Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    125

    170 or 190mm rear for my first Fat B?

    Hi
    Im going to get a fat bike for a daily commuter and weekly winter trail bike. The commute is short, under 3km but really steep. This will be my first fatty. Should i get a 190mm rear end such as the new 9 0 7s or go for a 170mm such as the Mukluk or an older 9 0 7. Are the 80mm rims with 3.8" tires best choice for a commuter & snow trail rider?. So if that is the case should i even bother paying extra for the 190mm 907? (my LBS has an old stock 907 170mm)
    I have no fatty experience so im struggling to figure out which way to go. 190 or 170mm?
    9 0 7 or Mukluk?
    the slacker head angles of the salsa makes it appealing to me but i love the looks of the 907. is 5" tire too big for a daily commute with a wicked 2km steep climb?
    cheers lev

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    331
    It depends on you much float you want and what your commute will be like day to day.....

    With a 3.8 tire it will be a bit quicker on tarmac and normal gravel but then the 4.8 tire will be much better on softer snow and soft beach. The advantage of going for the 190mm 9:zero:7 is that you can fit all sizes for tire, so if you need maximum float you only need to change the tires and thats that.

    I have a 170mm 9:zero:7 myself and am thinking to sell my cannondale and buy a second set of wheels for the summer, 1 bike multiple uses.

    The advantage of going 170mm is you might be able to haggle the price down if its a 2013 model and still do the majority of things, as Coastkid often says 4.8 tires are mission specific.

    The other thing to consider is the rims, marge lite (65mm) Rolling Daryll (80mm) or Clown Shoes (100mm and you need the 190mm).........

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    86
    A Mukluk with a set of On-One fat 29er wheels would do the job, use your fat tyres for fun and the 29er set for commuting, they are well priced and mine so far have been trouble free. That or any 135 front and 170 rear fatbike would be as universal, for me a 4" tyre is enough tyre, I don't have the need for 4.8"s like some of the other guys and gals on here, not that there is anything wrong with more fat.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by crazyjose View Post
    A Mukluk with a set of On-One fat 29er wheels would do the job, use your fat tyres for fun and the 29er set for commuting, they are well priced and mine so far have been trouble free. That or any 135 front and 170 rear fatbike would be as universal, for me a 4" tyre is enough tyre, I don't have the need for 4.8"s like some of the other guys and gals on here, not that there is anything wrong with more fat.
    I'm looking at the On-One website now and I only see 26" 70mm fat wheels, is that what you are talking about?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    50
    Never mind crazyj, I found them.
    Really good prices!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,324
    The only problem going with 170 is some day you may want to run 100mm rims and 4.8 tires and you wont be able to. Like Flying_Scots said (1 bike multiple uses.).

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    50
    I've got holy rolling darryls now.
    I'm looking for a skinnier wheel for dirt. I'm just thinking they may be too wide and heavy.
    I was looking for 44mm snowcats originally. Want to run a 3.8 knard or maybe even a bit smaller.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Instead of just creating a new thread, maybe do some research first.

    170mm v 190mm

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    125
    thanks for the advice. it does sound like 190mm is most versatile but running 80mm rims with 4" tires to start. where i live we get lots of deep snow but i will be riding on packed trails and snow mobil tracks on logging road, my commute will have everything. snow, ice, slush and pavement. i live at the top of a steep snowy hill side, the town and my work is in the lower and relatively snow free valley bottom.

    so, can i fit 4" tires on a 80mm rim ? is it worth doing that? what about 4" tires on a 100mm rim.

    cheers for your advice? now just deciding between mukluk or 907.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    331
    I would go 80mm rims, 3.8 tires would fit on 100mm but a little stretched. 4.8 would fit on 80mm rims however with not much difference.

    I know of one chap who has fitted 4.8's to 65mm marge lite's.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by kpw2011 View Post
    thanks for the advice. it does sound like 190mm is most versatile but running 80mm rims with 4" tires to start. where i live we get lots of deep snow but i will be riding on packed trails and snow mobil tracks on logging road, my commute will have everything. snow, ice, slush and pavement. i live at the top of a steep snowy hill side, the town and my work is in the lower and relatively snow free valley bottom.

    so, can i fit 4" tires on a 80mm rim ? is it worth doing that? what about 4" tires on a 100mm rim.

    cheers for your advice? now just deciding between mukluk or 907.
    Check the picture of my wife's bike in the daily fat bike picture thread. She is on her 9-0-7 170 frame with Nates (4"), and 100mm Clownshoe rims, tubeless. No problem. Plenty of clearance but you wont be able to go any bigger.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,161
    You will be fine on a 170, especially the Mukluk, because it can take both 4.8 and 29+ 3.0 tires on the rear.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    You will be fine on a 170, especially the Mukluk, because it can take both 4.8 and 29+ 3.0 tires on the rear.
    So the Mukluk can take a 4.8 tire on the the rear? is that with a 80 or 100mm rim?

Similar Threads

  1. 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
    By JYB in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 10:09 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 07:16 AM
  3. 9:zero:7 190mm
    By Tusj in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 07:04 AM
  4. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 09:44 PM
  5. Q-factor with 170 and 190mm rear ends
    By JYB in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-25-2013, 05:14 AM

Posting Permissions

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