9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1047

Might as well get this one up while we’re at it. Teased back in July, 9:zero:7 had their new Whiteout carbon fatbike on hand to join in with the carbon craze. With availability about a month away, it looks like the Whiteout may be the first dual thru axle fatbike with a 197mm rear dropout on the market.

Check out the details plus actual weight after the break!

9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1050

Equipped with a tapered head tube and a carbon fork with a 135x15mm thru axle the Whiteout has plenty of room for big tires on big rims.

9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1054

A 6 inch post mount brake standard is used which is situated just behind the 9:zero:7 branded thru axle.

9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1053

9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1051

Like most fatbikes a 100mm threaded bottom bracket is used and a band clamp front derailleur is needed if you’re not running a 1x.

9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1052

9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1048

6 inch post mount brakes are found at the back too, and the 197x12mm thru axle allows for 4.8″ tires on 100mm rims. Unlike the other two carbon fatbikes we’ve seen lately, the Whiteout does not have rack mounts.

9zero7 whiteout carbon fatbike091513_1056

With a similar build to the Borealis Yampa SL minus the carbon wheels, the Whiteout weighs a still impressive 23.15lbs. While the Yampa is almost two pounds lighter, the Whiteout does have a thru axle rear where the Yampa is QR. Regardless, both of these bikes’ weights were previously unthinkably light.

Whiteouts should be available in a month and will be sold in S, M, and L, orange and green frames with frame sets going for $2299.


  1. To g – you poor pathetic fool. Motivate yourself, so you can spend your life doing what you love. Life is full of potential. Find your place.

  2. @g – Another fool who will sit around when your old and slow wondering what you did with your youth. Oh yeah I spent it being a crusty and bitter that others were having more fun than me.

  3. I like the look of the seat stays on this much better than the Yampa. Build me one of these Whiteouts with carbon rims and XX brakes, and I’m good to go.

    Too bad I’ll have to wait till Christmas for the Large, but like their website says, “it will be worth the weight.” Get it?

  4. I was wondering the same thing as WhatUpG — at what temp does the hydraulic fluid turn to slush inside the tubing?

    I ogled this one out at Outdoor Demo and got to ride an aluminum 9:Zero:7 model on the pump track out there…so much fun!!!

  5. My experience with hydros (stock Shimano) in the cold was, below -10 there would be no play in the lever at all, an 1/8″ pull would lock them up. I switched to mechanicals for better modulation. Other fluids may perform better/differently.

  6. I agree with P.D. I’m one of the old guys that won’t quit biking. Mt retirement date is Jan. 1st 2014 and I will have this bike before then!

  7. Fat bikes are an absolute blast to ride! It’s where singlespeed mtb’n was 10 years ago and not going away anytime soon. All you haters go strava some road segments, not have fun and just stop reading about them.

  8. Any opinions between the 4 inch tires vs 5 inch tires (save for weight differences)? I am relatively new to fatbikes and am going to build the Whiteout–seeking ideas.

  9. Dave, I have been riding the Moonlander with the clown shoes/Big fat Lou’s and Larry’s for 1 1/2 years. I am 6’5 and weigh 205 lbs. Being a larger guy the 5″ tires allow me to run my tire pressure at 7-9 psi (depending on ambient temperatures) and allows me to enjoy the float and ride attributes like the lighter guys with their 4″ wheels. I have no regrets and really like the float and traction on dry hardpack as well as snow. I have left my Carbon Tallboy hangin in the garage since I got this. Good luck.

  10. Bigger is Better!!! (no matter what ‘they’ say… within reason…)
    Number One Reason the skinny 4″ Tire/Wheel combination is so ‘popular’?
    Noticeably different from 2.7″ wide tires or whatever width you have used…
    AND… Still relatively inexpensive to build and assemble with more off-the-shelf parts/components (offset rims laced to 135mm hubs {regular/NuVinci/Rohloff/Alfine}… regular BottomBracket shells (not 100mm) with more readily available Cranks/Spindles/BottomBrackets, etc…)
    Over 4.3″-ish? REQUIRES Wider Frame/Cranks/BottomBracket/Hub(unless even more offset like Surly MoonLander’s 135mm+28mmRight) and… well… There is still more to it all…
    In loose snow, sand, etc. Most Everywhere You THINK a FatTire (4″) Bike may be ‘Better’ than anything else you have ridden, just trust me – a BigFatTire (~5″) Bike will be Better still… (“Better still” – English is kinda funny! The FATTER Tire Bike will be Better MOVING!!! NO Bicycle is ‘Better Still’ – except maybe a broken one…)
    Anyway, any questions? Call an unbiased unaffiliated rider with 27+ mountain bikes as well as other roadbikes, unicycles, bmx, etc… ate6oh-6six7-OneWonOneWon, Brett in CT…
    As far as Faster? Racing? Probably not… unless racing in loose sand/snow which are the Fat Bike’s Playground! (Yet not the stereotypical race conditions…)
    Fun!?! Funny?!? Funnerer!?! Absolutely!!!
    Go BIG(ger)!!!

What do you think?