Rumour mill...Fat City :-o

Re:

The problem about modern bike, everybody is going in the same way, and customers want plastic bike with big wheels, because they are the only bike shown in magazines.
In an interview, Scot Nichols said that 26" wheels are real mtb for him, but he had to make 29" because he needs to make what want customers and not his own philosophy.
I'm afraid that it would be the same think for Fat Chance. But perhaps, wait and see
 
Re:

The other big difference is that Scot Nicol was never out of the bike trade, always kept his finger on the pulse and was well backed and forward thinking. This looks to be a small, local bike shop in Auburn wanting to recreate something that's long dead - sounds like something On-one or Merlin would do.

Why doesn't he just build under his own name again, custom making bikes to suit each individual. I'd love a Chris Chance, once he's practiced welding on other peoples frames first.
 
I would appreciate a steel, made in the USA ,29er with FAT details, like non-tapered stays, bullet ends etc....combined with a cool paintjob,....... anyday
 
Re: Re:

24pouces":1mtsij1j said:
The problem about modern bike, everybody is going in the same way, and customers want plastic bike with big wheels, because they are the only bike shown in magazines.

Respectfully, I really don't think this is the case. Regarding wheel size, I'm not going to start this debate much less solve it, but my experience tells me that you if you take a rider with average skills and sub-average fitness (most of your demographic, at least in the US), they're going to be able to get more out of a mountain bike with 29 inch wheels than 26." By more meaning ride faster and longer over varied terrain.

Regarding plastic bikes, carbon is cost effect to produce [overseas] in mass quantities, so it's attractive to a manufacturer. It's light and strong, so it's attractive to a buyer.

It's not like the MTB industry is constantly trying to make changes and shove them down people's throats, stating it's what they "need" to enjoy mountain biking. The industry is simply responding to the consumer's insatiable demand for a better product. Lighter frames. Stronger wheels. Better suspension.

Regarding Fat, I think there's a market, as long as CC isn't looking to get into it to make money. If he's holding the torch, then that's huge cred to these frames. If he's simply providing input [a name], then it's a waste of money. And if there isn't a segmented rigid fork involved, a big big big pass.
 
Re: Re:

ridevintagemtb":cuydj297 said:
It's not like the MTB industry is constantly trying to make changes and shove them down people's throats, stating it's what they "need" to enjoy mountain biking.

I assume you were being sarcastic here, right?

Carl.
 
Re: Re:

24pouces":l1l7fex6 said:
The problem about modern bike, everybody is going in the same way, and customers want plastic bike with big wheels, because they are the only bike shown in magazines.


I can't agree with this at all, IMO mountain bikes have never been so varied, then again a lot of people moan about this too, too many names/wheel sizes/ choices. You can get everything from a sub 20lb carbon race bike to a 8" DH bike to a steel rigid singlespeed to a titanium off road tourer, never mind fat bikes , 29+ and everything in between. If you look (past the magazines in most cases) then there will be something out there for you style of riding.

Its really too early to assume what will happen all we can do is hope that its good, I think the worst case would be something like what Ritchey has done or the IF tribute bikes* and at best CC's interpretation of whats happening now in mountain biking with the style and innovation that FAT brought to the table.

*Neither of which I have too much of a problem with by the way.
 
Now that's how you crash a website! Haha about 5 mins after the website goes live asking for folks to vote on what type. of bike the new Yo-Eddy turns out to be and the website is down lol
 
Back
Top