Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 51
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139

    Big Fat Larry vs. Husker Du

    Taking delivery of my Beargrease frame set this week and it's going to be my one and only off-road bike so it needs to be snow and trail capable. I understand there could be chain rub and other drive train issues with Big Fat Larrys.

    I'm going to see If I can patch together something workable with the 100mm x 148mm FSA bottom bracket and Isis crank I have on hand. Two questions:

    1) Big Fat Larry or Husker Du? Planning on Rolling Darryl Rims or maybe Marge Lite for a 170g (each wheel) weight savings. Salsa website says a 4.8" tire up front and a 4.0" tire out back will fit no problem.

    2) Will the following tubes work even though specs say 4.0" max?
    Q-Tubes Super Light 26 inch x 2.4-2.7 inch 32 mm Presta Valve Tube
    Last edited by FrY10cK; 12-21-2012 at 04:16 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    198
    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.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    A BFL will fit on Rolling Darryls. You may need to do some drivetrain modification (drop a gear or two from the cassette).

    That said, go for the Husker Du. I've run both on my Muk2. The BFLs roll fast, are high volume, and are great tires--surprisingly light. But the Huskers give far better traction in sketchy conditions than the BFLs, without a rolling resistance penalty. I haven't run 'em in snow yet, but everyone says they rock there, too.

    I wish the HDs were a bit higher volume, truth be told. But that's it. They're better everywhere you need traction, and equal everywhere you need to roll smoothly (pave, gravel, hardpack).

    Nates have a ton of traction, no doubt, but there's a serious rolling resistance penalty you pay for that traction. I think HDs are a better compromise.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    Great info. Thank you guys.

    For others coming upon this thread, here's the relevant page from the Salsa website:
    Salsa Cycles | Bikes | Beargrease Frameset

    It says,
    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

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    Great info. Thank you guys.

    For others coming upon this thread, here's the relevant page from the Salsa website:
    Salsa Cycles | Bikes | Beargrease Frameset

    It says,
    Clearance in the rear is the same as clearance on a 2012 or earlier Muk. Because it doesn't have alternator dropouts, there's not enough fore/aft clearance for Bud/Lou. There is enough width to clear BFLs, on 82 or 100mm rims...but you have to drop a gear or two from the cassette, and space the remaining gears over to the side to clear the tire, so you don't chainrub in the lowest gear combinations. (And of note, if you do run BFLs and want to drop a couple gears, make sure you retain the SMALLEST GEAR in the cassette, at the end of the cassette. Drop an intermediate gear or two. The smallest gear is required to properly index the end of the freewheel hub.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    (And of note, if you do run BFLs and want to drop a couple gears, make sure you retain the SMALLEST GEAR in the cassette, at the end of the cassette. Drop an intermediate gear or two. The smallest gear is required to properly index the end of the freewheel hub.
    Good info again. Thanks.

    Husker Du it is. I'm going to try the Q-tube Super Light tubes and keep reading about tubeless setups before I maybe try it someday.

  7. #7
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,129
    I have a clown shoe on the rear of my Mukluk -- gives a little more float with the Husker DU, but without the traction shortcomings I have heard attributed to the Big Fat Larry.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Big Fat Larry vs. Husker Du-img00095.jpg  


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thesilversurfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    261
    I just changed my fatback over from BFL's to Husker Du's and the difference in traction is huge. As said before the BFL's are a great tire and roll very well but the Husker Du is a do it all tire with brilliant traction. The build quality is very good and so, for me, the durability against punctures and nasty sharp debris has been very good. I have the 120tpi version and I have to say I have no complains.

    For your information in 6 feet tall, 195lbs and ride western Alberta in the Rockies. They get tested every ride believe me. Good luck with your choice.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: woody_8_5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    154
    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.
    Big Fat Larry vs. Husker Du-imageuploadedbytapatalk1355879790.352574.jpg
    Bud fits nicely in the Greaser fork! I would run Nate in the back facing backwards for snow/winter use. Great combo!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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?
    Last edited by FrY10cK; 12-19-2012 at 01:15 PM.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    judging by what the trials riders do, the wider rim makes low pressures more stable, so the low pressure increases flotation, while the wider rim just helps support the tire at those pressures. I don't think a wider rim really puts any more rubber on the ground/snow at any given pressure.

  12. #12
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,529
    Q tubes work fine - 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. Even with the small HuDu I had to sacrifice the 11 tooth cog to get clearance on my Carver. No big deal though - don't even notice it being gone.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    Q tubes work fine - 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. Even with the small HuDu I had to sacrifice the 11 tooth cog to get clearance on my Carver. No big deal though - don't even notice it being gone.
    I thought I read somewhere, you had to keep the smallest cog. something to do with the way it interfaces with the lockring, or end of cassette hub.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I thought I read somewhere, you had to keep the smallest cog. something to do with the way it interfaces with the lockring, or end of cassette hub.
    That is correct. You can run without the smallest cog for a while, but eventually, you'll either break the cog or strip out the end of your freewheel hub. The smallest cog is designed with a built-in spacer that indexes over a bit on the hub, and makes sure you have a good grip to propel the bike. If you drop that one, you lose the indexing, and are just barely hanging on to the hub with your smallest gear in the cassette.

    I speak from experience.

  15. #15
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    That is correct. You can run without the smallest cog for a while, but eventually, you'll either break the cog or strip out the end of your freewheel hub. The smallest cog is designed with a built-in spacer that indexes over a bit on the hub, and makes sure you have a good grip to propel the bike. If you drop that one, you lose the indexing, and are just barely hanging on to the hub with your smallest gear in the cassette.

    I speak from experience.
    One can purchase freehub body spacers at any decent bike shop to space the cassette over. If you are really cheap, just move the smallest cog or two to the inboard side of the cassette. Either way, just adjust your limit screws appropriately.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I don't think a wider rim really puts any more rubber on the ground/snow at any given pressure.
    I'm quite sure it does. If you think of the tire on a narrow rim, the profile resembles a light bulb, but a wider rim makes it more square, so the sides of the tread come closer to the ground.

    I second all complaints about the lack of traction with BFLs. Thinking of buying Bud and Lou thanks to the Moonlander clearance. If I had less clearance, Husker Du would probably be my choice.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    441
    I measured the height of first gen BFL's to first gen Du's on a rolling Daryl. Same height. Thought some may want to know that.

    For width I came up with 91-93mm for the Du and 101-102mm with the BFL on the RD's.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    21
    In my experience the BFLs aren't as good as the Huskers for traction but they float more.
    I prefer traction to float on snow otherwise the bikes gets too squirrely and washes out often.
    Best tire I've tried on snow were Nates, lots of solid chunky grip!
    Have a Beargrease as well (great frame, so light and fun) and plan on using my Huskers for now and through the summer as they seem like they will be the bomb on dirt but looking forward to scoring some 120 TPI Nates for next winter.
    Have fun!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Lumikko View Post
    I'm quite sure it does. If you think of the tire on a narrow rim, the profile resembles a light bulb, but a wider rim makes it more square, so the sides of the tread come closer to the ground.

    I second all complaints about the lack of traction with BFLs. Thinking of buying Bud and Lou thanks to the Moonlander clearance. If I had less clearance, Husker Du would probably be my choice.
    As long as we're dealing with fairly flexible tire casing material, the area of the footprint depends on weight and pressure. A wider tire has a different shape of contact area at the same pressure than a narrower one, but the total square cm(inches, whatever) will be the same, unless the surface you are on is deforming significantly under load, at which point you have lost flotation.

    As far as the shape being different, this will affect traction, and rolling resistance, but not really flotation. But then if rolling resistance is reduced due to the wider, shorter cross section of tire deformation, it may feel like it is floating better.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by wrcRS View Post
    I measured the height of first gen BFL's to first gen Du's on a rolling Daryl. Same height. Thought some may want to know that.

    For width I came up with 91-93mm for the Du and 101-102mm with the BFL on the RD's.
    How is the Larry wider, but not taller? Is it the difference in tread depth? Or is the casing actually wider than it is tall?

  21. #21
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,529
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    That is correct. You can run without the smallest cog for a while, but eventually, you'll either break the cog or strip out the end of your freewheel hub. The smallest cog is designed with a built-in spacer that indexes over a bit on the hub, and makes sure you have a good grip to propel the bike. If you drop that one, you lose the indexing, and are just barely hanging on to the hub with your smallest gear in the cassette.

    I speak from experience.
    That may be right now that you mention it. I think I pulled the 13t and kept the 11. It's been awhile since I did it.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogdude222 View Post
    One can purchase freehub body spacers at any decent bike shop to space the cassette over. If you are really cheap, just move the smallest cog or two to the inboard side of the cassette. Either way, just adjust your limit screws appropriately.
    Even if you do that (which is what you have to do when you remove gears from the cassette), leave the 11t gear on the cassette.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    Q tubes work fine - 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.
    Brilliant!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    As long as we're dealing with fairly flexible tire casing material, the area of the footprint depends on weight and pressure. A wider tire has a different shape of contact area at the same pressure than a narrower one, but the total square cm(inches, whatever) will be the same, unless the surface you are on is deforming significantly under load, at which point you have lost flotation.
    I stand corrected - this is the same result I figured out after giving it more thought.

    So it depends which variables we fix in the comparison. If pressure is fixed, flotation will be the same. But if we compare two setups that have equal rolling resistance, the one with a wider contact patch and greater volume (both of which are achieved with wider rims) will have lower pressure, and lower pressure means better flotation.

    Inversely this is the same thing you said: at the same pressure and flotation, a wider contact patch rolls more easily.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Lumikko View Post

    Inversely this is the same thing you said: at the same pressure and flotation, a wider contact patch rolls more easily.
    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.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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.

  27. #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.

  28. #28
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,529
    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

  29. #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.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Johanneson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    240
    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.

  31. #31
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,129
    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.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    673
    But it would be deeper....

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    441
    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.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    @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.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    21
    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.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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.

  37. #37
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,529
    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

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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.

  39. #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.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    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.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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.

  43. #43
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,529
    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

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    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.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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.

  47. #47
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,129
    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.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    669
    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

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    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 1 of 2 12 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
  •