>>1137232>I am genuinely interested to find out if the fat bike is something that can compete with a good hardtail that has a front shockNope, completely different kind of bike than anything with suspension
Fatbike pros:
- FLOATATION. Great on anything loose/sandy, especially if you're heavily loaded. I tried to tour through sandy desert terrain once on a bike with 2.3" tires; sucked ass.
- Rigid = easier to load up. Big triangle without a shock inside it means you can fit a larger framebag, you can fit a front porteur rack and/or lowrider pannier, you can fit a rear rack if you want to, if you rock a big seatbag you don't have to worry about it buzzing the tire under full suspension compression, etc.
- Grip! You can really air down the tires and still not risk pinch flats (if tubed) or dented rims. Bombing down loose, rocky +10% slopes on a bike that weighs 70lbs with all your gear/food/water can be a little hairy with normal MTB tires.
Fatbike cons:
- HEAVY. Them tires ain't light.
- SLOW. Not much to say here, pretty much all fatbike tires don't roll very fast.
- Drivetrain issues/unique parts. There are a variety of fatbike-specific drivetrain standards - rear hubs between 150mm to 197mm wide, 100mm wide threaded bottom brackets and special cranksets, etc. You may find it expensive or difficult to find parts in a pinch. Others, like the Tumbleweed Prospector or Crust Scapegoat, use standard MTB hubs/BB/etc, but also limit you to a relatively "narrow" fatbike tire (4"), and even then limit you to a 1x setup - which, unless you're springing for SRAM 1x12, will limit you to a VERY slow top end if you want to preserve a low gear that's appropriate for pedaling all your shit up dirt climbs.
TL;DR if you're going to tour through someplace sandy like Death Valley or western Nebraska, +4" wide tires are the only way to do it. If you're NOT riding through sand dunes, its overkill and you end up with a heavy/slow bike with an expensive/compromised drivetrain
