Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 229

Thread: Brrrrly.

  1. #1
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957

    Brrrrly.


    New bike time.



    I thought I'd created an heirloom bike when I started bonding with my Eriksen a ~year ago. That lasted a few months -- and kept getting better -- but then the Vee 2XL tires were announced.







    There's really no way to grasp the volume of these tires if you haven't seen them in person. An inch wider and two inches taller than anything that came before.



    The snow we ride is deep, with minimal traffic to pack it, and there's simply no way to have too much flotation in these conditions.



    And since the Vee's won't fit in the Eriksen, the writing was on the wall.



    After seeing his handiwork in person I contacted Whit @ Meriwether Cycles to start a conversation about this build. We've exchanged (no exaggeration) a hundred+ emails about this chassis, largely because we're out in front of the adoption of this size tire and rim, and lots of stuff had to be made custom.







    217mm rear hub anyone?



    Brad Bingham @ Eriksen was kind enough to chop two DT 350 hubshells in half, then spend several hours massaging them back together with a wider axle. That's the foundation, and from there it got complicated.



    Because geometry is so critical to keeping a bike (regardless of tire size) atop the snow, and because Whit has built many bikes for himself and his customers using the same snow-geo tenets I believe in, we had no trouble agreeing on what the geometry needed to be.



    Getting there was going to be the hard part.



    Whit wrote a detailed post on the challenges and solutions he found in building this chassis.



    This is sitting somewhere in the belly of a UPS truck right now, scheduled to be dropped on my doorstep tomorrow morning.











    More details to follow once it's hanging in the stand and I can get my filthy mitts all over it.



    Last edited by mikesee; 12-22-2015 at 11:46 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,107
    Very interesting!

    Wonder what the contact patch will be @ 2 psi in da snow!!

  3. #3
    Rocking on a Rocky
    Reputation: RockyJo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,414
    Superfat.
    It doesn't matter what I ride as long as I ride it Rubber Side Down●~●.

  4. #4
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Whit does such awesome work. Can't wait to see it built up.

  5. #5
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    Very interesting!

    Wonder what the contact patch will be @ 2 psi in da snow!!
    Easy: 11.

  6. #6
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Just looked closer, holy bb drop! I know you like them low, but that looks insane. Just a function of the 1" higher axle, or are you going to sub 11" bb height?

  7. #7
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    Just looked closer, holy bb drop! I know you like them low, but that looks insane. Just a function of the 1" higher axle, or are you going to sub 11" bb height?
    Pretty sure it's at ~12.7" with these tires. Which will equate to ~12.4" once you factor in low-pressure tire smoosh.

  8. #8
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    Funky! Agreed, those tires are just awe inspiring.

    Can't wait to try them in the fluff, assuming El Nino doesn't screw out winter to shreds this year....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  9. #9
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,693
    I thought there was a rule about more than 1 new bike/year?

    Has my wife been lying to me?

    Sweet tires & frame batman

  10. #10
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Pretty sure it's at ~12.7" with these tires. Which will equate to ~12.4" once you factor in low-pressure tire smoosh.
    I guess once you're over 16" axle height, you're looking at @4" of drop to get a normal bb height.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tigerteeuwen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    124
    The frame looks like an old yeti ultimate or an alpine star,

    Didn't that frame design suffer from a lot of bob or broken frames? Just curious.






    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    There was a lot of talk a few years ago about elevated chainstays and the impression that they all failed. Apparently some did, some didn't and certain design features were adequate to prevent them from failing. For a strictly soft surface bike though, I imagine it would be a non issue.

  13. #13
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerteeuwen View Post
    The frame looks like an old yeti ultimate or an alpine star,

    Didn't that frame design suffer from a lot of bob or broken frames? Just curious.
    Whit has built a few e-stay bikes, including one for himself, and has a veritable library of images covering all permutations of this design that have been tried by other manufacturers. As such, I'm going to let him field this one.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kreater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    782
    I love the artistic interpretation of adventure fat biking, this says it in so many ways. The frame looks amazing but I am drawn to the rack and how it seamlessly blends with the bike, masterfully done. Enjoy, waiting to see it kited up.
    "Live dangerously and you live right."
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Meriwether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerteeuwen View Post
    The frame looks like an old yeti ultimate or an alpine star,

    Didn't that frame design suffer from a lot of bob or broken frames? Just curious.
    Disclaimer: I'm not an engineer. I'm a rider turned racer turned framebuilder that messes with steel tubes and sticks them together how i see fit. So I can't say how this design will hold up under FEA testing or if it flexes statistically significantly more than a double-triangle design. But i can relate my experience and...take it or leave it.

    One of the first fatbikes was an elevated stay bike - the Remolino Fatty.
    There are numerous other examples of these bikes that IMO only failed because they're by and large...ugly.
    They're all so cool in their design differences though -- Nishiki Alien, Yeti Ultimate, Rocky Mountain Summit, Alpinestars, Mrazek, Brave Warrior, Mantis XCR, and Fisher. There are likely more i'm forgetting. Whether they failed more than other frames I really don't know the stats.

    I believe some of the early e-stays tried to use the same butted tubing as the double diamond frames and some designs failed more than others. IIRC it was mostly the Fisher Montare which doesn't have "supports" to the downtube from the seat tube so I believe the seat tube cracked. Once the e-stay had that bad rap it was over for them.

    My inspiration for first making an elevated stay frame came from a friend that i made my first E-stay for that saw the 3D-Racing belt-drive fatbike years ago (belt drive - another perk of the e-stay - not having to split the frame). Mike's is my 3rd e-stay frame with the first two still alive and well. The first should've broken by now IMO but it's just fine.

    But in the design of this frame around this tire we mulled a lot of options and this was the only one that I could make fit the (somewhat) short chainstay length (440mm actual, 433 effective).
    Originally i had drawn up the frame to fit the 5.6" 2xl prototypes...but the production version is a lot smaller so made it easier. Mike really wanted the shortest chainstays possible and aesthetics took the sideline. It's an acquired taste these e-stays but they do have their benefits...all the same stuff you've heard before like no chainslap, rear wheel removal, short chainstays without dimpling/yoke/ovalized tubing, belt drive option, and potential for lower Q-factor cranks since the arms swing under the elevated stays.

    The frame's not light. Everything but the seatstays and top tube are straight gauge (not double-butted tubing like most good steel frames). The downtube is 38mm diameter x 0.9mm wall. Seat tube is 35x0.9. Chainstays are 3/4"(19mm) diameter x 0.9mm wall without dimpling. So it's super stiff with the short stays and straight gauge tubing. The last e-stay i made was for myself and had 430mm chainstays with 4.8" tires and the thing was crazy stiff laterally. But on snow with 4.8" tires at 3psi....does that really matter?

    In the end, time will tell. Mike knows that this is an experiment and he's the test dummy
    If he breaks it, I'll take what we learned on this version and apply it to the next.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tigerteeuwen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    124
    That's really cool actually, and it makes a lot of sense. I guess it only takes one bad apple to ruin a bunch though doesn't it?

    I actually think the e-stay is quite cool looking myself. Seems like you have done you research too so I hope this build lasts a lifetime.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    538

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerteeuwen View Post
    The frame looks like an old yeti ultimate or an alpine star,

    Didn't that frame design suffer from a lot of bob or broken frames? Just curious.
    Still riding my 92 Nishiki Alien and i am the original owner. It has seen a lot of miles and no frame cracks so far. Currently, it takes a fourth seat to other bikes though.

    Some Elevated chain stay bikes had more frame flex at the bottom bracket than double triangle frames.

    Brrrrly.-img_6451-small-.jpg
    “Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a \mountain or fat/ bike.” ~ John F. Kennedy

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by urmb View Post
    ...Some Elevated chain stay bikes had more frame flex at the bottom bracket than double triangle frames.
    That was my experience. I think it's inherent in the design, but something that would have been designed out out if E-stays had evolved for longer.

    Using the same section tubing as a "normal" bike to an unbraced BB is the fundamental problem, and that is easily addressed at the design stage. It certainly looks like Merriwether has sorted that out.

    An E-stay bike has many advantages for a fatbike. No chance of chains hitting stays, open chainline, so it's easy to use a belt (which I did with mine), and above all the chance to pull the chainstays in closer.

    I think it will find its place with carbon when the frame will consist of a large beam from steering head to axle. It's time designers took advantage of carbon's virtues and stopped aping the ancient diamond shaped steel frame.

    It's been done before, just needs a larger section beam IMO





    I look forward to seeing Mike's epics on this.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  19. #19
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    746
    Way cool bike, guys!

    (that goes for the Trimble Carbon Cross (from around 1988) in the pic above as well )
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  20. #20
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    Wow, who knew this would turn into a VRC thread?

    And no Shark, there's no one bike per year rule, she's a lying little minx who needs to be dealt with!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Meriwether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    442
    Ah the Trimble! How did I forget about that one. I just saw one last year that the guy has had since inception. I agree Velobike, so ahead of its time with carbon.
    I stumbled upon an e-stay Carbon fatbike while doing research last year actually. Wonder what's become of it?
    http://fat-bike.com/2012/12/mpls-bik...carbon-murphy/



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,012
    Nice rig Mike. With all the fatty porn I'm seeing on my various feeds I'm starting to get envious.

    My GF would kill me if I bought a gratuitous fatbike.

    Looking forward to seeing it built up.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    This is sitting somewhere in the belly of a UPS truck right now, scheduled to be dropped on my doorstep tomorrow morning.
    Ummmmm... Pretty sure it's tomorrow morning. Well?

  24. #24
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Meriwether View Post
    Wonder what's become of it?
    Guessing it's still hiding in shame after the vast bulk of folks who saw it declared it the ugliest carbon build up they'd ever seen.

    Could be wrong though!

    Still, from an outside the box thinking viewpoint? Cool to see!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  25. #25
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,749
    A well executed E-stay frame! Yes!

    Brrrrly.-r7e7z5kp59tttmk4ua2i.jpg
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,732
    Mike, your new builds usually tick all the boxes of the previous, then push the exercise a little further. How are you compensating for frame bag and access to?

  27. #27
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    Mike, your new builds usually tick all the boxes of the previous, then push the exercise a little further. How are you compensating for frame bag and access to?
    I have a ~10 year old bag that'll do until I can get something custom made.

  28. #28
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    Ummmmm... Pretty sure it's tomorrow morning. Well?
    Sooooooooo sorry to keep you waiting. Someone had to walk the dog and build 2 wheels and answer 37 emails before he got to play with his new toy...

    Looks comical in person. Like a caricature of a bike. Huge clearance everywhere though. Should be able to clear the 5.6" 3XL's if Vee decides to produce.

    Brrrrly.-8a3a0239.jpg


    Brrrrly.-8a3a0240.jpg


    Brrrrly.-8a3a0241.jpg


    Brrrrly.-8a3a0242.jpg


    Brrrrly.-8a3a0250.jpg


    Brrrrly.-8a3a0251.jpg

  29. #29
    Rocking on a Rocky
    Reputation: RockyJo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,414
    I hope it rides as good as it looks cuz it looks good.
    It doesn't matter what I ride as long as I ride it Rubber Side Down●~●.

  30. #30
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    That thing is just silly awesome.

    The big meats do make one giggle, it's true!

    Damn, you had to infer 3XL's, didn't you, I saw what you did there...

    Looks sweet, hope a tame loop around the block scratched the itch, if only just a little bit.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  31. #31
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    That thing is just silly awesome.

    The big meats do make one giggle, it's true!

    Damn, you had to infer 3XL's, didn't you, I saw what you did there...

    Looks sweet, hope a tame loop around the block scratched the itch, if only just a little bit.
    It looks comical -- like a caricature of a bike!

    Those tires are 133mm wide (5.2") on 105mm Kuroshiro rims. Tubeless, and yes they set up with a floor pump.

    Because prototypes of a 3XL tire (at 5.6" wide) have been spotted in captivity, Whit and I agreed to leave extra room on this chassis in case they ever get released into the wild.

    17.3" chainstays, 12.5" BB height.

    26 x 44 boondockin' gear.

    Silly is apt.

  32. #32
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,256
    Sweet ride as usual!

    Now let it snow so we can see it in its natural environment!!
    17 Moto Ti cross
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto Night Train
    08 BMC Trailfox
    08 Bad Boy Ultra
    06 Cannondale Rush
    99 GT XCR

  33. #33
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    Just wish I had a frame that would fit them at both ends, one in front actually throws the geo off pretty substantially.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    568
    That's pretty awesome

    Any chance you could post a few shots next to the Fattillac so we can see just how big that bike is?

  35. #35
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by blidner View Post
    That's pretty awesome

    Any chance you could post a few shots next to the Fattillac so we can see just how big that bike is?
    Stole this from the Vee 2XL thread. Not exactly the same as what you're asking, but a pretty good illustration.

    Brrrrly.-vs-d4_zpszc7he5ik.jpg

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    568
    Oh my!

    That's phat indeed

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,012
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Stole this from the Vee 2XL thread. Not exactly the same as what you're asking, but a pretty good illustration.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	vs D4_zpszc7he5ik.jpg 
Views:	399 
Size:	257.1 KB 
ID:	1030060
    Holy $hit!

    I'm in love.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    125
    Any chance of a nice hi res photo?
    My laptop needs a new wallpaper and this is the coolest bike I know of.

  39. #39
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by ttakata73 View Post
    Any chance of a nice hi res photo?
    My laptop needs a new wallpaper and this is the coolest bike I know of.
    Give me a few days to get it finished and debugged. Won't take any more (nice) pics til then.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    It looked funky frame-set alone, but with everything assembled it looks amazing. I don't know why but I really dig the look of the chainstays. Ironically I think it makes the bike look light and nimble.

    Customs always make the industry look so stagnant and uncreative. Also building a frame with a bit of leeway to take potential future tires really should of been the standard as soon as 190mm started appearing.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    217
    Still drolinnnnnnggggggggg ;o)

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Meriwether View Post
    I stumbled upon an e-stay Carbon fatbike while doing research last year actually. Wonder what's become of it?
    MPLS Bike Co Introduces the Full Carbon ? Murphy | FAT-BIKE.COM



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    To answer this question.
    10 or so where built and they are in various owners hands. The project is pretty much dead, but the bikes are out there and being ridden. Carbon lends itself to EC pretty well with its stiffness. They ride really well and are pretty cool bikes.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by l3eaudacious View Post
    It looked funky frame-set alone, but with everything assembled it looks amazing. I don't know why but I really dig the look of the chainstays. Ironically I think it makes the bike look light and nimble.

    Customs always make the industry look so stagnant and uncreative. Also building a frame with a bit of leeway to take potential future tires really should of been the standard as soon as 190mm started appearing.
    ^^^^Agreed! Fatabulous! Makes me wonder if you have a loooong distance winter rider planned after you heal up?
    Veni vidi velo!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,452
    wow! im guessingthe Quiring's i have seen are bigger frames as they didnt look quite as insane as this! amazing!....good work all involved...envelope pushed.

  45. #45
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,256
    Yeah, let me wipe the drool from my chin!
    17 Moto Ti cross
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto Night Train
    08 BMC Trailfox
    08 Bad Boy Ultra
    06 Cannondale Rush
    99 GT XCR

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: worldskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    224
    Clearly the this whole thing is going right past ludicrous speed...

    https://youtu.be/mk7VWcuVOf0
    Trust me, I have a beard and gray hair.

  47. #47
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by worldskipper View Post
    Clearly the this whole thing is going right past ludicrous speed...
    Had I thought for one nanosecond that Whit would agree to paint it plaid...

  48. #48
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,083
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Sooooooooo sorry to keep you waiting. Someone had to walk the dog and build 2 wheels and answer 37 emails before he got to play with his new toy...

    Looks comical in person. Like a caricature of a bike. Huge clearance everywhere though. Should be able to clear the 5.6" 3XL's if Vee decides to produce.
    ...


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8A3A0241.jpg 
Views:	318 
Size:	89.2 KB 
ID:	1030016

    ...
    I can't get away from the idea that the bottom bracket might need an extra triangle to keep it centered. It evokes "pendulum" at first look, hanging way out the bottom like that. Fantastic execution on a cutting edge idea, though. I would be looking for stuff to run over with it.

    btw - I can already envision the carbon version of this. The entire front triangle would be a storage box.

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

  49. #49
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,705
    Damn. Makes my 4.8's look like punks.
    I like turtles

  50. #50
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    would be looking for stuff to run over with it.
    Took it for a test rip around the parking lot last night. As I was coming back to the shop a (fat) kid shot out of a neighboring unit so fast I couldn't avoid him*. Ran him right over* -- he got squeezed between the tire and the seatstays*, but emerged unscathed because I was running 2psi. None the worse for wear except for the backwards VEE imprinted on his forehead...*








    * = not really.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,470
    This is the second Meriwether bike I've seen online that just amazes me. I can geek out on bike pics all day, but these bikes are standouts in the crowd! Excited to see the action shots when Mike's healed up and has that camera magic working.

    As for Meriweather, keep it up man!
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  52. #52
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,326
    If my math is right, the chainline required for a 217 rear hub would be about 90mm. Were you able to match that on the front?
    --Peace

  53. #53
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    Just a random *standards* grump here.

    We had, 120, 127, 130, 135, 144, 150, 142, 148, 170/7, 190/7, and now, 217. And that's just rear spacing.......

    Is 217 arrived at with any greater foresight than, this will work for my needs now?

    Essentially, once this soon to be "standard" is adopted by the industry (congratulations on the new birth, Mike!) what comes next, and is that factored in, or, within a of 907, Spesh, Jamis et al coming to the party, will we jump, yet again?

    Not poo pooing, more curious, in the same vein that I'm baffled about 142, when we had a totally viable, slightly wider 150 already in long standing use. Is someone out there, smarter from an engineering standpoint, or a marketing standpoint?

    Sh*t just makes me nuts.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,012
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Sh*t just makes me nuts.....
    This link will hurt your brain. I apologize in advance!

    WTB PadLoc Grips: Reviewed - NSMB.com

    All I really want is to be able to invest in a sweet blingy set of wheels and use them on more than 1 bike. Everytime I try some new standard creeps into the works to mess those plans up. Building 3 new wheel sets that all cost an arm and a leg and are functionally equivalent except for incompatible hub standards gets old.

    At least in this case the new hub width gets you something worthwhile in a really wide high floatation tire.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  55. #55
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Just a random *standards* grump here.

    We had, 120, 127, 130, 135, 144, 150, 142, 148, 170/7, 190/7, and now, 217. And that's just rear spacing.......

    Is 217 arrived at with any greater foresight than, this will work for my needs now?

    Essentially, once this soon to be "standard" is adopted by the industry (congratulations on the new birth, Mike!) what comes next, and is that factored in, or, within a of 907, Spesh, Jamis et al coming to the party, will we jump, yet again?

    Not poo pooing, more curious, in the same vein that I'm baffled about 142, when we had a totally viable, slightly wider 150 already in long standing use. Is someone out there, smarter from an engineering standpoint, or a marketing standpoint?

    Sh*t just makes me nuts.....
    You forgot 160 and 165.

  56. #56
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    You are correct Sean, whoops!

    Vik, I agree 100%.

    I also have no issue with something new assuming it's somewhat future proof, serves a need not otherwise served by existing standards (like you couldn't do a 142 or a 148 wheel application in a 150, that would just NOT be possible).

    Obviously, math was done, and 217 was arrived at. I think my real query is, did thinking go beyond XXL, to say, XXXL (and, hopefully, beyond)?

    Or, when something still fatter arrives, will we then need new frames and hubs that measure 221.357?

    I know Mike said they built it with enough room for the as yet unreleased XXL, so the hub will fit it.

    Discussion starter, not bagging on the new stuff!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  57. #57
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    We will eventually reach the point of diminishing returns. We may already have. The applicability of the 2XL tire is already pretty slim. At what point will the speed possible with huge, heavy tires on otherwise too soft to ride conditions be slower than walking? At what point do people start to realize that they could be packing the trail down just as much, going twice as fast or more, having more fun, using less effort and for less money spent by just xc skiing when the conditions are that soft? Is the 2XL at the point where it's only worth the extra weight immediately after a big storm? And even then only allows you to go a little faster than pushing your bike?

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    ... at the point where it's only worth the extra weight immediately after a big storm? And even then only allows you to go a little faster than pushing your bike?
    But it looks cool...
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    I'd bet the industry at large isn't going past 197 anytime soon. Maybe in two years we'll see a 217 when they feel Fat Bike sales are tapering off.

  60. #60
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    And even then only allows you to go a little faster than pushing your bike?
    If I was OK with walking, I wouldn't bother bringing the bike in the first place. It's not about speed.

    Your credibility is nil here, Mr. I'm-leaving-Alaska-for-Hawaii-in-the-dead-of-winter.

  61. #61
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    If my math is right, the chainline required for a 217 rear hub would be about 90mm. Were you able to match that on the front?
    Show your math.

  62. #62
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    I'm not staying there.... Besides, beaches and volcanoes. And I'm about to head out for a ride in the fresh snow that's been falling for most of the past 24 hours. Wen't xc skiing earlier. It was awesome and we passed the only two fat bike pushers we saw out there.

  63. #63
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,693
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    We will eventually reach the point of diminishing returns. We may already have. The applicability of the 2XL tire is already pretty slim. At what point will the speed possible with huge, heavy tires on otherwise too soft to ride conditions be slower than walking? At what point do people start to realize that they could be packing the trail down just as much, going twice as fast or more, having more fun, using less effort and for less money spent by just xc skiing when the conditions are that soft? Is the 2XL at the point where it's only worth the extra weight immediately after a big storm? And even then only allows you to go a little faster than pushing your bike?
    Don't forget though, walking sucks!

  64. #64
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,326
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Show your math.
    With a standard 135mm mountain bike hub, an XX1 cassette use a front chainline of 49mm.

    A 217mm hub is 82mm wider than a 135mm hub, meaning the cassette sticks out 41mm further to the right than on a standard mountain bike.

    The sum of 49mm and 41mm is 90mm.

    Is that right? [No, it's probably not right. Now that I look at your picture I can see you are using a thru axle, so I bet I am off by 3.5mm and your actual chainline requirement is 90mm-3.5mm = 86.5mm.]
    --Peace

  65. #65
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    Is that right?
    It's good enough for me.

    I started with the presumption that the current means for determining chainline, quite frankly, sucks. Or at least is inapplicable to where and how I ride. For every minute I spend in my 10t cog I spend 2+ hours in my 42t cog. Thus, my 'friendly gears' get a lot more use and wear a lot sooner than my go-fast cogs.

    As such, I'm always looking to improve my chainline by biasing it toward the gears I use the most.

    Thus, we bumped the rear cassette 10mm to the right, but stuck with the current standard up front. And just like that, my chainline is much closer to the 3 cogs I spend ~90% of my riding time in.

  66. #66
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Is 217 arrived at with any greater foresight than, this will work for my needs now?
    I'm one guy, with a teeny little budget--essentially enough to flip a used bike and build a new one without losing my shirt. I have no pull with the big industry players. Thus, I did the best I could with what I had to get a 2XL bike rideable for this winter.

    In creating this beast we improved the chainline (at least from my perspective), gained massive tire clearance plus clearance for what we assume to be coming next, and kept the geometry sane for the application. Even with clearance for these massive tires this bike still has a shorter wheelbase and rear center than 99% of the stock bikes that can only fit 4.8's. We had to sacrifice in frame bag space (but not by a huge amount) and, to some, aesthetics.

    I'm OK with all of those compromises -- clearly, because I just dropped the coin on this gamble, with no one but myself to blame if it fails.

    See my other response on chainline for the rest of the answer.

    If the industry were listening to me the solution wouldn't be as ad-hoc as this one might seem. And someone else would have paid for it...

    You can thank me later.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    114
    Quite a bike!!
    I originally thought the rack was an integral part of the frame until I saw the built up picture. Can't wait to read the ride report on deep white fluffy stuff!

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    482
    On the chainline bit, if 217 sees adoption, someone else builds a similar custom, or Mike decides to ride his xl everywhere and wants his higher gears , you can presumable get to an 85mm chainline by flipping a direct mount turbine cinch chainring with the "190 mm" spindle.

    Typed on my phone. Pardon the autocorrect.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,452
    The chainline just makes sense in an empirical sorta way. I've always thought narrower relative to the freebub than shimano and others often suggests makes sense...as you have done here.
    Re the hub: it's got me thinking about trying to modify a DT 440 single speed 150/7 hub with a full free hub body and a new axle, custom to try and make a 177mm hub. It might be close - but I reckon if Brad is turning down custom hub axles it is at least possible. It would make for a nice 177 option for a planned plus bike I'm thinking about. Thanks for the motivation to look at it, mikesee.
    I don't suppose you know what material he used for the axle? Some grade of Alu presumably? Thanks.

  70. #70
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    Interesting, thanks.

    And Sean, it's all about riding, if at all possible. Not because it's faster, but because it's more fun to be able to look back at whatever, and say, I actually chose the way less traveled...
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  71. #71
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,326
    Would a bike like this allow a competitor to ride the ITI in a really high snow year like 2012 or 2009?
    --Peace

  72. #72
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    You definitely would have been able to ride more of the time in either of those years, especially with the 120mm rims, but there likely still would have been quite a bit of pushing. More of an advantage in 2012 I think, since so much of the route was marginal at best. 2009 was mostly rideable to after Puntilla, and back in the pack, it was mostly rideable from Rohn to McGrath. 2012 convinced me that I need to be prepared to ride or ski if I'm signed up for that race. If I thought I could have made it 300 miles without injuring myself I would have skied that year.

  73. #73
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    Would a bike like this allow a competitor to ride the ITI in a really high snow year like 2012 or 2009?
    I wasn't there in '12 and I don't remember '09 being high snow. Or maybe I do?! Regardless, it would allow you to ride more, relative to a bike with smaller tires and/or less snow-specific geometry.

  74. #74
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    The chainline just makes sense in an empirical sorta way. I've always thought narrower relative to the freebub than shimano and others often suggests makes sense...as you have done here.
    Re the hub: it's got me thinking about trying to modify a DT 440 single speed 150/7 hub with a full free hub body and a new axle, custom to try and make a 177mm hub. It might be close - but I reckon if Brad is turning down custom hub axles it is at least possible. It would make for a nice 177 option for a planned plus bike I'm thinking about. Thanks for the motivation to look at it, mikesee.
    I don't suppose you know what material he used for the axle? Some grade of Alu presumably? Thanks.
    That's a great idea Doc -- and would turn out to be one of the few 177 DT hubs in existence. I have a few of those hubs sitting here collecting dust -- please let me know if you're successful, feel free to just send direct email.

    Axle is definitely alu, never thought to ask what grade.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    Would a bike like this allow a competitor to ride the ITI in a really high snow year like 2012 or 2009?
    In 2012, probably not - after the flathorn lake and dismal swap push-in-a-trench fest, it mostly there was just lots and lots of un-consolidated snow on the yentna and su. It wasn't deep, just the trail was churned up by snow machine traffic, and it was too warm to set up into anything besides fluffy white powder.

    Even the skier who passed me near Luce's wasn't going very fast, maybe a 1/3 faster than I was pushing my bike.

    Brrrrly.-img_0068.jpg

    Edit: Huge tires definitely would have made "more" of it rid-able, but there still would have been lots of walking.
    Last edited by spruceboy; 11-22-2015 at 06:32 PM. Reason: clarity

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    333
    That looks like a beautiful bike - I am really looking forward to hearing how it rides in snow in a few months after you get all healed up!

    Are you planning on coming back up to Alaska, maybe tour some areas outside the iditarod trail?

    If you can forgive a question not about the bike - what do you think of those 2XL tires? Are they an improvement over vrubber's other offerings? My experience with the bulldozers and sterlings were not that positive.

    I am really curious how much rolling resistance these tires are going to have when deflated to "soft snow" riding pressures. I have been really loving the bud and lou combo I have been riding so far this year in warm soft snow, in cold (like <-30f) snow, not so much.

  77. #77
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I wasn't there in '12 and I don't remember '09 being high snow. Or maybe I do?! Regardless, it would allow you to ride more, relative to a bike with smaller tires and/or less snow-specific geometry.
    2009 was the misspelled 'Rainey Pass Cafe'. The entire front 2/3 of the field ended up holed up in the Pass Lake cabin with Bill, whose snowmachine was stuck. The leaders broke trail from the entrance to the pass all the way to the last steep push up before the gorge. You came through a few days later and passed me, George and Roger as we were taking a break so George could melt more snow in the pass cabin. Pretty sure you were in McGrath when I got there, showed me where all the food was and then took off for the airport.

  78. #78
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    2009 was the...
    Ohhhhhhh. That year. Yeah, this bike would have made a few marginal stretches easier, and some of the hard but doable stuff less hard and more doable. But the ridicu-deep stuff from ~Pass Creek to the top, and down the other side? No way.

  79. #79
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,326
    I wonder if there is sufficient boot clearance for the chainstays and calf clearance for the seatstays? I guess with flats you can always move you feet further out if necessary. Still, it looks a little tight in the pictures.
    --Peace

  80. #80
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    I wonder if there is sufficient boot clearance for the chainstays and calf clearance for the seatstays?
    Nope. Completely unrideable.

    Kidding.

    Definitely needs to be taken into consideration in the design phase. Thus far I've been able to lightly graze my heels and calves when I'm sloppy on the pedals. The kind of contact that amounts to a polished spot on the frame after a ~year or so.

  81. #81
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,326
    I found these blog posts of Meriwether's earlier elevated chainstay fatbikes. The posts provide an interesting bit of background on this project:

    https://meriwethercycles.wordpress.c...nstay-fatbike/

    https://meriwethercycles.wordpress.c...meet-ts-choad/
    Last edited by Lars_D; 11-26-2015 at 09:11 PM.
    --Peace

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    538
    Eagerly waiting for action shots in the snow or even better, video.

    urmb
    “Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a \mountain or fat/ bike.” ~ John F. Kennedy

  83. #83
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by urmb View Post
    Eagerly waiting for action shots in the snow or even better, video.

    urmb
    No action -- must walk before run, grasshoppa.

    First snow ride today. Lots of hardpack, some drifted and challenging, minimal walking.

    Not even s'posed to be riding yet (docs orders) so I'm spinning easy on the hardpack and walking anything that would require major body english or effort.


    Brrrrly.-8a3a1716.jpg


    Basically getting the fit of the bike dialed so that when I get the all-clear I don't have any messing around left to do.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    217
    Be extremely carefull... ;o)

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,107
    Lookin' good bud!

    Hey, does it look like the tires are holding snow/packing up? Or do they shed the snow well?

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,012
    Good to hear you are rolling Mike.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  87. #87
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    Lookin' good bud!

    Hey, does it look like the tires are holding snow/packing up? Or do they shed the snow well?
    That was the end of the ride, had just ridden across a wet/slushy parking lot to lean the bike for the portrait. Only time all day I saw anything stick to the tires, and only because they'd just been moistened.

  88. #88
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    I've been able to get out and ride this bike 3 times the last 3 weekends.

    One of them --the first -- was a mellow snowpacked road cruise, and served to help me fine-tune the fit of the bike one more degree.

    The other two have been deep, soft snow outings where extremely low tire pressures were mandatory, and the 2XL tires on this bike allowed me to drop to previously unheard of pressures *and stay there* for hours at a time.

    How low? 3psi has been our baseline for snow riding going back years, and on 4.8" tires it's about as low as you want to go most of the time, lest you risk denting rims, peeling tires off of them, or just damaging the tires from sidewall abuse.

    The 2XL's have so much more air volume than 4.8's that 3psi is just the starting point. I've gotten down to 2, 1, .5, .25, and then even 0.0 psi in these tires, all to suit the conditions we were riding, and the unbelievable but inarguable truth is that I was able to ride things -- soft surfaces -- that I couldn't walk on.

    For the first time ever, Jeny (who weighs ~70# less than I do, and whom was running virtually identical pressures on 4.8" tires) couldn't ride some of the things I could.

    The only bummer is that the lower-than-low pressure riding happened in the dark and when we were all pretty spent and thus unwilling to fiddle with cameras. Will repeat it ASAP in daylight, with cameras rolling, to give some added perspective.

    For now? Pics from 2 of the 3 rides.




















































































  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    264
    That is awesome...

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,492
    Thanks for the photos!

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,107
    Wisconsin is very jealous of your snow.

  92. #92
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,587
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    Wisconsin is very jealous of your snow.
    Ditto for New York.

    65 and sunny yesterday, and Santa is starting to curry comb the team.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,826
    Mike, you really can take a picture

    We got snow in the Cascades, but like most things it's not so fluffy and perfect looking as it appears in pics.

    Lots of hike a bike lately, breakable crust, trying to get a rideable base down so I can come and ride at speed. Hiking is good exercise

    We have a great riding area north of us in the Winthrop-Mazama area which sports the greatest number of groomed XC trails in NA. The number of trails bikers are allowed to ride is growing.

    We're heading up there next week with the family

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post


    The 2XL's have so much more air volume than 4.8's that 3psi is just the starting point. I've gotten down to 2, 1, .5, .25, and then even 0.0 psi in these tires, all to suit the conditions we were riding, and the unbelievable but inarguable truth is that I was able to ride things -- soft surfaces -- that I couldn't walk on.

    Mikesee, killing me get that video rolling with those tires down to 1 psi. Must see! Also, is your bike for sale.....

    urmb
    “Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a \mountain or fat/ bike.” ~ John F. Kennedy

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Meriwether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    442
    I finally got to writing something up for this bike. I'm sorry to link to my blog but...don't want to transfer all the photos over here too.

    Here's the link...

    Cheers,
    Whit

  96. #96
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,826
    Thanks Whit. I really enjoy seeing the thought process that goes into custom bikes like this.

  97. #97
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,705
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Took it for a test rip around the parking lot last night. As I was coming back to the shop a (fat) kid shot out of a neighboring unit so fast I couldn't avoid him*. Ran him right over* -- he got squeezed between the tire and the seatstays*, but emerged unscathed because I was running 2psi. None the worse for wear except for the backwards VEE imprinted on his forehead...
    The other day, on my Sunday ride, this popped into my head and I actually LOL'd on the trail.
    I like turtles

  98. #98
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by spruceboy View Post
    In 2012, probably not - after the flathorn lake and dismal swap push-in-a-trench fest, it mostly there was just lots and lots of un-consolidated snow on the yentna and su. It wasn't deep, just the trail was churned up by snow machine traffic, and it was too warm to set up into anything besides fluffy white powder.

    Even the skier who passed me near Luce's wasn't going very fast, maybe a 1/3 faster than I was pushing my bike.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0068.JPG 
Views:	247 
Size:	119.6 KB 
ID:	1030658

    Edit: Huge tires definitely would have made "more" of it rid-able, but there still would have been lots of walking.
    Interesting that you posted this pic. Pete Basinger is in town right now and we got up to ride snow a few nights ago. A lot of it looked like your pic -- minus the corduroy. This trail system got 30" of snow in the last week, and people really only use it on the weekends. So we waited til Sunday afternoon to head out, thinking that was our best chance at having a somewhat packed surface. My guess is that 30-ish people had been out on it in the past 48 hours, some on skis and some on snowshoes. It was snowing pretty hard as we started, and when we got to the point where we decided to turn around, our outbound tracks were already covered.

    The ride we did is a lollipop, and at the ~midpoint we swapped pedals so that he could ride the Meriwether in the trail we'd just churned up on the way out. The three words he used most over the next ~hour were "Incredible", "Unbelievable", and "Ridiculous".

    He no doubt uttered a lot more words than just those three, but I couldn't hear them because I was so far back, pushing his Bud/Lou equipped bike.

    When we got to the small loop that ends the ride the conditions deteriorated even further, thus we dropped pressures to bare bones. I'd guess we were both at less than .5 (yes, half of a psi) and the simple truth is that he rode my bike in places where I was post-holing up to my shins while pushing his. I tried repeatedly to ride his bike, but it just wasn't happening. I'd dig holes with the rear wheel, slip the front wheel right off the trail, spin the rear wheel when trying to lean hard to keep the bike centered on the ultra-narrow trail. So I basically ended up walking the last ~mile.

    He walked some too -- there's just no way to ride some of these conditions, especially when the trail points uphill. But he rode a lot more than I did. Not even close.

    I'll try to get him to post his thoughts here soon.

    When we got home and unloaded the bikes he immediately noticed that I had ridden a section of his front tire's bead right off the rim. Bud on a MuleFut, tubeless. That's how low the pressures were for both of us...

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    333
    Maybe it would have been the ideal time for those mega tires then - basicly miles of flat but very soft/unconsolidated trail.

    I would love to hear what Pete has to say.

    Is there any chance you will be coming to Alaska this winter? I (and others i am sure) would love to see that bike in action.

  100. #100
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    The consistency of the snow in Jay's photo was bottomless mashed potatoes. It was demoralizing because you could see this beautiful, smooth, groomed surface laid out in front of you, but even walking on it was tiring. Definitely would have been interesting to see if the 2XL's on 100's would have allowed enough more riding.

    How much difference would it have made if Pete's bike was running 100's on that ride, Mike? Obviously the bigger tires are going to be able to ride more, but would the difference have been as drastic?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 17

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.