MPLS Bike Co Introduces the Full Carbon – Murphy

Hot News from the Winter Bike Expo in Minneapolis!

Kevin Ishang., owner of Freewheel Bike, announced the founding of a new fat-bike company called appropriately, the Minneapolis Bike Company. We were then treated to the unveiling of their new, fresh from the skunk works ‘Murphy’ full carbon Fat-Bike prototype.


The Murphy features raised chainstays coupled with a standard width MTB bottom bracket shell that allows the bike to run Sram’s XX1 drive train as well as any number of drive train options like, belt drive. The Murphy has a 170R – 135 F hub spacing. The proto came in weighing 27pounds and Kevin thinks they can shave a full pound off of that on their production frames. The price for the new carbon frame will be $2,400 and it will be manufactured right in MPLS, MN.


Raw Carbon that can be painted any color you want!


 Paragon Sliders and XX1

The Minneapolis Bike Company – Murphy

If you would like to know more about this groundbreaking new carbon fat-bike contact Freewheel Bike

Please Note :  We work hard to bring our readers the newest and hottest fat-bike news, so if you want to share what you’ve read here on forums or other social media, please copy and paste the URL of this page into your post, so other fat-bikers can discover and enjoy!

, , , , , , , ,

24 Responses to MPLS Bike Co Introduces the Full Carbon – Murphy

  1. frank December 8, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Some cool stuff going on there, I like the elevated chainstays especially. Paragon dropouts could allow for internally geared hubs or adjusting rear-wheel fore-aft position for larger tires or snappier handling.

    However, I don’t think XX1 is a good fit for fatbiking at the moment. the lowest gear possible, 30×42 is only about as low as 24×34… which I can barely push up some of the hills around here on a standard MTB on hard dirt, let alone a fat bike in the snow. If SRAM came out with a 28t ring for that system then we’d be talking… and it’d be a good fit for trail/all-mountain too.

    • Sam December 9, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

      You’re forgetting that a lot or SRAM’s cranks are built with removable spiders. Aftermarket one-piece spider/rings will soon follow. If you want lower–pick any crank with a single ring. He’s already running the spider on an XO not XXI crank.

    • Bill December 10, 2012 at 4:55 am #

      they do have a 28t for XX1, guess i solved your problem.

  2. Lance December 8, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    wow, nearly identical to the one that i have half built… only difference mine is about twice as fat.

  3. Mark December 8, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Curious what the chain line looks like in high-gear with the 1×11. Interesting BB spec with a fat rear hub. Hope this is a success, cool concept.

  4. Doug December 8, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

    Are you kidding me? Are there people that would pay $2400 for something as ugly as that? I’d gladly pedal an extra three lbs for something more pleasing to the eye.

    • Mark December 9, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

      Given a fatbike is essentially a motorcycle with no engine, I would prefer a maker focus on weight reduction. Personally, I like the aesthetics of engineering and design over “style and fashion”. Throw some paint on this Murphy and I’ll take it to the dance.

  5. Jason December 8, 2012 at 9:48 pm #

    Doug, it is a prototype.

  6. Heath December 8, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    Low weight is a plus, better choice of bbs and cranks and reduced q factor are good. Ability to easily do funky offsets rocks, But, the best part of a carbon fat bike is you can lick it on a cold day without your tongue sticking!

  7. John December 9, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Awesome design. I’m glad to hear it is mfg. right here in the USA! I like the design options for drivetrain flexibility. I rode in the deep snow today and would have liked a belt drive I think.

    It’s never easy to go out on a limb and design something brand new – kudos to you guys for innovating!!! I truly hope it pays off!

  8. Doug December 10, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    I had one of them in the 80s it was called a mantis. You can still build a alloy one a lot lighter for far less money

  9. Hughonabike December 10, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Nice addition to the Fat world. Good work. Looks a bruser :). I have reservations ‘tho about the standard BB. I can see the attraction in being able to fit a huge choice of high end cranks but it looks to me that the tyre/chain clearance is a bit tight in low gear ratios and the option of wider rims could be an issue. Also because it’s carbon fibre, as Heath states, having your tongue not sticking to the frame in freeze conditions is a major advantage.

  10. Glenn Charles December 12, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Great innovation, and I absolutely love the fact they are going to make it here in the US. Awesome stuff!!

  11. Tommy December 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    1986 called (on one of those old giant cell phones with the telescopic car antenna) they want their rear triangle back.

    I DO dig the build kit and the fact that it operates around a normal width bb shell though. Definitely an interesting bike. Yellow rims look bamf on the raw frame.

  12. Bob December 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    When is the bamboo frame option coming?

  13. Bobaloo December 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    I find it interesting that a bike shop has the ability to turn out even a small quantity of these frames at any given time. Tell us where you are manufacturing them in Minneapolis. When can we come for a visit of the facility? Thank you.

    • Gomez December 14, 2012 at 7:43 am #

      9:zero:7 and Fatback are both brands produced by bike shops that started their own Fat-Bike companies. So in a way, the new MPLS Bike Co is following a tradition for Fat-Bike manufacturers. You should contact Jake or Kevin at Freewheel Bike with these questions.

  14. eric December 26, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    normal q factor is very interesting….I wanna test ride one (stock and with extra weight) side by side with mukluk to see how the regular crank position affects power. Kevin really loves Murphy Hanrehan doesn’t he.

    • eric December 26, 2012 at 12:26 am #

      On the other hand i have 45north shoes so I should tell myself that q factor doesn’t matter

  15. Alex February 20, 2013 at 12:51 am #

    Can someone explain how e stays allow for the use of std bb width? The chain line is the chain line irrespective of where the cs’s meet the st… No? The limiting factor is preventing the chain from rubbing the tire, no? I realize it’s 1×11, but is that what’s solving the chain-tire interference and the e stays have nothing to do with it?

    • Gomez February 20, 2013 at 8:51 am #

      the elevated chainstay moves the chainstay up and out of the chain-ring chainstay interface.

  16. Chad March 4, 2013 at 9:30 am #

    I wonder if Salsa’s new carbon mukluk is going to kill this project. Why buy this thing when you can get a complete from Salsa for $3500?

Leave a Reply