Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: 170mm v 190mm

  1. #1
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    735

    170mm v 190mm

    Which is better? It looks like the main difference is 190's ability to fit the Lou tire. Is that good enough for a whole new size? Any thoughts?
    --Peace

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: venom550pm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    25
    Just ordered a 190......

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,549
    190, Mine is on it's way!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    372
    I think 190mm is the future regardless of choosing to run 4 or 5 inch tires, why shortchange your purchasing decision if you ever get to urge to run 5 inch tires.

  5. #5
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,529
    I flipped my 170mm frame before I attached a single part to it. My 190mm frame is on it's way.
    I like turtles

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    I've got a 165 Ti Fatback and I'm not buying anything till the dust settles
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    302
    As I was choosing my first fatty - it seemed a no brainer to go 190 since I want to play in the snow and have as many wheel size options as possible. Waiting on a 9zero7

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tincup69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    420
    My next fatbike will be 190mm.
    2015 Specialized Fatboy Comp
    2014 Trek Fuel EX8
    Wanting a Cross Bike.
    http://tincup69.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    749
    Seems like it's going to be 135/135 or 135/190 from here on out.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    162
    190 on the way. 9 zero 7

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    933
    Sold my 170mm to buy a 190mm.
    The LPG

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    681

    Fat and Fatter

    I like both 170 and 190. 190 for maximum float and 170 for maximum speed. Were I live there are lots of rock's, root's and off camber section on the trails and the wider bb and rear end of a 190 bike is a handicap for three season riding.

    Steven

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    I like both 170 and 190. 190 for maximum float and 170 for maximum speed. Were I live there are lots of rock's, root's and off camber section on the trails and the wider bb and rear end of a 190 bike is a handicap for three season riding.

    Steven
    You think? It's only 20mm difference in the rear.
    The LPG

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    ...Isn't the C-BG 142/190?

    edit- from 2014 Beargrease XX1 | Bikes | Salsa Cycles
    "142mm Fork Spacing
    Equivalent to 135mm front spacing, but with convenient hub catches that make wheel removal/installation easier"

    ...not quite sure what that "Equivalent" means, but I'm guessing the two are not interchangeable...
    Last edited by damnitman; 09-19-2013 at 12:43 AM.
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    259
    190 is rapidly becoming the new industry standard. We've got 350g 190mm hubs in the works now, so all our models, possibly including the new 24'' models will be 190mm for MY14.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes
    Our fatbike videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    681
    I know, it is only 10mm per side but in my experience it can be a problem. Traveling at speed on a narrow rock strewn off camber trail on the side of a steep hill, one pedal strike could send you careening down the hill in the wrong direction.

    Put the pedal in the down position, lean the bike over on flat ground and look at the lean angle were the pedal strikes the ground, then do the same thing with the bike in a 4" deep single-track groove. The grooves are between 8" and 12" wide and that puts your pedal near the top of the berm. I was able to knock 10mm off the total Q factor on my second bike and it made a noticeable difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    You think? It's only 20mm difference in the rear.

  17. #17
    addicted to chunk
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,016
    170mm v 190mm-img_20130823_123004_983.jpg

    What about traveling with the fatty??.....(I'm talking flying or shipping in a hard shell case).

    My 135 9zero7 fits quite snugly into a thule hard shell travel case with RD rear, ML front, lefty etc.

    Not sure a 190mm wide frame would fit ??....might have to rearrange the case who knows.
    Riding.....

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,757
    how does the chainline measure up? do you have to run an offset crank in order to get the best from the 190mm? does that matter? (im sure some googling would inform me...!)

  19. #19
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Im 170mm, run buds front and rear, they are massive for what i do. Love them on singletrack though could run 3.7/4" quite easily... im with the dust settling comment but i get itchy feet. Wont be getting rid of this one anytime soon but would definately be a 190mm if i did.

    I have often used the word's "future proofing" but there is no standards anymore, there is no proofing (is there a future) ... its like getting a bigger TV "just because we can"

    I wouldnt get rid of a 170mm frame for a 190mm but if you are buying and have a choice right now, go 190mm.... just because you can.
    Ti O'Beast
    Indy Fab
    One9
    Dirty Disco CX

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,549
    At this point in (FAT), time I believe we are in the middle of the fastest changing segment of biking! Don't purchase any thing yet if you have to have the latest, greatest unless you have very deep pockets because you will be changing bikes a couple times a year.

  21. #21
    Raymond Donald Franklin
    Reputation: Katz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,406
    I'm perfectly content with 170mm, so long as I'll be able to purchase decent hubs for the next few years.

    Maybe I'm just not as passionate about bikes as many of you are. I love riding but it's still a hobby to me, and not inclined to spend money to keep up with the latest trend and standards.

    Not suggesting that's wrong (your money, you decide how you spend it), it's just not my thing. I guess I'm the same way with everything else - I still drive a 22-year old car, got a flip-up phone, 26" AM and DJ bikes, etc. Maybe I'm just a retro grouch in the making

  22. #22
    addicted to chunk
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Katz View Post
    Maybe I'm just not as passionate about bikes as many of you are. I love riding but it's still a hobby to me, and not inclined to spend money to keep up with the latest trend and standards.
    It's not passion...it's addiction haha
    I agree though, gotta have $$ if you want to keep up with the latest & greatest, and you will be buying new crap every year.
    Riding.....

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,757
    so in doing some googling: chainline on a 100mm bb fatty at front is ~65/66mm? a 190mm rear chainline will be ~75mm? where as a 170mm rear will be ~65mm,,ie: better shifting if you are not using an offset crank/chainring

    so - i reckon there is space for both 170 and 190 rears, depending on whether you need the clearance for the 5"ers on 100m rims or not...

    :-)~

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    74
    I was shopping for fat bikes early this year (February-April). Which at the time I was reading about 190mm bikes to released later this year, or early in '14. So now my dilemma was 135, 170, or wait for 190... Then I learned about IGH. It was something I really wanted to try and with fat bikes rapidly evolving I didn't want to buy the latest and greatest when the 135's seem to do most of what people want, plus they get the option of IGH. I figured I still have many uses for my current fat bike even if it doesn't have enough flotation for some of my outings.

    If I find I need wider wheels and tires for snow and I find myself riding frequently in the snow, then I could justify buying a 190 (or bigger if available by then). To me 190 is an upgraded 170, but I don't think the 135's will be replaced (at least I hope not!).

    So I think if a person does not have a fat bike and did not want/need IGH, then 190 is the way to go. If somebody already has a 170, probably not worth getting rid of the bike just to get a 190.

  25. #25
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    so in doing some googling: chainline on a 100mm bb fatty at front is ~65/66mm? a 190mm rear chainline will be ~75mm? where as a 170mm rear will be ~65mm,,ie: better shifting if you are not using an offset crank/chainring

    so - i reckon there is space for both 170 and 190 rears, depending on whether you need the clearance for the 5"ers on 100m rims or not...

    :-)~
    I couldn't agree more, dRjOn. I feel that there is definitely room for both 170mm and 190mm. I really hope that 170mm is not phased out. I've been riding my Fatback year round. In the summer I'm using 47mm Schlick rims. They've been great thus far. I love riding technical trails with 3.8's on 47mm rims. I feel that 4.8s on 100mm rims would be overkill in the summer in my neck of the woods.

    Where I live in VA, I feel that 70-90mm rims are more than adequate in the winter. If I lived somewhere that sees a very long winter with huge amounts of snow, then I would see more of a need for the larger tires.

    Shoo, I've gotta back-up what you stated about wider sometimes being somewhat of a handicap. Even with my 170mm rear end, I've found numerous rock moves that are impossible due to having a wider stance/q-factor. I would think this problem would be potentially exacerbated by having an even wider rear end.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 190mm hubs?
    By lancelot in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-07-2014, 09:02 PM
  2. 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
    By JYB in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 10:09 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 07:16 AM
  4. 190mm 907 August
    By Natedeezy in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 02:09 PM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-20-2013, 06:16 PM

Posting Permissions

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