So weird thing happened this week on the "other" site,
A thread popped up about fatback bikes and the ridefatbikes.ca website and the topic became that their website did not accurately convey geometry according to modern standards, they were doing some bizarre thing with the trail and HTA and coming up with some number that no one else does. Anyway, having referenced their site many times recently, I added that their Foes Mutz info was pretty far off too for the new V3 frames. Foesracing themselves asked me what seemed misleading. It made many references to adjustable travel settings, which the new frame doesn't have. So that right there is misleading. It made references to a 2022 shock dimension that was different than 2021, but didn't include any other information about this 2022 model, so it was confusing. They were claiming that it would fit 4.8" tires, but that it had 122mm of clearance (4.8"). Generally, when we talk about fat-tire clearance, we name the tire and rim combo so people can understand what fits (a D5 on an 80mm rim, or a Wrathlorde on a 95mm), or just go with the physical dimensions of the chain/seat-stays. Yes, fat-tires vary a bunch and some don't live up, but some do, you really have to name the tire or just not advertise optimistic tire numbers. The thing was ridefatbikes.ca kind of wanted to have it both ways, saying it could fit 4.8" and it had 4.8" of travel, so you might think you could fit a 4.8 tire based on what they are saying on one part of the page, but in reality, more than about 4.5 is probably doubtful (based on my own testing now). They also worded it really funny, as in "we have been able to fit tires LARGER than Foes says will, up to 4.8" and then elsewhere "FOES has CONFIRMED 4.8" tires fit", which are contradictory statements.
So anyway, Foesracing comes back and says "well maybe they put spacers on their shock?" and "maybe they...", basically speculating on what ridefatbikes.ca has done. That's fine and all, but you lose out on end-stroke progressiveness if you put spacers on there to shorten the travel and this is definitely not according to any guidance from Foes, not to mention the tire issue where Foes said "one dealer reported being able to fit a 4.8 tire"...which seems pretty distinct from "Foes has confirmed 4.8 tires fit". In fact, it very much seems the opposite.
So anyway, since Foes asked, and since the accuracy of this website was a topic in the thread, I put this information out there. There were some back and forths...
Then things blew up, someone who appeared to be acting as a shrill, but may be connected with the company, found my personal information and posted it on the message board. They also stalked me on another thread. That person got banned, but not before they threatened I was going to get sued (haha). The MTBR moderator asked me to call and said that ridefatbikes.ca called them and was threatening to sue MTBR and myself if they didn't delete the thread. MTBR told them to go pound sand and just let me know about it as a courtesy. They said the ridefatbikes.ca person was claiming I was posting "all over MTBR" and slinging mud at their company on multiple threads (it's only one thread), MTBR just wanted to make sure I knew of no other threads that were related. Just crazy bizarre stuff. I'm pretty sure that shrill was also ridefatbikes.ca, since he was talking about suing and whomever contacted MTBR did the same thing. In the end, MTBR said "well, this is a review site, so people are free to review your company".
They did fix their website...well, kind of. Now it says "A few are having difficulty understanding how a chainstay width clearance of 122mm can clear a tire with a stamped sidewall of an indicated “4.8”. -Which no one had difficulty with, no one was talking about stamped numbers, it's just how they decided to try and make the customers seem stupid, trying to "get back" at people.
So just in case you need a good recommendation for an internet "fatbike" company...
A thread popped up about fatback bikes and the ridefatbikes.ca website and the topic became that their website did not accurately convey geometry according to modern standards, they were doing some bizarre thing with the trail and HTA and coming up with some number that no one else does. Anyway, having referenced their site many times recently, I added that their Foes Mutz info was pretty far off too for the new V3 frames. Foesracing themselves asked me what seemed misleading. It made many references to adjustable travel settings, which the new frame doesn't have. So that right there is misleading. It made references to a 2022 shock dimension that was different than 2021, but didn't include any other information about this 2022 model, so it was confusing. They were claiming that it would fit 4.8" tires, but that it had 122mm of clearance (4.8"). Generally, when we talk about fat-tire clearance, we name the tire and rim combo so people can understand what fits (a D5 on an 80mm rim, or a Wrathlorde on a 95mm), or just go with the physical dimensions of the chain/seat-stays. Yes, fat-tires vary a bunch and some don't live up, but some do, you really have to name the tire or just not advertise optimistic tire numbers. The thing was ridefatbikes.ca kind of wanted to have it both ways, saying it could fit 4.8" and it had 4.8" of travel, so you might think you could fit a 4.8 tire based on what they are saying on one part of the page, but in reality, more than about 4.5 is probably doubtful (based on my own testing now). They also worded it really funny, as in "we have been able to fit tires LARGER than Foes says will, up to 4.8" and then elsewhere "FOES has CONFIRMED 4.8" tires fit", which are contradictory statements.
So anyway, Foesracing comes back and says "well maybe they put spacers on their shock?" and "maybe they...", basically speculating on what ridefatbikes.ca has done. That's fine and all, but you lose out on end-stroke progressiveness if you put spacers on there to shorten the travel and this is definitely not according to any guidance from Foes, not to mention the tire issue where Foes said "one dealer reported being able to fit a 4.8 tire"...which seems pretty distinct from "Foes has confirmed 4.8 tires fit". In fact, it very much seems the opposite.
So anyway, since Foes asked, and since the accuracy of this website was a topic in the thread, I put this information out there. There were some back and forths...
Then things blew up, someone who appeared to be acting as a shrill, but may be connected with the company, found my personal information and posted it on the message board. They also stalked me on another thread. That person got banned, but not before they threatened I was going to get sued (haha). The MTBR moderator asked me to call and said that ridefatbikes.ca called them and was threatening to sue MTBR and myself if they didn't delete the thread. MTBR told them to go pound sand and just let me know about it as a courtesy. They said the ridefatbikes.ca person was claiming I was posting "all over MTBR" and slinging mud at their company on multiple threads (it's only one thread), MTBR just wanted to make sure I knew of no other threads that were related. Just crazy bizarre stuff. I'm pretty sure that shrill was also ridefatbikes.ca, since he was talking about suing and whomever contacted MTBR did the same thing. In the end, MTBR said "well, this is a review site, so people are free to review your company".
They did fix their website...well, kind of. Now it says "A few are having difficulty understanding how a chainstay width clearance of 122mm can clear a tire with a stamped sidewall of an indicated “4.8”. -Which no one had difficulty with, no one was talking about stamped numbers, it's just how they decided to try and make the customers seem stupid, trying to "get back" at people.
So just in case you need a good recommendation for an internet "fatbike" company...
