Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    19

    New question here. 135 mm vs 170 mm Hubs?

    I was wondering, since they are more constraining and more expensive, what are the advantages of 170 mm hubs? Do they build significantly stronger wheels than 135 mm hubs?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    658
    170mm hubs allow for a symetrical rear end. This makes the ole wheelbuilding easier and the assembly of non-fat wheels also easier.

    I prefer 135mm hubs. They are more readly available, and allow front-rear wheel interchange, which is a big plus in my book. And you can still build a non-fat wheelset on a offset frame

  3. #3
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,745
    Hmmm...

    I don't see anything constraining about 170. I see centered builds as becoming the standard, now that wide components are hitting the market with frequency. An off center build may still live on at Surly, but it will otherwise likely become redundant except for that which is already out there and in need of service.

    I would think 170 would be stronger as well, and that is likely a good thing for those of us using them as trail bikes.
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    658
    Double post, sorry
    Last edited by Ze_Zaskar; 12-14-2012 at 05:53 AM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,856
    The reason I prefer 135 OLD for the fatbike is that you can fit a hubgear setup - Alfine, Rohloff, Sturmey-Archer, etc.

    It would be great if there was a choice of hubgears in 170 OLD, but in the meantime, if I want gears it's 135mm
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    until king comes out with a 170 option, 135 is still the best way to go if using 4" tires.

    if you're using 4.8" tires, personally, i think the moonlader has too much offset to build a strong wheel and than the 170 is better for strength.
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

  7. #7
    Chad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    58
    re: lamard

    Just throwing it out there, but my Moonie saw about 1200 miles of gnarly single track ridding this year.
    I weigh 185 and am not afraid to leave the ground. Offset wheels, run tubeless, still rock solid. I agree that symetrical is stronger, but w/ 100mm rim, offset seems strong enough for real world use.

  8. #8
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,751
    Symmetrical wheels are stronger, absolutely true. However, field use is showing that all sorts of offset builds are strong enough for fairly heavy use.

    I also note that the spoke hole offsets of the available rims influence this as well. When I built my original wheels with 170mm rear hub and USC 100's (+/-25mm spoke hole offset) I found that a conventional build gave me about 1 degree side bracing angle - which may have been strong enough (see comment above) but did not inspire confidence for me, so I built it crosslaced (much more work to get right). Surly Clownshoes with their +/-20mm drilling are a little better, and the narrower rims are fine for standard lacing in a symmetrical build.

    I've been running a Moonlander (28mm offset) with an S3X 3spd fixed gear hub laced to one side of a USC 100 (25mm offset) for nearly a year now - and have put it thru a fair bit of rough stuff without a bobble or need to retrue. And I weigh 210 lbs. My riding buddy picked up a double-offset Moonlander (offset fork too!) which has both wheels laced to one side of Clownshoes and has been riding the same stuff, also w/o issues.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: col200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    268
    I can't say which is "better" but I'd agree that a symmetrical wheel will be stronger. Like someone stated, the 135 is good because you can swap if need be, but I'd like to know if anyone does that or has done that (besides someone racing the Arrowhead or something)? I know that's an argument for 135s but I'm guessing most fatbikers will never need to do that.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    580
    One thing I like about the 170 is that it is a heck of a lot easier to set up the brakes when you can actually see what you are doing. With 135 rear and 135 offset front, the brakes are inside the rims so you need a mirror to see where they are rubbing.
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by col200 View Post
    I can't say which is "better" but I'd agree that a symmetrical wheel will be stronger. Like someone stated, the 135 is good because you can swap if need be, but I'd like to know if anyone does that or has done that (besides someone racing the Arrowhead or something)? I know that's an argument for 135s but I'm guessing most fatbikers will never need to do that.
    Friend of mine had an Alfine go south when out on a ride and swapped it for the SS wheel on the front of his Pugsley.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    670
    Forum seems to be playing up today?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    The reason I prefer 135 OLD for the fatbike is that you can fit a hubgear setup - Alfine, Rohloff, Sturmey-Archer, etc.

    It would be great if there was a choice of hubgears in 170 OLD, but in the meantime, if I want gears it's 135mm
    Yeah this is the major thing that would make mean lean toward the 135mm hub. For my winter application with all the road salt that comes with it, I have strong about derailleur based drivetrains. Nobody makes stainless steel cassettes and stainless steel chainrings with ramps, right?

  14. #14
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti View Post
    One thing I like about the 170 is that it is a heck of a lot easier to set up the brakes when you can actually see what you are doing. With 135 rear and 135 offset front, the brakes are inside the rims so you need a mirror to see where they are rubbing.
    I agree, I use Gusset Chute mechanical brakes for that reason on my Pug style frame. Both pads actuate, so you can install/align the caliper without looking for a gap between disc and an otherwise fixed pad.

    EDIT: Crappy rotors though.
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  15. #15
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by druidh View Post
    Forum seems to be playing up today?
    Not just today.
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    19
    The Sturmey Archer SX-RK3 is a 170 mm geared hub, right? Is it sufficiently weatherproofed to be used on a road full of melted snow mixed with salt?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    19
    I also read that the Rohloff hub can be fitted on a frame with 170 mm spacing if used with an adapter and a quick release. Has anyone tried it?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by kreyszig View Post
    The Sturmey Archer SX-RK3 is a 170 mm geared hub, right? Is it sufficiently weatherproofed to be used on a road full of melted snow mixed with salt?
    i would not reccommend that one for winter use

    Quote Originally Posted by kreyszig View Post
    I also read that the Rohloff hub can be fitted on a frame with 170 mm spacing if used with an adapter and a quick release. Has anyone tried it?
    yes you could do this, but you might have to use a tensioner and it will look very bad. besides than you would be using an offset 135 wheel anyways.
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by lamard View Post
    i would not reccommend that one for winter use
    Any particular reason why? Do you need to change the oil in the hub or is it something else?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by kreyszig View Post
    The Sturmey Archer SX-RK3 is a 170 mm geared hub, right? Is it sufficiently weatherproofed to be used on a road full of melted snow mixed with salt?
    What tends to be forgotten is that S-A 3 speeds have been in use for 100 years. At one time they were the most common way of gearing a bike. It was not uncommon for riders to knock up over 10,000 miles a year on those hubs and in all weathers.

    They were also used offroad in the UK where there is a very long tradition of off road cycling.

    The original hubs were lubricated with oil, and had an oil port. A few drops of oil each week were required. It was best to avoid immersion, but the hub could be flushed out with oil and be ok.

    The modern hubs use grease, so to properly flush them it is necessary to open up the hub.

    The SX-RK3 is simply the 3 speed mechanism in a wider hub shell. I have one of them built up into a wheel, but have not used it yet, but I expect it to be totally reliable (based on my previous experience with S-A 3 speed hubs).

    If I was going to ride on salty roads I would make up a gaiter to protect the gear change chain.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    from the ones we've had come through the shop, they are not sealed well enough to keep the elements out.
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •