Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 1434

Thread: 26x5.05 XXL

  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,131
    N
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    The D4 measured 3.85 on a 82mm. Here vs a D5 that measured 4.60'' on a CS 100mm:

    DAAAAAMMMMNNNN... That is a monster! After seeing this photo, I don't see that tire fitting in many current production frames, if any.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  2. #52
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    Add a 26x2.1 next to the 45nrth for the full spectrum of progression.
    Here vs. a Maxxis Ikon 29 2.2.
    (these are all pics that I took back in Norway. We are in Taiwan at the Taipei show right now, and the 2XL at the Vee booth was mounted on a 80mm.
    Will take the requested pics vs car/truck/Lou tires when back at the office next week

    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  3. #53
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,603
    WOW! I'm glad I like xc bc skiing, since I'm pretty sure that would still be faster/more fun in conditions that warrant this tire. Should save me some money. That thing is a monster.

  4. #54
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    The biggest Lezyne floor pump took 100 strokes to take this one from 0 to 20psi on the 103mm rim. For comparison, the 4.8 with the biggest casing (Jumbo Jim at 265mm bead to bead (this is 315mm)) took 65 strokes. In other words, more than 53% more volume in this one.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    763
    I dont think it will fit my KX250

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,002
    I retract my previous statement. Can't handle that girth. I'm thinking they'll downsize this before it hits production. There is no market for it yet, so who will buy them? That, or make this the 3XL and put it on ice for a bit. Split the difference between this and an XL and you have a marketable product.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Have you actually tried it on any frame?

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,002
    I hope they made a 150mm bb/crank to go with it.

  9. #59
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    Have you actually tried it on any frame?
    I was able to get it into our alminum frame, but it would not turn, since the knobs overlapped with the SS and CS bridges.

    Will build a new frame that will take it (and keep 197 spacing and current 1x cranks (and around 76mm chainline) as well as current Q as well as the current 120mm BB shell.

    That is not doable with a 10/11s cassette, but there are now other options for getting 11 speeds and 197 spacing, though...
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  10. #60
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by AllMountin' View Post
    I retract my previous statement. Can't handle that girth. I'm thinking they'll downsize this before it hits production. There is no market for it yet, so who will buy them? That, or make this the 3XL and put it on ice for a bit. Split the difference between this and an XL and you have a marketable product.
    That was not a bad guess, and could easily have happened if I had not convinced them to keep this one. A new 11sp system will enable the use of this one with current BB/hub/Q standards.

    It might very well be renamed 3Xl and a 'tweener 2XL might show up too.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    I was able to get it into our alminum frame, but it would not turn, since the knobs overlapped with the SS and CS bridges.

    Will build a new frame that will take it (and keep 197 spacing and current 1x cranks (and around 76mm chainline) as well as current Q as well as the current 120mm BB shell.

    That is not doable with a 10/11s cassette, but there are now other options for getting 11 speeds and 197 spacing, though...
    Well if you're doing IGH, make sure that frame is belt compatible! :-)

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    973
    Looks like a nice tire. Hey they should call it XL plus.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    Add a 26x2.1 next to the 45nrth for the full spectrum of progression.

    I'm almost thinking it's getting silly now. That's a tall tire. IMO, diameter is pushing the limits more than width. Maybe the direction should be 24x5.05?
    I certainly agree with this. Develop a 24" version of the tire, keep the tire diameter similar to 29/29+, still utilize 26er fat wheelsets/ 29er wheelsets for different uses on one frame. It's easy enough to say, but I'm guessing theres more to it than that?

    Not complaining one bit though! Got the tire, the rest will follow! I'm certainly interested in seeing where this goes!

  14. #64
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    Quote Originally Posted by TrailCrawler View Post
    I certainly agree with this. Develop a 24" version of the tire, keep the tire diameter similar to 29/29+, still utilize 26er fat wheelsets/ 29er wheelsets for different uses on one frame. It's easy enough to say, but I'm guessing theres more to it than that?

    Not complaining one bit though! Got the tire, the rest will follow! I'm certainly interested in seeing where this goes!
    This makes sense^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  15. #65
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,603
    This thing is a prototype. It's main purpose is not to be a teaser for the general public. Vee Rubber and their main players have chosen to include the public, to a certain degree, in their prototyping process. This is really exciting and fun for us as the viewers, and I appreciate the risks Diamant/Nakamura/Espen/Vee Rubber/Wienmann are taking with this item. Pushing the limits is where it's at, and is why I have the loyalty to Fatback that I do. I'm watching with interest to see what this tire is capable of and thank the industry players for letting us watch the process.

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    HOLY DUCKING SHIT. I'm speechless. PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME THESE WILL FIT IN MY NEWLY PURCHASED MOONLANDER!!!!!!

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,088
    Think think people complain about long chainstays now...just wait until they see what the chainstay length on any bike that would fit this tire would be.


    Espen, I am very curious to understand why you always seem to over inflate tires and then post measurements. What you are doing is similar to what the EPA does for MPG.

  18. #68
    wjh
    wjh is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    148
    At some point, the negatives of larger tires will outweigh the benefits. That point may have been reached here. Those have got to be damn heavy

  19. #69
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh View Post
    At some point, the negatives of larger tires will outweigh the benefits. That point may have been reached here. Those have got to be damn heavy

    Not too heavy


    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    Hehe, the studded version was 1680g with 280 studs, so might go below 1590

    Now for rolling resistance...

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,337
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh View Post
    At some point, the negatives of larger tires will outweigh the benefits. That point may have been reached here. Those have got to be damn heavy
    Nup, I have places I could ride with that tyre. I suspect Norway has plenty of the same sort of terrain too.

    I think there's a case for 24" rims with very large section tyres - if only to keep the wheelbase within normal limits.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Nup, I have places I could ride with that tyre. I suspect Norway has plenty of the same sort of terrain too.

    I think there's a case for 24" rims with very large section tyres - if only to keep the wheelbase within normal limits.
    I'd be all over it. For me, rolling resistance is irrelevant on a snow tire at 2psi...

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    303
    PEOPLE!! Will they fit in a Moonlander? Does anyone know? *pouts*

  23. #73
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,940
    Quote Originally Posted by OfficerFriendly View Post
    PEOPLE!! Will they fit in a Moonlander? Does anyone know? *pouts*
    No, this is a whole new platform. Its doubtful that they will fit on any current frames.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Meriwether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    430
    Espen W -
    I know this is a lot to ask and may not be possible but...if you could post a few more tire dimensions I think we could better assess if it'll fit in current frames (which it likely won't), but I already have an order for a frame to fit this tire, if it actually goes to production.

    Stats that would be super helpful beyond tire diameter and max width on different rim widths would be:
    - radius to widest point casing and that width,
    - radius to widest point of tread with that width too.

    For me it's helpful to have the measurements of width and diameter at at least 10 psi to show the full extent of the tire.

    Thank you!



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  25. #75
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    There is no set rule for the pressure used for size rating, but 20psi is commonly used within the industry for fatbike tires.
    (35psi for 650b+)
    For example D4 and D5 are marked 4.0'' and 4.8'', so they must have been measured for width at higher pressure than 20psi by the factory, since I measured 3.85'' (on 82) and 4.58'' (on 100) at 20psi.


    However, I definitely do agree that the measurements at lower pressure, like 3.0psi is much more valuable for evaluating the potential footprint in loose snow, as that takes casing stretch and expansion from sloppy beads at higher pressures out of the equation.
    A tubeless ready tire will grow less at higher psi as the tighter beads will keep the tires from creeping up and out over the sidewall of the rim.

    At 3.0psi pressure, all on 103mm rims, except the D5, which was on a 100mm:
    ''2XL'': 5.45''
    Surly Lou: 4.59''
    Snowshoe XL: 4.72''
    Dillinger 5: 4.43''
    Jumbo Jim : 4.67''
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    No, this is a whole new platform. Its doubtful that they will fit on any current frames.
    Thanks for the reply, just saw that the tyre diameter is 32"!! I wonder how hard it would be to ride and jesus, I wonder what kind of frame would fit these tires. It would seem for the first time ever, Vee rubber is one step ahead of Surly haha

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bepperb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    195
    I seem to be the only one here that thinks the larger diameter is a benefit. I'm no amazing snow biker and I can ride a 4.8in tire until my progress is halted by the cranks/pedals digging into the snow, not necessarily the flotation or traction of the tire. That's unavoidable, no matter how wide of tires you have your progress will be more or less stopped when your pedals are digging through a few inches of snow. So a taller bike will be beneficial there, and to be blunt I don't see a market for these on hardpack trails so a longer wheelbase I wouldn't see as a big issue.

    I think the 24" is a good idea but to me a 5.5 inch wide tire should probably be a pretty tall tire too.

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    39
    Espen:

    Thanks for the look into what the future may hold.

    The biggest objection IMO, is with the overall diameter, seems like something in the neighborhood of 29 -30" would make the product more marketable. BTW, any guess what a weighted rolling diameter could be expected?

    130 - 145mm rim width in the works?

    Again, thanks for the peek into this process
    "Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway" John Wayne

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by bepperb View Post
    I seem to be the only one here that thinks the larger diameter is a benefit. I'm no amazing snow biker and I can ride a 4.8in tire until my progress is halted by the cranks/pedals digging into the snow, not necessarily the flotation or traction of the tire. That's unavoidable, no matter how wide of tires you have your progress will be more or less stopped when your pedals are digging through a few inches of snow. So a taller bike will be beneficial there, and to be blunt I don't see a market for these on hardpack trails so a longer wheelbase I wouldn't see as a big issue.

    I think the 24" is a good idea but to me a 5.5 inch wide tire should probably be a pretty tall tire too.
    It does not require a taller tire to raise the BB higher. That is more a function of frame design. As a more gravity challenged rider a wider tire is very welcome. The trails i ride tend to be lightly used mostly by pedestrians. Traction and float are always highly desired. Not a summer tire though. Curious to see how many current frames or forks could handle the girth.

    phat fingered from my phone

  30. #80
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,651
    I will totally make some big ol' frames for this @#$*er. Can't wait.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I will totally make some big ol' frames for this @#$*er. Can't wait.
    That must be really awesome to just want a frame and just be able to make one! I really wish I could make bike frames, I'd make some crazy stuff ;D You better show us what you come up with!

  32. #82
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,651
    Quote Originally Posted by OfficerFriendly View Post
    You better show us what you come up with!
    My life depends on it!

    HAHA

    ha

    haaaa....
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: worldskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    217
    Drew, just a little thought bubble, with the emergence of 'fat' 24" commercial tires (vee) I wonder if a pair 24x4" tires laced together put on a 100mm (cough carbon) rim might work with standard 190 fatty frame...

    Just a thought.
    Trust me, I have a beard and gray hair.

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    763
    HAHA

    ha

    haaaa....
    Said Genesis

  35. #85
    arc
    arc is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I will totally make some big ol' frames for this @#$*er. Can't wait.
    Call it the Nut Crusher. Deep soft snow and top tubes seem like a bad combination.

    How do you see frame geometry working out for a tire like this? Lots of bottom bracket drop to keep the center of gravity down and lengthen the chain-stays so the tire clears the seat-tube or high bottom bracket to keep the pedals out of the snow and a Knolly type seat-tube to keep the chain-stays short?

    What about the front end? Riding in deep snow is going to be slow. Steering response on that big of tire at low pressure will be slow too. An extra steep head angle would probably be best but then how do you deal with winter boots and toe overlap?

    It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out.

  36. #86
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,651
    Quote Originally Posted by arc View Post
    ...but then how do you deal with winter boots and toe overlap?
    My favorite among your questions is this one. As it pertains side-to-side as well. Some folks are already having Q trouble as is.

    Short answer is I don't know. I never saw this tire coming in any sort of quantity. I'm pleasantly shocked.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  37. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    My favorite among your questions is this one. As it pertains side-to-side as well. Some folks are already having Q trouble as is.

    Short answer is I don't know...
    The answer to that is a revision of how we pedal.

    With a non rotary motion our heels don't have to intrude past the back of the BB which allows lots more room for tyre. The thin wire drive also can be diverted around the tyre with a pulley, so that removes the tyre width restrictions.

    This is a pic of my Alenax, and you can see the basic principle here. It is a bit awkward to get used to it, but no harder than learning fixed. Once I mastered it, I was able to leave my sons in the dust riding this on a mtb course while they were on quality 29ers. The basic principle works ok, there's lots of improvements I would make though.

    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by arc View Post
    but then how do you deal with winter boots and toe overlap
    The lower the BB is to the axle height, the more clearance you get. Shorter cranks will also give you a smidgen more.

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    The lower the BB is to the axle height, the more clearance you get. Shorter cranks will also give you a smidgen more.
    With an Alenax system, it would be possible to adjust the operating arc of the pedals to change the height depending on conditions.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  40. #90
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by SADDLE TRAMP View Post
    Espen:

    Thanks for the look into what the future may hold.

    The biggest objection IMO, is with the overall diameter, seems like something in the neighborhood of 29 -30" would make the product more marketable. BTW, any guess what a weighted rolling diameter could be expected?

    130 - 145mm rim width in the works?

    Again, thanks for the peek into this process
    Surly Bud/Lou are around 31'' overall diameter, so 32'' isn't that dramatically much bigger.
    We discussed 110mm rims with Alex Rims (they make the Surly rims, etc) last year, and they wanted to do it, but at that time, we didn't have the new drivetrain ready, so a 4.8 on a 110mm would cause rubbing issues with 190 spacing and a regular 11 speed cassette setup.
    The new ''5.5'' has a nice profile (I prefer flattish for a powder tire) on the current 103 rims, and will have that on the new tubeless ready 100s as well.
    It retains a pretty nice powder profile even on 80s.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  41. #91
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    The answer to that is a revision of how we pedal.

    With a non rotary motion our heels don't have to intrude past the back of the BB which allows lots more room for tyre. The thin wire drive also can be diverted around the tyre with a pulley, so that removes the tyre width restrictions.

    This is a pic of my Alenax, and you can see the basic principle here. It is a bit awkward to get used to it, but no harder than learning fixed. Once I mastered it, I was able to leave my sons in the dust riding this on a mtb course while they were on quality 29ers. The basic principle works ok, there's lots of improvements I would make though.

    I'll consider it if you want to transmogrify it with a Whyte PRST-1 =D
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  42. #92
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by joeduda View Post
    how about the same pic next to a lou?



    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  43. #93
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    95
    Sad thing is is that the sidewall casing will still extend beyond the knobs like the current slowshoe offerings. No bueno.

    knard.

  44. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    315
    That wont be fitting on my Yampa anytime soon. And I thought my bud and lou were ridiculous! Thanks for the pic.

  45. #95
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    Holy tread pattern knock-off Batman! Don't they copyright tread patterns or something.

    In the world of engineering, if 2 different companies independently arrive at the same solution, you have to think that that solution is pretty strong.
    ...or that someone stole it.

    That's OK. Not only will we all need new frames and new forks, but we'll need new car racks, too. I'm all out of $$$ for now so I'll wait 'til it shows up at Wal-Mart.

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  46. #96
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,754
    People that think this is too big or too heavy should unsubscribe. There are heaps of smaller tires--pick one and go ride it.

    Bud/Lou on 100mm rims are better than everything that came before but still aren't big enough.

    29" (700c rim) x 6" is probably not too big either. Bring it.
    Handbuilt wheels: www.LaceMine29.com

  47. #97
    not FAT free
    Reputation: RFX big foot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    175
    ^^^^^^^^
    saint words !
    i want this tires
    no matter what !

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Meriwether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    430
    That looks way more than a 1" increase in diameter...
    I'm assuming you're not going to give more detailed measurements so I'll have to wait till it comes out

    The current drivetrain options are now the limiting factor not just the frame. Unless you run it single. Or set the rear der limit-screw to the cog before the chain hits the tire.

    Anyone's that has not been able to ride in deep pow knows that this will be a popular tire. What did our ancestors do on big pow days? Make bigger snowshoes!!

    [/QUOTE]





    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134
    Imagine pushing these monsters through untracked snow. You'd need the lactate threshold of a prime Lance Armstrong at the height of his PED abuse.

  50. #100
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,754
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Imagine pushing these monsters through untracked snow. You'd need the lactate threshold of a prime Lance Armstrong at the height of his PED abuse.
    No bike will ever be able to be ridden through truly untracked snow. But if there's a base of any sort, this tire under a capable rider will be more rideable than anything that came before.
    Handbuilt wheels: www.LaceMine29.com

Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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