Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    lawfarm and cuthroat have started me thinking.

    Maybe a BFL up front and a Husker Du or Nate out back. This will be a year-round, all-purpose bike and the Nate looks pretty bumpy and motocrossy but it's not a road bike so ....

    Decision, decisions.

    Edit:
    Knobby. That's the word I was looking for. Yeah, I'm a roadie. Not sponsored though so I don't wear clown suits. Also, I hate going into a convenience store for a beverage while wearing spandex.
    Last edited by FrY10cK; 12-21-2012 at 05:07 PM.

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    lawfarm and cuthroat have started me thinking.

    Maybe a BFL up front and a Husker Du or Nate out back. This will be a year-round, all-purpose bike and the Nate looks pretty bumpy and motocrossy but it's not a road bike so ....

    Decision, decisions.
    The only other thing I'll say about BFLs...

    If you ride with other fatbikes, and if they run "regular" 3.7 or 4" fat tires, the extra width of the BFLs is noticeable. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. If you're 2nd or 3rd in line, and the guy up front is cutting a trench through deeper snow with any crust in it, I found that my wider BFLs wouldn't follow the trench, but would grab the sidewalls of the trench and pull me off line.

    Also, depending on what bike you ride, consider your weight distribution. On my Mukluk, depending on what bars I'm running, I may have very little weight up front. The real need for flotation is in back.

  3. #28
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    lawfarm and cuthroat have started me thinking.
    Don't blame me. I deny any responsibility for resulting injury

    I find the variables of snow conditions are so, well... variable, that picking the perfect tire is just chasing smoke. I figured I could get as much rubber and flotation as possible up front with BFL, and the HuDu just looked like a good all around fit for the back and was WAY better than the sketchy traction of the Endomorph. In a perfect world (or frame) I'd probably go Clownshoes and a BFL in front and a Nate in the back (now that all this great new rubber is coming to the market), but fit is an issue in back on my frame. The HuDu is a pretty good compromise. In other words, the flotation of the rotation is inversely proportional to the exertion from the insertion.

    As an aside, thanks lawfarm, I later realized it was your advice to keep the small cog and ditch the #2 cog instead. Spot on.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    I'm not sure that is correct. In snow, you're essentially cutting a trench through whatever portion of the snow you're compacting. A longer, narrower contact patch would generate less 'drag' through the snow (because you're disturbing less snow) than would a wider, shorter patch.
    You're right, I was only considering the energy absorbed by tire deformation'
    , but possibly a narrower contact patch will compact the snow more deeply, because even if the total area is the same, it is the front edge that does the compacting.

    Just my theory, not tested or verified.

    All this makes me wonder: How will the 29+ knards compare at snow riding compared to the typical 26" fatbike tires? Might we see the snow racers switch over to Krampus bikes to win the races?

    of course, with the variation in snow condition, it might end up that each type of tire, and even rim width is better one day, and another the next. It could end up like DH racing. Bring a bunch of different combos, try each to find the best, then it changes over the course of the event.

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    You're right, I was only considering the energy absorbed by tire deformation'
    , but possibly a narrower contact patch will compact the snow more deeply, because even if the total area is the same, it is the front edge that does the compacting.

    Just my theory, not tested or verified.

    All this makes me wonder: How will the 29+ knards compare at snow riding compared to the typical 26" fatbike tires? Might we see the snow racers switch over to Krampus bikes to win the races?

    of course, with the variation in snow condition, it might end up that each type of tire, and even rim width is better one day, and another the next. It could end up like DH racing. Bring a bunch of different combos, try each to find the best, then it changes over the course of the event.
    With respect guys,
    My head is ready to do this...... LINK TO MARS ATTACKS EXPLODING HEADS...]Indian Love Call in Mars Attacks! - YouTube[/url]. I don't have 10 posts.

  6. #31
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    Hmm....Husker Du's on Clown Shoe rims. They're only 100g heavier (each).

    I wonder if they would make it impossible, like running Big Fat Larry's, to use all 10 (or 11 if I go Sram XX!) cogs? 100mm is 3.94".

    I can't imagine Clown Shoe rims would make the Husker Du's wider than 4.0" would they? On the other hand, would they really add more float on snow and sand? Would the Q-tubes Super Light tubes still work?
    I have a shimano triple in front and an 11-34 in the back with no rubbing in any gear, but my 155mm phil bottom bracket is pushed pretty far to the right.

    My Husker Dus measure 107mm on a clownshoe rim--so more float than on a Rolling Darryl.

    No problems with the super lights for a few hundred miles before I switched to some even lighter Schwalbe tubes.
    Last edited by Lars_D; 12-20-2012 at 06:32 PM.

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    670
    But it would be deeper....

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by ziax01 View Post
    I have a shimano triple in front and an 11-34 in the back with no rubbing in any gear, but my 155mm phil bottom bracket is pushed pretty far to the right.

    My Husker Dus measure 107mm on a clownshoe rim--so more float than on a Rolling Darryl.

    No problems with the super lights for a few hundred miles before I switched to some even lighter Schwalbe tubes.
    Wow! 107mm on a clownshoe! That's about 15mm wider than my Du on an RD.

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    @lawfarm

    That bit about BFLs giving you a problem when riding behind someone breaking trail in crusty snow is interesting. So many things you only learn through experience. But I don't anticipate many group rides on my off-rode bike.

    @ziax01
    Quote Originally Posted by ziax01 View Post
    ... my 155mm phil bottom bracket is pushed pretty far to the right.

    My Husker Dus measure 107mm on a clownshoe rim--so more float than on a Rolling Darryl.

    No problems with the super lights for a few hundred miles before I switched to some even lighter Schwalbe tubes.
    1) My FSA BB is 148mm. Might work. Stock Beargrease comes with e*thirteen crankset but I can't figure out how long the stock BB is.
    2) 107mm is 4.2". What frame are you running? Beargrease specs are:
    Rear Tire Clearance
    Designed for 26 x 4.0" tires on 82mm rims with full drivetrain, 4.0" tires or BFL on 100mm rims with modified drivetrain (emphasis mine). Not compatible with Surly Lou or Knard tires

    Fork Tire Clearance
    26 x 4.8" on 100mm rims
    3) What Schwalbe tubes are you using?

    So I could run 82mm Rolling Darryls with whatever tires I want (BFL will go an 82mm rim won't it?) or I could run Husker Du's on 100mm Clown Shoe front, and a Rolling Darryl rear. I'll probably read this whole thread about five more times before I start buying rims and tires.
    Last edited by FrY10cK; 12-21-2012 at 05:09 PM.

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    If I understand correctly the beargrease is designed for ample clearance for a 4 inch tire and can take a 5 inch tire with modification to the drivetrain. So looking at my BG rear stays with Huskers on Darryl rims measuring about 98mm I can't imagine 4.2 inches, an extra 5mm on each side, would be a problem.
    So you could probably do Husker and clownshoe in the back as well if you wanted with no modification.

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    .... In a perfect world (or frame) I'd probably go Clownshoes and a BFL in front and a Nate in the back ... but fit is an issue in back on my frame.
    I don't understand this part. Is it true that a 3.8" Nate gives you fit problems where a 4.0" Husker Du doesn't?

    Now I'm leaning toward BFL in front and Nate rear which raises two questions.
    1) 100mm or 82mm rims?
    2) Kevlar or wire bead?

    Three questions:
    3) Do the arrows (BFL), or chevrons (Nate) point forward or backward at the contact patch?

    Four questions:
    4) Which of these tires, BFL, Husker Du, and Nate, will fit on an 65mm Marge LIte rims? 170g (each) less than Rolling Darryls according to the Surly website!
    Last edited by FrY10cK; 12-21-2012 at 08:50 AM.

  12. #37
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    I don't understand this part. Is it true that a 3.8" Nate gives you fit problems where a 4.0" Husker Du doesn't?

    Now I'm leaning toward BFL in front and Nate rear which raises two questions.
    1) 100mm or 82mm rims?
    2) Kevlar or wire bead?

    Three questions:
    3) Do the arrows (BFL), or chevrons (Nate) point forward or backward at the contact patch?

    Four questions:
    4) Which of these tires, BFL, Husker Du, and Nate, will fit on an 65mm Marge LIte rims? 170g (each) less than Rolling Darryls according to the Surly website!
    My bad - meant to say Lou not Nate.
    if you can fit hundies - go hundies if float is paramount
    kevlar is good
    backwards forwards respectively - but do what you want
    all will fit Marges, they just get rounder

    good god man, decide already!
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    My bad - meant to say Lou not Nate.
    Got it.
    all will fit Marges, they just get rounder
    That's like more suspension travel no? And lower pressure makes a bigger contact patch right? The only thing I'm sure of right now is that I have no experience with off-road bikes. My first build was gonna be a cyclocross bike but then a great road bike frame came my way and here I am. My second build is gonna be a fat bike.
    good god man, decide already!
    I hear ya. But I've got all winter as i only buy a few parts each month.
    Last edited by FrY10cK; 12-21-2012 at 04:06 PM.

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by lookiel View Post
    If I understand correctly the beargrease is designed for ample clearance for a 4 inch tire and can take a 5 inch tire with modification to the drivetrain. So looking at my BG rear stays with Huskers on Darryl rims measuring about 98mm I can't imagine 4.2 inches, an extra 5mm on each side, would be a problem.
    So you could probably do Husker and clownshoe in the back as well if you wanted with no modification.
    You do not understand correctly.

    The Beargrease rear geometry is like the 2012 (or earlier) Muks. It does not have alternator dropouts. That means it will not clear a 5" tire in the rear. A BFL will fit with drivetrain modification. A Lou will not clear the frame, regardless of drivetrain setup.

    Husker and Clownshoe should be fine.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    I would recommend the Nate over the BFL for a do-everything bike; you might be able to get the Bud into that fork as well, which would give you some of the extra float you want. I was displeased with the traction of BFLs on loose/wet stuff so I sold mine.
    Yup. Bud will fit the Beargrease fork. But Surly says it was designed for super wide rims:
    Our latest 4.8˝ tires designed for 559mm (“26inch”) super wide rims such as our 100mm Clown Shoes ...
    .
    So it might not work on a Marge LIte which I'm leaning toward now. Link here: Bud 4.8 | Parts | Surly Bikes

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    I'm not sure that is correct. In snow, you're essentially cutting a trench through whatever portion of the snow you're compacting. A longer, narrower contact patch would generate less 'drag' through the snow (because you're disturbing less snow) than would a wider, shorter patch.
    If you compare a BFL on a 100 mm rim to narrower rims, the total width of the tire doesn't change radically. Going through snow is going to disturb virtually the same amount of snow regardless of the rim. The shape of the contact patch only comes into question at the time when the snow is already packed under the tire and you're rolling over it.

    With the bike on snow and the rider mounted, the size of the contact patch depends on tire pressure and total weight, as we established earlier. The bike sinks until the compacted snow is dense enough to support the weight of the rider on the contact patches. (Less pressure means larger patches = more flotation.) I'd argue that the area of compacted snow is the same, so the energy required to compact them is the same is as well.

    After this it comes to comparing the resistance from tire deflection, and in that department short + wide wins long + narrow. If it was a larger diameter tire (29+ Knard perhaps?) the situation would change.

    Seriously though, this is just a hypothesis and I may have overlooked something. If you find holes in my reasoning, please point them out. I'd rather correct my thinking (as earlier in this thread) than remain ignorant. Cheers!
    Last edited by Saul Lumikko; 12-21-2012 at 04:40 PM.

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Lumikko View Post
    After this it comes to comparing the resistance from tire deflection, and in that department short + wide wins long + narrow. If it was a larger diameter tire (29+ Knard perhaps?) the situation would change
    I want to get this but (insert Johanneson's exploding head video here and also cutthroat's "decide already") I don't quite follow. I weigh 170 lbs. If I go with 4.7" BFL front and 3.8" Nate rear, does it really matter whether I use 82mm Rolling Darryl or 65mm Marge Lite? 340 grams (total) difference.

  18. #43
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    I want to get this but (insert Johanneson's exploding head video here and also cutthroat's "decide already") I don't quite follow. I weigh 170 lbs. If I go with 4.7" BFL front and 3.8" Nate rear, does it really matter whether I use 82mm Rolling Darryl or 65mm Marge Lite? 340 grams (total) difference.
    the answer is "42"
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Big Fat Larry vs. Husker Du-42.jpg  

    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    the answer is "42"
    Sweet! I'm done. Good night. Hoocoodanode Douglas Adams predicted the existence of fat bikes?
    Last edited by FrY10cK; 12-21-2012 at 05:25 PM.

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    If I go with 4.7" BFL front and 3.8" Nate rear, does it really matter whether I use 82mm Rolling Darryl or 65mm Marge Lite? 340 grams (total) difference.
    The difference is small (even if it's real at all), but to my understanding wider rims offer better float for the same rolling resistance.

    Narrower rims make the profile more round, which should be better for trail riding. Lower weight helps on trails when you climb and accelerate.

    If you want to plough through insane stuff and float, a bit of extra weight on the rims is outweighed by the benefits, and once you get things moving, they keep moving.

    What I can say for sure is that there are differences, and there are no better rim widths, only different rim widths and any one of them could be better for you.

  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Lumikko View Post
    ... to my understanding wider rims offer better float for the same rolling resistance.

    Narrower rims make the profile more round, which should be better for trail riding. Lower weight helps on trails when you climb and accelerate.
    That is concise. Makes sense to me. Is it quantifiable? Yes. The answer is 42.

    Seriously though, that is concise and worthy of consideration.

  22. #47
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    @lawfarm

    @ziax01


    1) My FSA BB is 148mm. Might work. Stock Beargrease comes with e*thirteen crankset but I can't figure out how long the stock BB is.
    2) 107mm is 4.2". What frame are you running? Beargrease specs are:
    3) What Schwalbe tubes are you using?
    1) I doubt you'll be able to avoid removing some cogs if you go with a clown shoe in the back.

    2) 2011 Mukluk

    3) Schwalbe Extra Lights, 26x2.10-3.00, they weigh 185-190 grams, I also use one strip of duck tape for my rim strips, about 25 grams.

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by ziax01 View Post
    3) Schwalbe Extra Lights, 26x2.10-3.00, they weigh 185-190 grams, I also use one strip of duck tape for my rim strips, about 25 grams.
    Thanks.

    So the title of this thread is "BFL vs. Husker Du". Now i"m thinking BFL and Husker Du.

    BFL on 82mm Rolling Darryl up front for Float. Husker Du on 65mm Marge Lite out back for bite.

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    ...
    BFL on 82mm Rolling Darryl up front for Float. Husker Du on 65mm Marge Lite out back for bite.
    Maybe someone could tell me what I'm missing. Fairly often I see people mentioning having a fatter rim and tire at the front, but my experience is that I always run out of float at the back, not the front. Last winter I even had a smaller tire at the front, Larry vs BFL at the back, both on 80 mm rims. The rear wheel was always the one that broke through the crust, not the front wheel.

    Now I'm running BFL's on 82 mm rims both front and back.
    My bike blog: www.yetirides.com

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    135
    Outsider,

    Here's what cutthroat said earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    I run the HuDu in back and the BFL up front on RDs - great combo in my opinion (for snow at least). The BFL floats the front and sort of packs a wide initial trail and the HuDu just grabs the hell out of it from the back.
    I guess that's where I got the idea. Also from the people running "half fat" which I think means they're running a fat tire on the front of a regular mtb frame. I don't have much personal experience cycling on snow but my small Beargrease frame with a long stem may mean I have more weight on the front wheel than you do.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 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
  •