fat bikes for big guys?



## joker357 (Jan 18, 2009)

I'm curious if a fat bike is for me as I have no experience with them and which one for my size and keeping the bike reasonably priced. I'm 6'1" 265#. I have been curious on the Surly Pugsley and Salsa Mukluk (Not $4,000 Carbon Fiber option). Or do I need to get my weight down before considering a fat bike? Are the two bikes mentioned good options, or should I consider any others in that price range or less, if I should even be looking right now?

I currently have a Trek Marlin 6 that maybe I should ride more and bring the weight down further, lol.

Thanks


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

joker357 said:


> I'm curious if a fat bike is for me as I have no experience with them and which one for my size and keeping the bike reasonably priced. I'm 6'1" 265#. I have been curious on the Surly Pugsley and Salsa Mukluk (Not $4,000 Carbon Fiber option). Or do I need to get my weight down before considering a fat bike? Are the two bikes mentioned good options, or should I consider any others in that price range or less, if I should even be looking right now?
> 
> I currently have a Trek Marlin 6 that maybe I should ride more and bring the weight down further, lol.
> 
> Thanks


Fat bike will be more durable than the marlin.

Rigid. Way stronger wheels. Only weak spot generally is the free hub. If you put out lots of power they break easy as the tire has gobs of traction.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joker357 (Jan 18, 2009)

Thank you, good information


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Depends what you want out of the bike. 

Imo fat bikes are slow bikes and ive been told they will tire you out way more than a normal bike.

I dont think they help as much in snow for our weights as much as they do a 170lber. I rode one once in snow and it wasnt my favorite ride. 

Due to the snow orientation they usually fit small to give low standovers as you sink into the snow to put a foot down. 

For me, for general riding, Id ride the trek more and upgrade that to a better bike as you progress. Eg. Stache


----------



## shrek janitor (Apr 1, 2018)

I rode a surly pugs that a friend got. bone stock...felt a little rubbery in the wheels and cranks.. so I got the same bike but i got 36 phil wood tandem hubs. 14 gauge spokes. and FSA DH cranks, so I could have two gears on the front...been a very solid bike.


----------



## Pasta4lnch (May 29, 2020)

fwiw I was interested to try a fat bike. I'm heavier than you and thought the high volume air tires would be better and they are by a mile. I HATE the feel of a squishy rear tire. Plus the fat bike is oodles of fun to ride. :thumbsup: I may never go back 

I went w a Growler Stout - 7000 aluminum, claimed to hold my weight and seems to be doing fine so far :skep: the bike is awesome! Great company too...


----------



## ChefLeo (Sep 16, 2018)

Look into a Surly Wednesday. Steel frame but not terribly heavy and you can build it as you want. Your weight won't be a factor, you will just need to adjust your tire pressure to what feels right and the riding conditions. 

Fat bikes are really fun to ride and can be more than just snow bikes. I primarily use my Wednesday on single track (year round), family rides and general rides where speed is not a concern. If you build them correctly there is not much they can't do.


----------



## Pasta4lnch (May 29, 2020)

Fuse6F said:


> ive been told they will tire you out way more than a normal bike.


I read this a lot too before I got one. Maybe (maybe) from a dead stop or crazy uphill. I find once I get going its like a steam roller - just wants to go, albeit not breaking any speed records, I guess, not really my style. I just like that I can ride over anything - I still tense up when I see a root that I dont have time to swerve from and end up hitting, or at least think I do because I dont even feel it! lol.

Take what I say w a grain of salt as I went from a SS to the fat bike (also riding a LOT more), but I rarely stop on my rides now. Even the long ones. I guess there are downside to any bikes, but I've yet to experience anything that comes close to a deal breaker w my fatty. Even the road stuff feels more fun - warts and all :eekster:


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Fuse6F said:


> Imo fat bikes are slow bikes and ive been told they will tire you out way more than a normal bike.


Not everyone cares about speed. Some are utterly unaware of whether they're going "fast" or not. There are lots of other reasons to ride bikes.

And tired out?

You wrote that as though it's a _bad_ thing. For many the point of riding is to get exercise. The more calories burned, the more weight lost, the better.

Vive la difference.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Im 6 foot 5 and 265 pounds. I ride my Surly Ice Cream Truck most of the time. Year round. Its my favorite bike.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

...


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Fuse6F said:


> Imo fat bikes are slow bikes and ive been told they will tire you out way more than a normal bike.


I have found the fat bike I got earlier this year to be extremely fast on the fun stuff. Big tires carry a lot of momentum and eat roots and rocks in the terrain instead of deflecting which equals a lot of speed. However, slogging up a fire road, no, not fast. But being 6'4", the big tires are not an issue at all and I can easily maneuver and manhandle the bike on the trail. For smaller people, may not be as easy.

Rocky, rooty, twisty singletrack trail riding, my fat bike is noticeably faster for me vs a trail bike. On steeper terrain, lack of rear sus hinders speed, but still capable. Check out the below video as it supports some of what I am talking about with how fast fat bikes can be on singletrack.

Few things to consider...
-On the rocky singletrack section that Neil has been riding trail bikes on for 20years, the fat bike was 9 seconds faster.
-Combining just the fun stuff (rocky single track + steep downhill), the fat bike was 6 seconds faster overall.
-On the steep downhill section, the _hardtail_ fat bike was only 3 seconds slower than the_ full suspension_ trail bikes.







Fuse6F said:


> Due to the snow orientation they usually fit small to give low standovers as you sink into the snow to put a foot down.


Not sure what you mean here, but standover is not a good way to figure out fit for a bike. How would having a high standover even benefit a clyde fit wise anyways? OP should focus on length (ie, reach, ett, sta, head tube) to get the fit right. If a bike has a short seat tube (low standover) that is a huge benefit now as it just means you can fit a longer dropper. Long seat tubes suck as all it does is limit dropper travel.



Fuse6F said:


> For me, for general riding, Id ride the trek more and upgrade that to a better bike as you progress. Eg. Stache


So you're recommending a discontinued bike that is known to have weak chainstays, cracks and failures to a clyde? ?


----------



## 2717cm (Dec 20, 2020)

I have ridden a 1st Gen Salsa Blackborow on and off since 2016. The Mukluk looks fun and I'm sure it's great. I'm 265 pounds as well.


----------

