So this is a hasty post to get the topic covered properly, and understand what one should aim for if FATTEST is the ultimate goal.
135 17.5mm offset and 170mm frames feel like they are covering the 4 inch fat tire spectrum whereas the 135 28mm offset and 186 mm cover the 5 inch spectrum.
So is it fair to say as someone looking to upgrade to forgo the 170mm all together as it never will have a proper chainline to accommodate the biggest of tire/rim combos or is there something I'm missing?
It seems to me the only feasible options if you want 100mm rims is the Moonlander and the new upcoming 907 186 thingie.
So what information if any is there regarding hub choices for the 186 mm "standard".
Another irritating thing is the whole rear vs front specific 135 mm front hub mess, Is Surly the only player in the rear spaced front looking 135mm hubs? Which forks out there adhere to the Front Front 135 standard?
If there are only three than I have 1/3 of the frames out there. I am not running hundos, nor bud/lous. More like 80's and 4.0's. Plenty o' room. I am told by the powers that be that production frames will fit the big meat on the big platters. I can only assume what mine can fit the stuff, but I have gobs of space. Sorry if my lack of rubber girth makes others upset, but where I ride I don't cry in my pillow about needing tires that can make other fat bikers envious and causing them to click on "Gain 2 Inches Now!" Internet pop ups.
That being said, if I didn't know I had a 186 rear hub I wouldn't guess it. Just pure high performance fatty fun. I see little reason why not to go to this hub size as a standard as opposed to the 170mm besides availability right now. The 907 hubs I am rolling seems top quality throughout, FYI.
See link below as to why I am biased. If I thought otherwise though, I just wouldn't comment.
So is it fair to say as someone looking to upgrade to forgo the 170mm all together as it never will have a proper chainline to accommodate the biggest of tire/rim combos or is there something I'm missing?
It seems to me the only feasible options if you want 100mm rims is the Moonlander and the new upcoming 907 186 thingie.
If a custom frame is considered...an offset 170; which would be what; 8mm? Personally, I am not fond of the offset idea, but must admit it has proven itself, and 8mm would be the smallest offest yet.
The range of "standards" bugs me. In my case, I had a Pugs, which I sold to get a Moonlander. I saved up and bought a Rohloff, and it's been just fantastic. But I've noticed a couple weird things because of that. I had to order a custom Phil BB to get a single speed crank with the right chainline (This actually cost _less_ than converting a MWOD to single speed) and then I realized the chainline could have easily fit an appropriate frame with 17.5mm offset. As it stands, the chain actually runs _outside_ the chainstays. This seems just silly to me.
So the range of offsets and rear hub widths are strictly a result of chain-tire interference. It makes me wonder if the money making all these different frames and hubs might be more wisely spent by people to convert to internally-geared hubs, or by manufacturers manufacturing different cassettes and limiting shifters so that only the outermost gears get used. I suspect that might be cheaper and easier than going through all the frame / hub manipulations needed to run stock cassettes and chainrings with fat rubber.
I don't think any of those other things are going to come close to the $1600 Rohloff.
I love the Rohloff hub, and I almost went for one to upgrade my 29er single speed rigid steel MTB, before I caught the fat bug.
I seem to remember it being like $900 for the normal, and $1100-1200 for the disc version when I last was looking several years ago. I would have thought the price would have come down since then, especially with the weak Euro. Definitely not considering one at $1600.
I might consider an alfine 11 if it proves itself over time, and the price comes down, as most products do after they have been around for a while, excluding the Roloff of course.
Oh, and do the left side spokes still have much angle to them in the Moonie with the Rohloff offset that much? Or is the big rim more offset too?
On a Rohloff a 13 tooth sprocket runs a 58mm chainline rather than the 54mm of the other sprockets.
I have asked Rohloff if it is possible to get a larger sprocket with the same fit as the 13 tooth, or if there is any engineering reason why I couldn't get one made.
The reason for asking? A 58mm would allow me to build a 135mm symmetrical fatbike frame. I'll post the answer up.
You can build a symmetrical fatbike frame and use the 54mm chainline, you'll just have 4mm less clearance. Works just fine with an Endo/Larry/Nate on an 80mm rim, but I suppose if you want to run 100mm rims and/or bigger tires the extra clerance would be nice, as long as your frame offered at least the same.
As far as a bigger sprocket with the 58mm chainline, you could just run 32t chainring and have about as low a gear as is *allowed* anyway (2.4 minimum chainring/cog ratio), right?
So what information if any is there regarding hub choices for the 186 mm "standard".
Another irritating thing is the whole rear vs front specific 135 mm front hub mess, Is Surly the only player in the rear spaced front looking 135mm hubs?
I wouldn't worry about the front. Simple and cheap spacers/adapters provide plenty of options.
As for lack of standards in fatbikes, well the species is evolving. Besides, things aren't exactly standard in the "normal" bike world. Just look at bottom brackets.
I agree fully, god to know that going either way back and forth on the front front hub dilemma is ok
I am really not against all the different rear wheel set up combos, I currently rock a 100mm rim combo with an alfine 11 speed, my frame is somewhat limited in swallowing mega tire combos so I want bigger, at this point I'm ready to abandon the alfine11 if the whole 186 stuff looks gravy, if they fail i guess I will go the moonlander route and re-lace my wheel.
As tire and rim widths increase, there are bound to be incompatibilities. I prefer 4" tires over any of the bigger offerings for 98% of the riding we do, but realize that conditions vary, as does rider weight. For that reason, along with many requests, we have a new hub width we'll be testing shortly, and that is 190mm. The hub width is chain line based to run the big meats and rims. It has nothing to do with being proprietary. Pugs-17.5 offset. Moonlander 28mm offset. Difference of 10.5mm leads to the 190mm hub to keep the same chain line.
There are good reasons for the two standards in front disc spacing. Surly gets the credit for doing a 135mm hub in front, which many of us didn't like initially, then we realized why it made sense after we put a 100mm fork on the bikes. They already made a 135 rear hub, so might as well use it.
We did not make a 135mm rear hub, so when starting from scratch, it made sense to use front disc spacing, as was/is the Paul WHUB, who did the first one for Jeff Jones.
As tire and rim widths increase, there are bound to be incompatibilities. I prefer 4" tires over any of the bigger offerings for 98% of the riding we do, but realize that conditions vary, as does rider weight. For that reason, along with many requests, we have a new hub width we'll be testing shortly, and that is 190mm. The hub width is chain line based to run the big meats and rims. It has nothing to do with being proprietary. Pugs-17.5 offset. Moonlander 28mm offset. Difference of 10.5mm leads to the 190mm hub to keep the same chain line.
There are good reasons for the two standards in front disc spacing. Surly gets the credit for doing a 135mm hub in front, which many of us didn't like initially, then we realized why it made sense after we put a 100mm fork on the bikes. They already made a 135 rear hub, so might as well use it.
We did not make a 135mm rear hub, so when starting from scratch, it made sense to use front disc spacing, as was/is the Paul WHUB, who did the first one for Jeff Jones.
That is awesome, I love hearing the envelopes being pushed and I am not harping on different standards more just trying to realize the limitations of the 170mm hub for 5" tire applications. I love hearing about this new 190 hub too as it does put you perfectly up to the same chain line as a Moonlander.
When is this frame going to hit the market? I would love to have something to look forward too
If Fatback is going to a 190mm standard and 9:zero:7 is going to a 186mm standard this begs the question...will the 186mm hub fit the 190mm frame? (a la sandman's declaration that their 165mm hub fits 170mm frames? I would bet that whichever larger spacing a bigger manufacturer (Salsa, Surly, etc..) adopts it's gonna spell trouble for the other guy.
For both their sakes, I wish 907 and fatback would get on the same page as I can't see both surviving in the niche market once bigger players come to town.
Smthgfshy, I have a 165 Ti Fatback and a 165 Alu Fatback (I had them bend it in so I could swap wheels) Then my son got a 170 Mukluk. I can easily swap wheels between all three so 186 to 190 will not be a problem.
Yep- generally, dropout spacing tolerance on mass-produced frames seems to be about 5mm, so I doubt there will be any problem swapping from one to the other.
I guess they are slowly trickling in and I called and bought a set they had rolling in, I simply cant wait must build monster bike asap so I am going custom frame route with a 190mm rear end
So... If I decide to get a 186mm 907 frame I can put a 190mm Hadley hub in it??
AWESOME.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
15.4M posts
515.2K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!