Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 79

Thread: 170mm v 190mm

  1. #1
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,136

    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
    26
    Just ordered a 190......

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    190, Mine is on it's way!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    393
    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
    7,621
    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
    1,290
    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
    362
    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
    492
    My next fatbike will be 190mm.
    2016 Trek Farley 7
    2015 Specialized Fatboy Comp
    2014 Trek Fuel EX8
    2015 GT Grade 105

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    918
    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
    182
    190 on the way. 9 zero 7

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    992
    Sold my 170mm to buy a 190mm.
    The LPG

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    960

    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
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    992
    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
    1,290
    ...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 01:43 AM.
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  15. #15
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    535
    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 (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    960
    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.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  17. #17
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,842
    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.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,149
    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
    4,074
    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.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    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
    Ho'lier than thou
    Reputation: Katz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,706
    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
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,842
    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.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,149
    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
    122
    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
    213
    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.

  26. #26
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    I'm also curious about the potential for "heel strikes" on a 190 frame. I've read in a few places that some riders don't care for the 190 frames because they tend to hit their heels on the rear of the frame when wearing boots in the winter. I would love for someone with loads of time on both 170 and 190 frames to comment about this topic. Maybe it's BS, maybe not...

    I've gotta say that all the new 190 frames have peaked my interest. I'm just happy right now with my 170, and I'm not convinced that I need a 190...yet.

  27. #27
    Ho'lier than thou
    Reputation: Katz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,706
    How about 180mm? It would be the best of both worlds, just like 27.5" wheels are!!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,149
    the other fly in the ointment for the super fatties is weight, i suppose. the 5" and 100mm rims (if they arent carbon... ) must weigh a good bit more than the 4" on say a 65mm...

    for rough/rock/no major sand/deep snow applications the 'compromise point' i suspect favors the smaller tyre, hence no NEED for the 190....if you're doing sand/deep fluffy snow, the compromise might well go the other way....

    i doubt 170mm will go away, esp as there are probably quite a few existing 170 frames out there, and the hubs are currently in production from lots of manufacturers...

  29. #29
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,074
    Quote Originally Posted by JYB View Post
    I'm also curious about the potential for "heel strikes" on a 190 frame.
    I don't have big calves at all but i rub my calves on the seat stays as it is. 10mm is negligible... can't see it being too much more of a problem but is not going to get any better.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,054
    170 is not going anywhere. The prophecy is coming true, the Fatbike genre will separate into factions, the fat snow bike, and the fat trail bike.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  31. #31
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    the other fly in the ointment for the super fatties is weight, i suppose. the 5" and 100mm rims (if they arent carbon... ) must weigh a good bit more than the 4" on say a 65mm...

    for rough/rock/no major sand/deep snow applications the 'compromise point' i suspect favors the smaller tyre, hence no NEED for the 190....if you're doing sand/deep fluffy snow, the compromise might well go the other way....

    i doubt 170mm will go away, esp as there are probably quite a few existing 170 frames out there, and the hubs are currently in production from lots of manufacturers...
    Agreed! There's no way that I would have wanted to lug around 4.8s on 100mm rims in the 100miler I did a couple weeks ago.

  32. #32
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,136
    Okay, so I am thinking of having a custom frame made with 170mm spacing but the width and length for a Lou. I'd lose some gears in the rear when I had that Lou mounted, but I'd have great flexibility. I could keep my 4 existing wheel sets and also fit a Lou for when the snow was really flying. Thoughts?
    --Peace

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    just build an off-set the frame with 15-20 mm...you may need to rebuild your wheelsets, but at least you'd only be in that for the cost of spokes, nipples and the build...way cheaper than new hubs too...you might be able to do the majority of the wheel work yourself and just pay Zane to true them...he did a great job on a hub swap for me last week...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    992
    How many people have really put any real ride time in on a 190? 907's are not out yet. Fatboy's are not out yet. Borealis has just started shipping the Yampa. Not sure about the status of Fatback?
    The LPG

  35. #35
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    just build an off-set the frame with 15-20 mm...you may need to rebuild your wheelsets, but at least you'd only be in that for the cost of spokes, nipples and the build...way cheaper than new hubs too...you might be able to do the majority of the wheel work yourself and just pay Zane to true them...he did a great job on a hub swap for me last week...
    I think the offset would be 10mm to equal 190mm symmetrical. But here is a thought--I could go with 5mm offset, which would almost surely not require a re-lace (just bit of tightening of the spokes on one side while loosening the other) and would likely allow me to use all but maybe one gear on a standard cassette. It would also probably allow me to use a Bob trailer which I enjoy using sometimes in the summer. (Bob's don't work with Pugs and Moonlanders due to the highly offset wheel hitting the non-offset BOB frame.) And there'd be less likelihood of heal strikes than with a full 10mm offset.

    Successful design is choosing the best compromise.
    --Peace

  36. #36
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,699
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    How many people have really put any real ride time in on a 190? 907's are not out yet. Fatboy's are not out yet. Borealis has just started shipping the Yampa. Not sure about the status of Fatback?
    Fatbacks 190mm frames where raced last winter and they have been available for a couple of weeks now. Must not be a lot of takers yet, maybe people are just waiting for the dust to settle.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    ...yeah, you could probably get it done with 10...I think Wildfire used 12mm(?),maybe 13.5(?)...also, FWIW, BOB will work with the Pugs, apparently you have to tweak the yoke to account for the offset...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  38. #38
    i don't give a shift
    Reputation: collideous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    I don't have big calves at all but i rub my calves on the seat stays as it is. 10mm is negligible... can't see it being too much more of a problem but is not going to get any better.
    Unless Q-factor or BB width grow by the same amount, 190mm will definitely put limits on how short chain stays can be designed. On my fatty with shortish 420mm stays, 10mm is about the clearance I got.

    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Cebedo, MTBR
    Weaknesses: The rear end is quite wide and we hit our heel on seatstay sometimes.
    That on test rides wearing summer shoes back in July.
    blogging @29in.CH

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    992
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Fatbacks 190mm frames where raced last winter and they have been available for a couple of weeks now. Must not be a lot of takers yet, maybe people are just waiting for the dust to settle.
    Fatback just doesn't seem to really push their product or at least the Alu 190 frames. Really surprised that if they have been out for awhile we haven't seen any new build threads or pics. Are they even making 170 frames anymore or just selling old stock?
    The LPG

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    41
    I'm happy with 170, could live with 135 too. Winter trails here are on scooters tracks and 4"wheel on 80mm rim's are more than enough. Not yet to find a spot to lack float on my Fatty..

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,573
    We need 190 rears for all those 5+" tires that are out at Interbike now In the meantime, '13 Mukluks and all Moonlanders can run BFL's and Bud/Lou with 2x9 or 2x10 no problem, so it is within the frame builders ability to make it work with a 170. It seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

  42. #42
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    535
    Depends on where you ride. Over here, we had 7 months of consecutive powder riding last winter, so our new rim is 103mm. We made the new studable Vee Snowshoe in 4.7'' in order to fit our Mk2 bikes (20mm offset and 135mm), otherwise, it would have been 5''+. We have tested 183mm symmetric prototypes, but that was just for fun, no need to have a custom standard. Our Mk3s will have 190mm symmetric frames as that will provide space for the next tire that we will make with Vee-Rubber. For powder, it is all about flotation, so what we are going to see is brands adapting standards depending on where the bulk of their bikes will be used. We are basically Scandinavia only, at least for now, we might export some of our upcoming sub $2400 model that will be in the 23-25lb range, depending on what rim we settle on. Plan was 25lbs with 103mm rims and clearance for 5.0+, but things are happening so fast in the rim world right now, so we might do a change.
    R&D Manager
    Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    960
    A good frame builder can build you a custom 170mm frame to take the biggest tires with zero offset if you do not mind loosing a few gears. The Fatback/FSA crank has a good q factor for clearing chain-stays that will clear Bud and Lou on Fatback 90mm rims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    Okay, so I am thinking of having a custom frame made with 170mm spacing but the width and length for a Lou. I'd lose some gears in the rear when I had that Lou mounted, but I'd have great flexibility. I could keep my 4 existing wheel sets and also fit a Lou for when the snow was really flying. Thoughts?
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  44. #44
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,699
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    We need 190 rears for all those 5+" tires that are out at Interbike now In the meantime, '13 Mukluks and all Moonlanders can run BFL's and Bud/Lou with 2x9 or 2x10 no problem, so it is within the frame builders ability to make it work with a 170. It seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
    I'm not a frame builder so this is just a guess, first take the ML out of the equation but any 170mm frame built properly and setting cs clearance aside should be able to use the same gear config for the exact same rim and tire combo. Chainstay and seatstay clearance should have no influence on how many gears one can run. It just strikes me funny when one person says they can run full gears on their Muk but another person says they can't do it with the same combo on their 907, it has to be other variances than the frame like the drivetrain, wheel dish, or it's not built straight. But like I said I'm not a frame builder so I could be completely wrong.

  45. #45
    Living the thug life.
    Reputation: Logantri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    793
    I can comment on heal strikes. I have been on the prototype 186mm frame from 9zero7 since last fall. I can report at no time have I had a heal strike. That includes riding with 45Nrth boots all winter and railing it all summer. This weekend will be my third 100+ mile race on the bike for the year. I have not needed the added tire clearance yet, but I could tell no difference between 170 and 190 on the trail. Mind you, it does give open up drivetrain options that are not possible with the big meats and 170 rears.

    As a side note, I have a chance to get insight on the thought process at times with 9zero7. They pushed hard to get a standard for the bigger hub size, so you can at least partially thank them that there is only the 170 and 190 hubs.
    I proudly ride for these guys.

    My blog.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Just curious if a 1x10/1x11 on a 170 frame allows the fattest rim/tire combo without chain/tire interference?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,034
    I don't know of anyone that has run a bud/Lou on cs on 170mm. I think on a red may be possible, but mud/snow clearance becomes an issue.

    If you don't ride in mud or snow, then you are barking up the wrong tree with regards to bud and Lou.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    960

    170mm v 190mm

    It would seem that way Bob but there is a little more to it. Not a frame builder here either but I have quite a bit of experience assembling bikes.

    The crank set bottom bracket combination affects chain-line quite a bit. It is easy to have a full ring or more difference from one brand to another. The FSA will clear a much bigger tire than the E13. If the bikes have the same crank set and bottom bracket combination then in theory they should fit the same but in reality they do not. Most mass produced bike frames can vary several mm's in many directions. You can assemble two identical frames with the same crank/ BB combination and the driveline can easily be 2 or 3 mm different. That is one of the reasons Bottom brackets come with spacers, so we can fine tune the chain line.

    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    I'm not a frame builder so this is just a guess, first take the ML out of the equation but any 170mm frame built properly and setting cs clearance aside should be able to use the same gear config for the exact same rim and tire combo. Chainstay and seatstay clearance should have no influence on how many gears one can run. It just strikes me funny when one person says they can run full gears on their Muk but another person says they can't do it with the same combo on their 907, it has to be other variances than the frame like the drivetrain, wheel dish, or it's not built straight. But like I said I'm not a frame builder so I could be completely wrong.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    992
    I was having slight chain rub running a BFL on my 170mm 907 with a 1x10 setup. It wasn't horrible until snow or mud built up on the tire at which point I couldn't use the largest couple gears out back. I was never a fan of the BFL so I started running Nates which helped but I still feel like I needed bigger tires since I mostly ride my fattie in snow and sand and I'm not the smallest guy on the trail. This is the main reason I sold it to go 190. I just want to run a Bud/Lou and have a bit of clearance in the frame and the chain. I personally feel fine with the Q-Factor on my fat bike and I dare to say that I wish my three other bikes had a wider Q similar to my fattie.
    The LPG

  50. #50
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    Thanks for the info Logantri!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 190mm hubs?
    By lancelot in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-07-2014, 10:02 PM
  2. 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
    By JYB in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 11:09 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 08:16 AM
  4. 190mm 907 August
    By Natedeezy in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 03:09 PM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-20-2013, 07:16 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
  •