135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
So what are people's opinions on all the different rear spacing "standards"? After riding my Fatback, almost exclusively, on every type of terrain for a bit over a year, I'm still in love. I hope that the 170 rear doesn't disappear. My main riding is on technical East coast rockiness. 3.8 and 4.0 tires seem to work great. Not once have I wished for a larger tire. In fact, I've been experimenting with narrower rims with fantastic results on singletrack.
I will say that I have not ridden the fattest of the fat tires, so I'm not qualified to comment on their breadth of application. They seem like they'd totally make sense on beaches, in the desert, or in areas that get tons of snow. For ripping singletrack, bikepacking, and actually riding extended stretches of pavement to get to the trailhead, I feel that 3.8s and 4.0s cover me just fine. I guess that I'm saying I hope that 170 doesn't disappear.
On a different note, the 135mm offset rear makes sense too. Especially when you like to have "swappable" wheels.
I'm just thinking out loud, but I hope that all these standards stick around. It's cool to have options. I don't think that any one option is the best. They all seem to have their merits. I kind of see the current options of fat bike rear end spacing in a similar light as 26" vs 27.5" vs 29" wheel size. They all have their pros and cons. Ride what you like. I just don't want one option to replace the others. I like choices.
135 will always have a place for IGH and swappability.
190 is better for bigger tyres.
What advantage does 170 have? A bit lighter than 190?
More heel clearance?
Originally Posted by druidh
190 frames may require the wider Q factor of moonlander cranks but Im sure some will support the standard 100mm cranksets.
Backwards compatibility. I think its possible/likely that new frame designs will be 190mm or 135 offset. But 170 hubs will be built for a while because of the number of bikes currently using that "standard". However with "S" jumping on 190mm I'm guessing that 170 will remain a small boutique product only while 190 will be where the growth is.
Rooting for 170
So we just had our own carbon fat bike mould made...paid a ton of $$$$ and I decided to go with the 170 rear end as this will hopefully be a super light fat bike for year round riding, so I wanted it as light as possible with the most narrow Q factor possible. I have ridden a lot of fat bike here in MN and have never felt you need the 5" tires.....I think the 5" tires are good for a very specific set of conditions, namely between 3.5" and 6" of fresh powder, so if you are really into long distance overnight bike camping rides and races maybe the 5" tire bike would be good, but I think overkill for 95% of the time....I would rather go fast on the dirt and snow on the 4" tires.
Originally Posted by CBBaron
Re: 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
190 will be the standard for most according to reps.
I personally like 135 offset because parts are cheaper and plentiful. Can still run a 4.8 tire too.
I'm thinking of running a 135 front wheel with a rear hub/cassette, so if the actual rear hub gives in to high torque, I can just swap the front wheel to the rear and keep on truckin.
Has anyone run 29er wheels on a 135 fat bike?
RE: 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
Re: 29 rims on 135mm I think the offset is a problem?
Sent from my Lumia 920 using Board Express
Originally Posted by AC/BC
I've done it; it's more an issue of cognitive dissonance than anything. It seemed to handle just fine.
Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg
By tscheezy in forum Fat bikes
Last Post: 09-16-2013, 10:44 PM
By yxan in forum Fat bikes
Last Post: 03-20-2013, 07:16 PM
By BjornS in forum Fat bikes
Last Post: 12-29-2012, 11:18 AM
By AC/BC in forum Fat bikes
Last Post: 04-24-2012, 07:40 AM
By tscheezy in forum Alaska
Last Post: 03-04-2012, 03:38 PM