Fat Bikes

Ben Cole · 20 Sep 2026 at 20:25

Thinking about getting one recently. In the past I suspected they were just a gimmick and would be too draggy to ride.

However recently I've considered one because I have an almost daily routine of taking my MTB onto the dunes with the dog. Due to the frequent muddy sessions and loads of soft sand and general broken terrain I thought a fat bike might be ideal. It would also save me wearing out my decent MTBs down there (freshly wet sand is a killer for drivetrain wear).

I've seen the Trek Farley 5 for £1350 which is what piqued my interest.

Any one have one?

iamgigglz · 21 Sep 2026 at 13:46

Sorry this isn't a useful answer, but please get one and take pics so I can point at you and say "Look! That's what a fat bike is for!"
Every day I see a guy sweating his way to work on the B1124 into Wetherby on a fat bike. I don't get why people do it to themselves.

Ben Cole · 21 Sep 2026 at 15:40

iamgigglz said:
Sorry this isn't a useful answer, but please get one and take pics so I can point at you and say "Look! That's what a fat bike is for!"
Every day I see a guy sweating his way to work on the B1124 into Wetherby on a fat bike. I don't get why people do it to themselves.

If I do......I definitely will :cry:

triggerthat · 22 Sep 2026 at 14:26

Is there much difference in speed comparing a modest road bike to an expensive fast bike? Doubt it's worth the premium unless you are... racing over long distances?

Ben Cole · 22 Sep 2026 at 19:21

triggerthat said:
Is there much difference in speed comparing a modest road bike to an expensive fast bike? Doubt it's worth the premium unless you are... racing over long distances?

Think you've missed the point here.

Even with 2.6in tyres my Scott sometimes struggles in dry weather on the sand. With 4.5in tyres, the Fat Bike probably won't. And there not really much of a premium, it's not an expensive bike.

I mean, the soft sand is literally too soft to ride on. So it's comparing a bike that cannot be ridden to one that can....with the added bonus that it'll save a lot of wear and tear on my more expensive bikes.

glitch · 22 Sep 2026 at 19:37

Ben Cole said:
Any one have one?

Borrowed one for a week when I was recovering from surgery and wanted to get out and ride, local place to me turns into a sandpit on all the fire roads so figured it would be a laugh and my local Trek store had a demo they were happy to let me use.

Can highly recommend the Farley given it's the only Fat Bike I have ever ridden, but look around for second-hand as bargains can definitely be had.

There's very little that can go wrong with them and they are an absolute hoot to ride in appropriate conditions - you'll love it!

manic111 · 22 Sep 2026 at 19:41

triggerthat said:
Is there much difference in speed comparing a modest road bike to an expensive fast bike? Doubt it's worth the premium unless you are... racing over long distances?

I may be being unfair, but have you misread "fat" as "fast"?

Ben Cole · 22 Sep 2026 at 19:42

Superb, thanks. Yes, the Farley is the front runner for me.

I have looked on ebay etc but to be honest I think I'd prefer to buy new, particularly if I use the cycle to work scheme.

ubersonic · 25 Sep 2026 at 03:17

iamgigglz said:
Every day I see a guy sweating his way to work on the B1124 into Wetherby on a fat bike. I don't get why people do it to themselves.

The chonkier the tyres on a non-suspension bike the more comfortable the ride (assuming you're not maxing out the PSI obviously). Obviously you could go full suspension to make it comfortable too but that would sap so much energy you would be in the same position or worse.

mattyfez · 25 Sep 2026 at 03:29

if you only ride in sand, mud or snow, sure... but it will be a total pain in the ass otherwise.

Ben Cole · 26 Sep 2026 at 00:19

mattyfez said:
if you only ride in sand, mud or snow, sure... but it will be a total pain in the ass otherwise.

You have experience of them?

Obviously I won't only ride on sand, snow or mud but the fact is I regularly get to the point that the conditions are unrideable. But I believe they won't be with bigger tyres. That's based on the difference I feel when using 2.6 tyres compared to say 2.3.

mattyfez · 26 Sep 2026 at 12:31

Ben Cole said:
You have experience of them?

Obviously I won't only ride on sand, snow or mud but the fact is I regularly get to the point that the conditions are unrideable. But I believe they won't be with bigger tyres. That's based on the difference I feel when using 2.6 tyres compared to say 2.3.

the downside is they are more draggy on harder surfaces, so it's a trade off depending on what sort of terrain you mostly ride.

a66as · 26 Sep 2026 at 12:36

You ever thought of getting a farley and a 250w mid drive motor conversion for it? Unless you want to ride it without motor assistance

UTmaniac · 26 Sep 2026 at 15:14

Feb '16 I bought a Voodoo Wazoo fatbike, used it mostly for commuting on tarmac while trying to regain bike confidence after my Xmas '13 RTA, a pair of Jumbo Jims inflated to ~20-25psi helped reduce drag. But I also bought a pair of PlanetX FatNotFat 29er wheels, which then allowed me to use anything from ~28mm road slicks to 2.35" G One Speeds.

silvagti · 26 Sep 2026 at 15:33

Fat bikes look like fun but I suspect you're likely to end up with wider/slower tyres than you really need in most situations. I've rarely, if ever, felt that the 2.4-2.8" tyres on my MTB were too narrow for the terrain I was riding.

Perhaps it would make sense for sand or ice/frosty conditions?

Ben Cole · 26 Sep 2026 at 15:43

mattyfez said:
the downside is they are more draggy on harder surfaces, so it's a trade off depending on what sort of terrain you mostly ride.

Yeah, this much is obvious. I was asking if you had experience of the "total pain in the arse" you mention.

Ben Cole · 26 Sep 2026 at 15:45

a66as said:
You ever thought of getting a farley and a 250w mid drive motor conversion for it? Unless you want to ride it without motor assistance

Yes, or rather just buying an e-fatbike. It would really be a go anywhere bike but because I'm usually with the dog in the conditions that I would use the fatbike, I won't be doing the distances that would necessitate a motor. I bet it would be real fun though.

sigma · 26 Sep 2026 at 15:47

mattyfez said:
the downside is they are more draggy on harder surfaces, so it's a trade off depending on what sort of terrain you mostly ride.

Quite a few people still use them on pavements!

Ben Cole · 26 Sep 2026 at 15:50

silvagti said:
Fat bikes look like fun but I suspect you're likely to end up with wider/slower tyres than you really need in most situations. I've rarely, if ever, felt that the 2.4-2.8" tyres on my MTB were too narrow for the terrain I was riding.

Perhaps it would make sense for sand or ice/frosty conditions?

Well, as I mention above my Scott has 2.6in tyres and is frequently found wanting ( I have to push it). There's a lot of deep soft sand where we are, and if there's a lot of rain other parts of it get very muddy.

iamgigglz · 28 Sep 2026 at 11:34

ubersonic said:
The chonkier the tyres on a non-suspension bike the more comfortable the ride (assuming you're not maxing out the PSI obviously). Obviously you could go full suspension to make it comfortable too but that would sap so much energy you would be in the same position or worse.

Yeah fair enough. I switched from a road bike in South Africa to a hybrid here just so I could ride on slightly fatter, softer tyres. The roads here are...less comfortable. A fat bike seems a bridge too far though. I'd sooner spend money on a suspended saddle than a fat bike to solve that problem. Each to their own I guess.