Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1439

Thread: 26x5.05 XXL

  1. #101
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Meriwether View Post
    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!!





    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

    I measured the 2XL at right at 32'' myself, but the 30.8'' for the Surly comes from their tire geometry chart.

    Since what I have are prototypes, I'll wait for Vee to publish the specific measurements that you were requesting, as that will be more accurate vs. current offerings.
    Our 190 spacing (197mm IGH hub) test bike sits on LB carbon 90mm rims right now, and we were able to mount and ride the 2XLs. That frame was not made with this specific size in mind, but when it was designed, it was future proofed for somewhat bigger than 4.8''. It is perfectly rideable as is, but need slight tweaks in order to have enough room for a production bike on 100mm tubeless rims.
    The cog sits in the location that yields a perfect chainline with a crankset with approx 76mm chainline and clears the tire just fine.
    This was with the adjustable dropouts in the rearmost position, at 470mm (18.5'') chainstay length. These are adjustable between 445 an 470mm (17.5''), but we will add another 5mm of adjustability.
    In other words, the tire is now rideable in a frame with 18.5'' chainstays. That is just 3mm longer than what we (as well as Alaska guys like 907) use as standard.
    Shorten them down to 17.5'' for smaller tires if so inclined.
    The test bike sits on standard Race Face 1X cranks with approx 220mm Q factor.
    11 speed internal gearing that is in the late prototype stage and should be available to all bike makers by the end of the year. The drivetrain is not our own design, but has been developed by a local company, in cooperation with a very well known maker of bicycle components. We have provided some fatbike related input, as well as a guarantee for a certain order quantity, so we have exclusivity for the Norwegian market for a while, but it will be available to all foreign brands.

    Up front, there are many options to run these on 100mm rims.
    The Kinesis fork will accept it on a 103 (tested), and I'm fairly confident that the Surly ICT fork will accept it on a Clownshoe.
    Our new 150mm carbon fork allows it at any pressure on a 103mm rim, and I picked up another carbon fork at the Taipei show that also had it run rub free at 15psi or less, so likely plenty more out there.

    Having a huge front tire with more than 50% more air volume than a typical 4.8 will be great especially during spring time mountain climbing sessions when the crust might be rideable on the way up the mountain early in the day, but not so reliable on the way down, so a nice insurance against OTB.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    133
    Espen,

    You guys need to figure out how to sell your bikes in the North American market.

    Signed,
    A good portion of this forum

  3. #103
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    The answer to that is a revision of how we pedal.
    How the heck did one of those monstrosities escape it's vortex all the way to the other side of the pond?

    *Proudly* designed in my hometown. I have a roadie version of that hanging on the ceiling at the shop, wish I had an MTB one such as you have there to do the same with......

    On task, I love this tire, and the fact that I can mount one right on my Lefty, dish the wheel a smidge, trim a bit of travel, center the tire and go.

    Where do I sign up?
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  4. #104
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Where do I sign up?
    I would send a request to Vee USA, as the more requests they get and can forward to Vee Thailand, the greater the chance of this tire seeing production.
    My suggestion to them is to keep this as a 3XL at current size and then add a downscaled 2XL at a true 5.05ish.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    768
    Espen W for President
    2016
    Traction and rubbing for everyones.

  6. #106
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    I think I could get one to fit if I get my rockers to slide back about 3/8" further and run 80mm rims, maybe.?.?.?.?.?

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    426
    "(197mm IGH hub)...11 speed internal gearing that is in the late prototype stage..."

    Say whuuuuhhh??!
    This is way more intriguing to me than the freakshow tire...

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    343
    maybe they would squeeze into the Yampa, I volunteer to test it out if you can send me a pair....................

  9. #109
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,442
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    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.
    More width? Yes.

    But why does the diameter have to change? Can't they make the sidewall height the same and just increase the width? They could still maintain a rounded section.
    Heck, they could probably make the sidewall shorter.

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

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    More width? Yes.

    But why does the diameter have to change? Can't they make the sidewall height the same and just increase the width? They could still maintain a rounded section.
    Heck, they could probably make the sidewall shorter.

    -F
    I thought the same thing, but there isn't any rigidity (not sure it that's a word) to the sidewall like a car tire, I think the only way to get more width is to increase the entire width of the casing and when it inflates it will take the shape and be taller. My guess only. I'm sure someone will chime in with more than a guess.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    Since I am the constructor behind the frame, I think I can just verify that the monster fits in the prototype frame.

    ...and for all of you that have not seen this thing in the flesh, it's so darn BIG.

    Anyway, I have tested the bike today, it fits and this is definitely a new standard, and it's definitely cool!26x5.05 XXL-2xl.jpg

    Sorry for the crappy pic.


    Espen

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    So when do we get to see a pic of the whole darn bike!?!?!?!?


  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,555
    What are the knob heights? Looks far bigger than the current XL, right around Lou's.

  14. #114
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    197mm internal gear hub? Espen, whose arm did you twist?

    I really really like where this is going.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  15. #115
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    What are the knob heights? Looks far bigger than the current XL, right around Lou's.
    Yep, approx. 7mm center and transition knobs and 8mm side knobs.
    I have advised Vee to skip the studs on this first one, as the knobs would have to be beefed up vs the prototype, and that will add weight. Tall, fairly skinny knobs are not a good combination with studs.
    Then come out with a studded/studable version based on the same casing size, but with more XL like knobs, at a later date. Those provide a more stable foundation for the studs, and that is important in order to support the studs so that they bite into the surface, rather than the knob deflecting.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  16. #116
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    197mm internal gear hub? Espen, whose arm did you twist?

    I really really like where this is going.
    Local (Norwegian) company that we have been cooperating with for a while.
    Their drivetrain is the perfect match for this tire, as it enables current 190 frame spacing and current Q factor.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Meriwether View Post
    That looks way more than a 1" increase in diameter...



    Wow, my bud and lou make me feel so good about myself, but now I feel inadequate. I think I need to go see my therapist.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

  18. #118
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,025
    American-sized
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  19. #119
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    Quote Originally Posted by joeduda View Post
    maybe they would squeeze into the Yampa, I volunteer to test it out if you can send me a pair....................
    Unless they redesigned it this year or maybe on a 52mm rim it ain't happening.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    Local (Norwegian) company that we have been cooperating with for a while.
    Their drivetrain is the perfect match for this tire, as it enables current 190 frame spacing and current Q factor.
    Ohhh nice - how well does it work in the cold? Like sub -30c cold, if you get that in Norway.

  21. #121
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    This tire is awesome! However 32" is huge and pushing the limits of ideal compatible bike geometry, at least for how and where I ride. As cool as this tire is, a 24" rim version would make a lot more sense and be a better choice I believe. The width, sidewall height, and tire profile CAN all be kept the same with a 24" rim version. Advantages would be much lighter weight, shorter chainstay's, shorter wheelbase, more nimble handling, etc, etc. I've extensively ridden, tested, and compared fatbikes with 16.5" and 18" chainstay lengths. I can attest that there is no comparison, shorter is much better. IMO, going larger diameter with tires and longer chainstay is going the wrong direction, but nonetheless, it's awesome to have bigger options and I'm not complaining that they made this tire. I just hope they will realize that 24" makes a lot of sense for ultra fat tires this fat.

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    636
    Can't wait to see what these look like in production. I'd love to mount this on the front of my Vinson with a Bulldozer in back.

  23. #123
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by slowride454 View Post
    Can't wait to see what these look like in production. I'd love to mount this on the front of my Vinson with a Bulldozer in back.
    Yep, the fact that there are forks out there that will take these, even on 100mm rims means that Vee can sell it as an aftermarket tire from the get go. For them not having to wait for OEMs producing bikes that will enable its use front and rear should count towards starting mass production.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  24. #124
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    From a frame constraints perspective, I'm concerned some about front toe overlap for smaller riders. Whatevs, I have a radical plan for how to compensate.

    From a rolling diameter perspective, I'm not sure what to think! Is it possible that a large diameter / higher volume chamber at lower pressure could work out to a somewhat similar ride height?

    I agree that there should be multiple diameters to accommodate very not-tall people. Scale to your size. I can tell you in my neck of the woods there is a strong and growing presence of genetically short cultures.

    And some of them can haul ass, and get the same winter cabin fever that I do.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  25. #125
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    A 24'' version would reduce its flotation properties. The reason why 4.8s work so much better in the loose stuff than 4.0s (close to 31'' rolling diameter for 4.8 vs a typical 29'' diameter of 4.0s) is not just the casing width, but also the longer contact patch of a larger rolling diameter. (think normal 29 vs 26)

    (About chainstays:Adjustable chainstay length can allow the best of both worlds.
    It all depends on what snow conditions that you ride. Where I ride (often a very weak crust under powder) and for my riding style, the 467mm chainstay length of our current bikes is vastly superior to the shorter chainstays versions that we have tested. It is the difference between being able to stay above the crust and pedal vs. constantly breaking through with the rear wheel, impeding forward movement.
    I know that other very experienced fatbikers like Mike C has the opposite experience where he rides, in equally challenging snow conditions.
    Snow conditions vary greatly around the globe as well as locally.
    This is another discussion, however)
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  26. #126
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    Espen W, do you have the O.D. measurement of the Snowshoe XXL on a 100 mm rim at around 7-8 psi? I'm thinking I'm going to have to build a whole new frame to fit these tires, no big deal. While, i'd prefer a 24" version of this tire, a 32" o.d. tire can still fit a custom frame with 17" chainstay's which is still short enough in my eyes.

  27. #127
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    A 24'' version would reduce its flotation properties. The reason why 4.8s work so much better in the loose stuff than 4.0s (close to 31'' rolling diameter for 4.8 vs a typical 29'' diameter of 4.0s is not just the casing width, but also the longer contact patch of a larger rolling diameter. (think normal 29 vs 26)

    (About chainstays:Adjustable chainstay length can allow the best of both worlds.
    It all depends on what snow conditions that you ride. Where I ride (often a very weak crust under powder) and for my riding style, the 467mm chainstay length of our current bikes is vastly superior to the shorter chainstays versions that we have tested. It is the difference between being able to stay above the crust and pedal vs. constantly breaking through with the rear wheel, impeding forward movement.
    I know that other very experienced fatbikers like Mike C has the opposite experience where he rides, in equally challenging snow conditions.
    Snow conditions vary greatly around the globe as well as locally.
    This is another discussion, however)
    True. It all depends on riding style and conditions. For someone that just wants to sit statically in the saddle and pedal, longer chainstays will punch through less but I'm a dynamic rider and move around to put my body weight where I want it to suit the current obstacle/condition. I subscribe to Mikesee's philosophy of geometry. Ultimately, you have more control, available traction, and can ride more places and in more conditions with shorter chainstay's if you're willing to use body input. That's been my experience. If I feel I need a 460mm chainstay length over my 419 mm, in an instant I can just scoot forward 41mm on my saddle while riding. I do it all the time. But again, I realize that alot of people just want to sit and pedal.
    In the end no one bike geometry or tire size will work for everyone which is why I am in no way complaining about this tire or it's size. I'd just really like to see a 24" option as well. Floatation would be a little less, but it would still be way more than anything else out now, seeing that the o.d. of a 24" version would be 30" right in the ball park of a Bud or Lou. But i'm not coming from a mostly snow use perspective. For me, fat bikes are way more fun for exploring in places like Moab and Southern Utah in warm weather than snow riding.
    Anyway, I really appreciate your efforts in Tire R&D and think it's awesome that you are pushing for fat tires to get fatter.

  28. #128
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    I forgot to mention that while a larger diameter tire does increase the length of the contact patch, the flotation gained ratio inch for inch is much less than for increasing the width. Increasing the diameter 1.5" doesn't give anywhere near the amount of extra floatation that increasing the width 1" does. So losing 1-1.5" of diameter only effects floatation marginally compared to losing that same amount in width. I guess my point is, I feel a 24" rim 5.5" wide fat tire is a pretty awesome compromise for all around riding where extra floatation is desired but the benefits of less weight, and a more nimble, shorter bike are more important than the little bit extra floatation given from a larger diameter tire.
    Again, it all comes down to riding style and conditions. I'm just glad we are seeing the tire development we are!

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    Interesting to see this and read folks comments.

    aren't tyre moulds pretty expensive? This doesn't look like the sort of proto that isn't going into production- it's a pretty polished looking tyre!

  30. #130
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    197mm internal gear hub? Espen, whose arm did you twist?

    I really really like where this is going.
    Looks like Sturmey to me? Exclusive Photos - Supersized Vee Snowshoe 2XL ~ Fatbike Republic


    Or that's just a coaster brake....

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    That's not the IGH Espen W is talking about. I'll promise you that!

  32. #132
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    Interesting to see this and read folks comments.

    aren't tyre moulds pretty expensive? This doesn't look like the sort of proto that isn't going into production- it's a pretty polished looking tyre!
    I thought the answer was the same for this regarding the construction of molds for making carbon frames.

    The answer is "it depends". I'd hazard a guess that someone has figured out how to make molds that are sorta good enough for a few copies, see what happens kinda thing.

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

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    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.
    Vision

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    This tire/rim combo is probably maximum of what it is possible to run with todays widest crankset standards.

    Some think this already is too wide, and suffers from knee problems etc. so I would say we are close to max real life tire width now.

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen View Post
    ...so I would say we are close to max real life tire width now.
    Only if we retain current drive systems.

    Lever action drives would enable much wider tyres and allow narrower Q factors.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  36. #136
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    With a 120mm wide BB and standard cranks there is about 7.5" space from inside crank arm to crank arm. Your heels stay outside of the inside of the crank arm so the inside crank arm space is the limiting factor on how wide a tire can be run with a 120mm BB. Chainstay's and chain line can all be changed and moved to get out of the way. By running the chain to a cog high and directly above the chainring, running parallel with the seat tube, the chain line can be kept narrow and then spaced out from there down to the rear wheel. Chainstay's can be raised super high so they are out of the path of the crank arms.
    This would not be a conventional design, but it is possible and you could run up to 7" actual wide fat tires. It would have more power loss from extra gears, but that's ok for how a bike like this would be used.

  37. #137
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by N8R View Post
    With a 120mm wide BB and standard cranks there is about 7.5" space from inside crank arm to crank arm. Your heels stay outside of the inside of the crank arm so the inside crank arm space is the limiting factor on how wide a tire can be run with a 120mm BB. Chainstay's and chain line can all be changed and moved to get out of the way. By running the chain to a cog high and directly above the chainring, running parallel with the seat tube, the chain line can be kept narrow and then spaced out from there down to the rear wheel. Chainstay's can be raised super high so they are out of the path of the crank arms.
    This would not be a conventional design, but it is possible and you could run up to 7" actual wide fat tires. It would have more power loss from extra gears, but that's ok for how a bike like this would be used.
    ARGH @#$*ING THANK YOU

    Been working on this for several years now.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  38. #138
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    ARGH @#$*ING THANK YOU

    Been working on this for several years now.
    Haha, sorry, this design has been on my mind for quite a while too. Just haven't gotten around to building it and no tires exist that wide yet. My plans were to just double up two 4" tires on a single rim with a tube in each tire and drill two offset tube valve holes. That would be heavy with a crappy profile, but depending on rim width should give a dually tire about 7" wide. If you don't build it it's just a matter of time before someone does, or talks about building it. IGH is the way of the future for off trail fatbikes IMO

  39. #139
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by N8R View Post
    Haha, sorry, this design has been on my mind for quite a while too. Just haven't gotten around to building it and no tires exist that wide yet. My plans were to just double up two 4" tires on a single rim with a tube in each tire and drill two offset tube valve holes. If you don't build it it's just a matter of time before someone does, or talks about building it. IGH is the way of the future for off trail fatbikes IMO
    I want to go in two directions with it.

    One is to make things fat as possible. I thought I was going to be a loner on this one, I really am shocked by Espen's pics.

    The other, for summer use, is to optimize Q for 3.8" tire casings / for people who have knees that don't like fat tires.

    Turns out it's not as optimal as originally thought. That's why it is difficult / slow / undelivered, among other things. It's not as simple as making an elevated stay and calling it done.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    Ooooorrrr... No chainstays at all!

    26x5.05 XXL-elevatedstays.jpg

  41. #141
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    From a frame constraints perspective, I'm concerned some about front toe overlap for smaller riders. Whatevs, I have a radical plan for how to compensate.
    Oh you wouldn't go that far, would you? Amputating your toes???

    Not just smaller riders, larger riders tend to have larger feet so toe overlap affects us Clydes too. Especially when wearing size XXL Neos.

    Very interesting trend. Must be tough on manufacturers -- especially those making carbon frames -- trying to keep up with this. The latest and greatest frame designs become nearly obsolete after only a couple years.

  42. #142
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,025
    Finally, a reason to enable 52t rear cassettes with 20t chainrings.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    Or this? Would be easy to widen these stays as much as you wanted without interfering with the drivetrain/cranks...

    MPLS Bike Co Introduces the Full Carbon ? Murphy | FAT-BIKE.COM

    26x5.05 XXL-murphy.jpg

  44. #144
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I want to go in two directions with it.

    One is to make things fat as possible. I thought I was going to be a loner on this one, I really am shocked by Espen's pics.

    The other, for summer use, is to optimize Q for 3.8" tire casings / for people who have knees that don't like fat tires.

    Turns out it's not as optimal as originally thought. That's why it is difficult / slow / undelivered, among other things. It's not as simple as making an elevated stay and calling it done.
    Seem's like we're on the same page. I have a friend I'm trying to convince to get a fatbike but he complains about q factor.

    The chainstay would have to be really high and out of the way of the crank arm rotation path. Much higher than any of the previous raised chainstay designs of the past. It could still be triangulated for rigidity. As long as an IGH is used in the center hub, the one that's above the chainring, chain line will be static for all chains and clearance shouldn't be an issue.

    Anyway, sorry for getting this far off topic, but I think the point is 5.5" isn't anywhere near the max tire width that can be run with a 120mm wide BB if conventionality and maximum drivetrain efficiency for racing applications is taken out of the equation. For some applications, there's a huge payoff to sacrifice a little efficiency in one area to gain a vast amount in another one.

  45. #145
    N8R
    N8R is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    Ooooorrrr... No chainstays at all!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	elevatedstays.jpg 
Views:	278 
Size:	91.0 KB 
ID:	976123
    That's a similar design as I was referring to. Perhaps calling them raised chainstay's is not the best term

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    Looks like Sturmey to me? Exclusive Photos - Supersized Vee Snowshoe 2XL ~ Fatbike Republic


    Or that's just a coaster brake....
    Maybe a coaster brake - that hub doesn't look very wide..

    Listening to Roger Cowles talk about his ride to Nome back in the day on the six-pack with a Sturmey five speed made me more interested in internal geared hubs. Might be a good way to go, if it works in cold (like <-30c) weather..

  47. #147
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    Or this? Would be easy to widen these stays as much as you wanted without interfering with the drivetrain/cranks...

    MPLS Bike Co Introduces the Full Carbon ? Murphy | FAT-BIKE.COM

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	murphy.jpg 
Views:	357 
Size:	136.2 KB 
ID:	976127
    Blonde Fabrication

    I met with this guy to explore the feasibility of going into frame building full time as a job.

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

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Only if we retain current drive systems.

    Lever action drives would enable much wider tyres and allow narrower Q factors.

    My measures are made without a cassette. Look at the picture. Straight chain.

    I am talking about available crank sets, traditional frame design and reasonable chain stay length

    Of cource, if you can build a rear frame witout chainstays, you will get 1-2" of more space.



    E

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by N8R View Post
    Seem's like we're on the same page. I have a friend I'm trying to convince to get a fatbike but he complains about q factor.

    The chainstay would have to be really high and out of the way of the crank arm rotation path. Much higher than any of the previous raised chainstay designs of the past. It could still be triangulated for rigidity. As long as an IGH is used in the center hub, the one that's above the chainring, chain line will be static for all chains and clearance shouldn't be an issue.

    Anyway, sorry for getting this far off topic, but I think the point is 5.5" isn't anywhere near the max tire width that can be run with a 120mm wide BB if conventionality and maximum drivetrain efficiency for racing applications is taken out of the equation. For some applications, there's a huge payoff to sacrifice a little efficiency in one area to gain a vast amount in another one.
    The BB width is not that relevant. What it's all about is the inside measures between the crankarms.


    e

  50. #150
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Quote Originally Posted by spruceboy View Post
    Maybe a coaster brake - that hub doesn't look very wide..

    Listening to Roger Cowles talk about his ride to Nome back in the day on the six-pack with a Sturmey five speed made me more interested in internal geared hubs. Might be a good way to go, if it works in cold (like <-30c) weather..
    If someone comes out with a cold-capable 197 IGH, I would get it and build it up with 100's. I'm not so much hardcore ss as hardcore anti derailleur.

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    What would you consider as "cold compatible" ?


    Espen

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    16
    My Alfine 8 doesn't shift in the winter. -12 to -15C is enough to render it single speed.

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,421
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    ...I'm not so much hardcore ss as hardcore anti derailleur.
    That describes me too, and right now I have a dilemma.

    I've signed up for a road 400km (250miles) Audax in July. It will be a wee bit hilly. I've got 27 hours to complete it.

    On the same terrain I can comfortably do 200km in half the time, but it's a long time since I've done a 400km day, so in a moment of weakness I considered gears. However not even the thought of failure can induce me to consider a derailleur. Right now I'm looking for a Sturmey-Archer 3 speed - specifically the RS-RK3 with the rotary change.

    That gives me my normal gear, one for tailwinds, and one for when I'm knackered, but best of all it remains silent.

    I'll probably end up doing it SS though.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  54. #154
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Blonde Fabrication

    I met with this guy to explore the feasibility of going into frame building full time as a job.

    Nice dude.
    Interesting... but it's been done. This was early fat bike (aka Sand Bike) pioneer Ray Molina's approach way back in the late 90's so he could use a narrow bottom bracket and still get a decent gear spread and chainline.

    26x5.05 XXL-fatbike_number_one_1600.jpg

  55. #155
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen View Post
    What would you consider as "cold compatible" ?


    Espen
    Functions reliably down to -45c with the right lubricant.

  56. #156
    Team Captain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,326
    Every time I look at the new next awesome amazing mega cool chainstay technique for gaining more clearance on fat bikes, I can't help but wish they would just do away with the chainstays all together or get them up out of the way of where the business is happening.

  57. #157
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by ScaryJerry View Post
    Every time I look at the new next awesome amazing mega cool chainstay technique for gaining more clearance on fat bikes, I can't help but wish they would just do away with the chainstays all together or get them up out of the way of where the business is happening.
    I am screaming expletives over here.

    *sigh*

    I'm working on it.

    There's an expensive way to get it done: Effigear

    And there's the slightly less expensive way. I eat it. I sleep it. I breathe it. And the @#*$ing molds are cracking.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    Effigear will also suffer from crank/cs clearance.


    e

  59. #159
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen View Post
    Effigear will also suffer from crank/cs clearance.


    e
    At the moment, you're right. They also appear to be a forward thinking company merely by their product offering.

    I bet they'd be receptive to it.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  60. #160
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by N8R View Post
    Espen W, do you have the O.D. measurement of the Snowshoe XXL on a 100 mm rim at around 7-8 psi? I'm thinking I'm going to have to build a whole new frame to fit these tires, no big deal. While, i'd prefer a 24" version of this tire, a 32" o.d. tire can still fit a custom frame with 17" chainstay's which is still short enough in my eyes.
    Yep, on 103mm rims:
    At 8psi: 800mm (31.49'')

    For comparison, I measured a Lou at the same pressure on the same type of rim:
    At 8psi: 762mm (30.00'')
    At 20psi: 768mm (30.23'')

    I have seen plenty of references to 30.8'' for Lou, but I now see that Surly lists 759mm (29.9'')

    I got it mounted on my bike and made a quick vid with my HTC this morning, showing it vs JJ 4.8:
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

  61. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    ...and I have been riding the 2XL as a rear tire today.

    We got 30-40cm of snow yesterday, and today it's warmer, so the snow is pretty soggy.

    I am 210 Pounds, and it's actually possible to ride on this snow.
    The float is unbelievable!
    Extremely low pressure, and maybe to low for normal riding, but this tells me that this tire will make it possible to ride places and conditions where no other have been riding before.



    e

  62. #162
    frl
    frl is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    74
    You guys 2x Espen do a greate job. Make Fatbiking even more fun in the snow. One got rear 2xl and one got front 2xl. Why not try it on one bike? And who is going for the first ride? Flip a coin

  63. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Windigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    447
    What bike does this fit on the rear? Would be cool if it fit on a Blackborow.

  64. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Windigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    447
    Any chance this fits in a Bluto fork?

  65. #165
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Windigo View Post
    Any chance this fits in a Bluto fork?
    I'm guessing no, Bud has a hard time fitting tubeless width wise on 100mm rims and 29+ knards are almost too tall.

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    303
    Really appreciate all your posts here Espen(s), they've been super interesting to read, so thanks again (: I actually really kind of want to buy a Nakamura 5.6" fatbike, any chance of them coming to the uk? And I don't know if this has been said yet, but I'm guessing the hub is NuVinci? =D

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,421
    Quote Originally Posted by OfficerFriendly View Post
    Really appreciate all your posts here Espen(s), they've been super interesting to read, so thanks again (: I actually really kind of want to buy a Nakamura 5.6" fatbike, any chance of them coming to the uk? And I don't know if this has been said yet, but I'm guessing the hub is NuVinci? =D
    Good point.

    Or where do you have a dealer near a ferry terminal? Easy enough to nip across and pick one up, especially if it included some riding over there.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    A new 11sp system will enable the use of this one with current BB/hub/Q standards.
    What's this new system, if you don't mind me asking?

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    A new 11sp system will enable the use of this one with current BB/hub/Q standards.
    Internal gear hub? probably the only way to keep a good chainline imo.

  70. #170
    Hooligan
    Reputation: dirtdawg21892's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    935
    so, any more pictures of bikes with these baby's mounted up? particularly in the rear (cough*Espen*)
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    Hell of a jump, dawg. Even though they're baggy shorts, I'm surprised that you can fit your balls into them.

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    643
    So maybe I missed it, but what is the outlook on this as far as availability?

    I'm working on getting a frame that will accommodate this tire (and then some) and would like to know.

    Thanks!

  72. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    That describes me too, and right now I have a dilemma.

    I've signed up for a road 400km (250miles) Audax in July. It will be a wee bit hilly. I've got 27 hours to complete it.

    On the same terrain I can comfortably do 200km in half the time, but it's a long time since I've done a 400km day, so in a moment of weakness I considered gears. However not even the thought of failure can induce me to consider a derailleur. Right now I'm looking for a Sturmey-Archer 3 speed - specifically the RS-RK3 with the rotary change.

    That gives me my normal gear, one for tailwinds, and one for when I'm knackered, but best of all it remains silent.

    I'll probably end up doing it SS though.
    Velo, I get your abhorrence to the notion of a derailleur on your ramblings through the heather, but to rule one out categorically on a road ride seems silly. Derailleurs have taken people around the world for gosh'sakes.
    The older I get the better I was...

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    643
    Availability on these tires?

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    BUGGER!!! I just ordered a set of Snowshoe XL's for this winter... FML

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Windigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    447
    It says not available and they don't fit any current fat bikes, so why would you want them?

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    I guess I'm hoping/assuming that they would design the production version to fit the current 5" frame standards. All we've seen til now are pre-production prototypes.

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    400
    I assume they will fit many forks? No reason to bring a tire to market if no one will buy it.

  79. #179
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by fotooutdoors View Post
    I assume they will fit many forks? No reason to bring a tire to market if no one will buy it.
    Or....

    ...build it and they will come.

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,589
    ^^^ They'll arrive just in time for Surly to unveil its new mega fatty at i-bike.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  81. #181
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    I guess I'm hoping/assuming that they would design the production version to fit the current 5" frame standards. All we've seen til now are pre-production prototypes.
    That wouldn't make any sense. The snowshoe xl is as big as you can fit in current frames. Downsizing the xxl to fit in current frames would make it the same size as the xl.
    --Peace

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    The snowshoe xl is as big as you can fit in current frames. Downsizing the xxl to fit in current frames would make it the same size as the xl.
    Maybe. I'll mount mine up when I get them and see what kind of room they leave. My bike is *supposed* to fit a 5" tire, but most tires seem to run a little smaller than their claimed size... So maybe a 5.05 will only measure out to 4.8 or 4.9.

    I'll be interested in seeing what the actual production tire looks like.

  83. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Windigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    447
    Supposedly they measure 5.65

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by fotooutdoors View Post
    I assume they will fit many forks? No reason to bring a tire to market if no one will buy it.
    If you go back a page or two you'll find our forum friend Espen W and his Norwegian company Diamant & Nakamura bikes already have prototype tires from Vee and frames they've been working on since the tire was first viewed in Taipei back in March.

    Surely other companies are hiding in the weeds with forks/frames.



    BD already has a Ti, FS frame with 125mm rims on preorder. 1/2 the cost, 3x the fun. They ship it with a 100mm/4.5" disposable set of wheels/tires that'll last until these hit the market. If there is a delay in production or delivery of these tires they recommend you only ride the disposable ones in the sand once a week for a maximum of 2 miles and you must weigh 125lbs or less.

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    533
    I just built up a custom steel frame last year and won't be jumping on this bandwagon for the rear at least. When we get a suspension fork that will clear this size I will likely purchase one to put on. I just don't like the Vee rubber silica compound as it wears too quickly. I really want a tire with more volume than Bud/Lou but half the tread height that will fit in existing frames, more for riding dirt.

    -Nolan

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524
    i got one from J&B on the way. its going on my moonlander up front, but rest assured i will try it in the rear first.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  87. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    643
    Dammit. I have a frame that will fit this tire shipping out on Thursday. Not sure how to order form J&B, I'm assuming you need to be a dealer? I'd love to get my hands on one.

    In the meantime I have a Bud on order...

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    123
    I ordered one on Monday from JB. I should have it next Monday or Tuesday! I have two forks to try it on, Ice Cream Truck and Salsa Bearpaw 150. The anxiety is killing me! I hope it fits at least one of them!

  89. #189
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,230
    J+B is the new QBP.

    WTF? I called as soon as I saw they *had* them.

    Out till October or some such nonsense.

    Well, once ya'll get them and they don't fit anything, keep me in mind, I know it'll fit my Lefty!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,555
    Weights and bead to bead measurements before you mount them up.:-)

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524
    i will be putting it on my lander non offset fork tubeless :-O
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    643
    If anybody get's theirs and finds it doesn't fit, I'm a buyer if you PM me.

    Thanks.

  93. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    18
    @bighit, i'm curious - should you succedd into mounting them on a Moonie non-offset fork, please let me know - I have two SS2Xl ( that would become 22XL, or not?) sitting waiting fot the right bike to put on....

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    643
    Anyone got one and found out it won't fit yet?

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    123
    Sooooooooooo, I picked up mine today at the LBS. Fits the front of my Blackborow just fine. I was totally surprised to see it actually fit the rear of the Blackborow !! Chain clearance is TIGHT at 11 psi in the lowest gear (setup 1x10, not the original 2x10). Aired down to 3-5 psi, a little more clearance, and to be honest this is the tire pressure I will most likely ride at when I need this tire in the winter.

    Sorry guys, I do not own measuring callipers or a scale to measure width and weight of this tire. I measure the width of the tire with a tape measure and eyeballed it the best I could, I'm gonna say 5 1/4 inches wide on 100mm rim.

    Also, I have an Origin8 Crawler with a Surly Ice Cream Truck fork. This tire fits in the fork just fine, TONS of clearance!!

    Sorry guys, I'm not selling it !! My only regret is not buying two, JB is out of stock

    Hope this helps you guys!

    3psi
    26x5.05 XXL-img_20150803_200836.jpg

    11psi
    26x5.05 XXL-img_20150803_195850.jpg

    Salsa Fork Clearance
    26x5.05 XXL-img_20150803_190320.jpg
    26x5.05 XXL-img_20150803_200055.jpg

    Surly ICT fork clearance
    26x5.05 XXL-img_20150803_190859.jpg

  96. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501


    crazy! i'm sure there's a couple blackborrow owners who just perked up
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524
    im so psyched for mine.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  98. #198
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    The Snowshoe XL is a really huge tire. On 100mm rims it didn't fit my Borealis frame unless the pressure was fairly low. My guess is that few frames will fit this tire with 100mm rims. I want one!!!
    Lou doesn't fit well in the Borealis either.

  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    18

    Snowshoe 2XL size and stats

    I mounted them on a 100 mm rim, and took some measures.
    Keep in mind, though: no caliper, only eyeball measures.
    Overall diameter is 30.7 in/780 mm, overall width ( at casing, knobs are a smidge smaller) is 5.03 in/128 mm.

    Weight:
    26x5.05 XXL-img_0399.jpg

    4.12 Lb ( 1873 grams).

  100. #200
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    578
    Yep, production casing width is somewhat narrower than the prototypes that I ran this winter.
    The protos were approx. 315mm bead-bead, while production version is approx. 297mm (Bud/Lou are around 260mm bead-bead for comparison)
    Mounted casing width at (''industry standard'') 20psi is approx 5.2'' with tubes on a 100mm rim.
    It is 5.0'' (knob width) on a 80mm rim.
    (my protos are 5.5/5.65'' tubed/tubeless at the same 100 rim/pressure.
    Don't have my notes here, so will post knob widths on 100/80 later.
    Our production tires were around 31.5'' rolling diameter vs 32'' for the protos, so the height was kept closer to the proto than the width, so the tire volume is huge.
    (protos had around 53% more volume than the biggest volumed 4.8'' on the market (Jumbo Jim with 265mm bead-bead), haven't measured the volume of the production 2XL yet , but also the production tire has huge volume, allowing for ultra low pressures and huge float.

    To put things in context. Our 210lb test rider rode with the proto version on the rear (90mm rim) and a Surly Bud on the same width rim up front. The rear tire stayed afloat in super soft powder, while the Bud up front punched through the snow. Anyone who has ridden powder (or sand) knows what that means about float capabilities.
    Now, the production version is not quite that huge (until 3XL arrives..) but it will still be in another league vs 4.8s.

    Weight of our production tires (lightest version) were around 1680g (the 5.6'' protos were 1600/1680g, so production ones have been beefed up somewhat)
    Last edited by Espen W; 08-04-2015 at 09:21 AM.
    Espen Wethe
    Bicycle Engineering Consultant
    Norway
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 632

Posting Permissions

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