Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 153 of 153
  1. #101
    Banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-09-2018 at 10:25 PM.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,422
    Wow, someone actually took me up on the scale idea, cool.

    Itís interesting that the difference between the two is so close, and yet the ratio is so from the holy grail of 50/50... not surprising

    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    I made some measurements yesterday in hopes to add actual data to the discussion. I placed a scale under the tires and shimmed some boards under the other end to keep axles level. Took measurements bike only and then with me in my neutral seated position.

    2015 Bucksaw, 100mm Bluto, small frame BUCKSAW X01 | Archived Bikes | Salsa Cycles
    bike only 50F:50R distribution
    me and bike 33.3F:66.7R distribution

    2013 Mukluk, 110mm Lefty Max, alternators short as possible, small frame 2013 Mukluk 2 | Archived Bikes | Salsa Cycles
    bike only 50F:50R distribution
    me and bike 35F:65R distribution

    My contact points on both bikes are nearly identical, relative to each other. Those points in reference to the wheelbase do vary slightly from bike to bike. I'm seeing roughly a 1/3:2/3 split. I don't ride the bucksaw in deep snow so no evaluation if it's better or worse than the Mukluk. In any case the difference in weight distribution between both bikes is not very significant anyways.

    Waiting for the scale to settle down as I was getting comfortable I saw 5-10% variations. Purposefully shifting my weight in a seated position can force up to 15% swing in distribution from the base values above. Can anyone else contribute?

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Wow, someone actually took me up on the scale idea, cool.

    Itís interesting that the difference between the two is so close, and yet the ratio is so from the holy grail of 50/50... not surprising
    <- Engineer.

    This is bathroom scale tech, thus I only reported the ratios rather than raw data.

    Without combing over geometries very closely I too was surprised how close the seated ratios were between the bikes. And quite far from 50:50. Tire wear being an indicator, I'd used up my rear significantly faster than my front tread knobs.
    When I eventually swap out wheelsets for winter/snow meats and screw with the drop adjustment, I'll get the data for the long chainstay configuration.

    Does the 1.7% increase in rear weight bias make the Bucksaw X% more rideable in Y% of snow conditions? I'm seeing more variation than that just by dipping my head position to read the scale.
    16.5" vs 17.5" vs 18.5" vs 19.5" chain stays?
    After taking my measurements I feel as though my position on the bike and personal build matter just as much or even more to the weight distribution than the chainstay length. Surely bike geometry matters, but along with that one must consider: frame bags, bar rolls, fork cages, saddle bag, seat rail adjustment, stem length and height, backpack w/ water or beer gut...... Any collection of those factors could skew a person's experience.

    While a definite outlier, the Big Fat Dummy is a useful data point at what I assume to be closer to 50:50.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    Thanks for posting your numbers. This past weekend I custom made some aluminum plates to move my rear tire back further than the stock sliding dropouts would go in an attempt to stop the 2XL rear from rubbing on the chainstay. I rode it around and found it was too much. My rear tire spun out most of the time and the increase in turning radius was noticeable. It was very stable and I could creep along more slowly on the soft trail which was interesting. I returned things back to stock as it didnít result in reducing tire rub as much as I hoped and I didnít feel comfortable really cranking on the pedals. My chainstays were around 19.5Ē long.
    Thank you too.
    I'm not sure what bike you're on. What was the pre-mod chainstay? Do you have a bathroom scale to test both systems?

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,422
    This reminds me of a similar discussion regarding weight distribution on telemark skis. For ages people argued that the holy grail was 50/50, front/rear foot, yet no one could ever achieve that, ultimately it was decided that it was not ideal to have a 50/50 balance ratio as control was improved when there was a bias.

    The Big Fat Dummy demonstrates the problem with having insufficient weight over the rear wheel in low friction conditions.

    Bathroom scale tech demosntrates that rear wheel bias is nowhere near 50/50. It looks like 35/65 is close to the norm, so small changes in chainstay don't really impact float on soft surfaces.

    Sounds like short chainstays may offer benefits without significant costs

    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    <- Engineer.

    This is bathroom scale tech, thus I only reported the ratios rather than raw data.

    Without combing over geometries very closely I too was surprised how close the seated ratios were between the bikes. And quite far from 50:50. Tire wear being an indicator, I'd used up my rear significantly faster than my front tread knobs.
    When I eventually swap out wheelsets for winter/snow meats and screw with the drop adjustment, I'll get the data for the long chainstay configuration.

    Does the 1.7% increase in rear weight bias make the Bucksaw X% more rideable in Y% of snow conditions? I'm seeing more variation than that just by dipping my head position to read the scale.
    16.5" vs 17.5" vs 18.5" vs 19.5" chain stays?
    After taking my measurements I feel as though my position on the bike and personal build matter just as much or even more to the weight distribution than the chainstay length. Surely bike geometry matters, but along with that one must consider: frame bags, bar rolls, fork cages, saddle bag, seat rail adjustment, stem length and height, backpack w/ water or beer gut...... Any collection of those factors could skew a person's experience.

    While a definite outlier, the Big Fat Dummy is a useful data point at what I assume to be closer to 50:50.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-09-2018 at 10:25 PM.

  7. #107
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    737
    When riding on a surface where flotation is at a premium, ie. powder, thin crust, etc. we often find that flat sections can be perfectly rideable, but once we hit a slope, even a gentle one, and start to climb, the rear wheel will start to punch thru/sink in/trench out, and so on.
    Due to a well known (but mysterious) force called gravity, we are seeing a transfer of weight from the front axle to the rear axle on the climbs.
    On a similar note, pulling a wheelie has the same effect. I have never found that to increase my flotation either.
    Like here:
    Last edited by Espen W; 01-04-2018 at 11:12 AM.
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    When riding on a surface where flotation is at a premium, ie. powder, thin crust, etc. we find that flat sections can be perfectly rideable, but once we hit a slope, even a gentle one, the rear wheel will start to punch thru/sink in/trench out, and so on....
    How wide do you think a tyre would have to be before sinking in ceased to be a problem?

    My current guess is around 8" (200mm), ie roughly 4 times the volume of a 4" tyre.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,422
    I strongly disagree with this statement.

    There are many instances where I have used my weight and short chainstays (yes, I said short) to force the rear wheel down to maintain traction on slick/loose surfaces.

    If you're punching into the snow and not getting traction, then you weren't getting traction to begin with, which begs the question of whether anything would improve traction including float.

    Float is not traction. Traction tends to disrupt float, just think about it.

    Gravity is real. Don't look to marginal changes in geometry or tire width to address a grossly overloaded vehicle with inadequate support. Even the widest tire will encounter conditions where float is not possible.

    In other words, enjoy the hike, get some snowshoes, or wait for the snow to set up/settle down.

    Seriously, this has got to be the dumbest battle of wills ever. Can't you guys just ride what you ride and let it go?

    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    When riding on a surface where flotation is at a premium, ie. powder, thin crust, etc. we often find that flat sections can be perfectly rideable, but once we hit a slope, even a gentle one, and start to climb, the rear wheel will start to punch thru/sink in/trench out, and so on.
    Due to a well known (but mysterious) force called gravity, we are seeing a transfer of weight from the front axle to the rear axle on the climbs.
    On a similar note, pulling a wheelie has the same effect. I have never found that to increase my flotation either.
    Like here:

  10. #110
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    In other words, enjoy the hike, get some snowshoes, or wait for the snow to set up/settle down.
    Nah.. a proper bike can easily be ridden (no hands even) in conditions so mushy that hiking would really, really suck. At least not enjoyed much.
    Like here:


    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DirtyHun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,150
    My Diamondback has 18.5" chainstays, so they are on the long side. I haven't had it out on snow, but it cruises down washes amazingly well, and climbs nicely enough for my old @ss.
    2016 El Oso Grande
    2018 Stolen Zeke
    90's Skykomish

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fugsworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Can't you guys just ride what you ride and let it go?
    Maybe your own advice would do you some good.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    ...In other words, enjoy the hike, get some snowshoes, or wait for the snow to set up/settle down...
    I think most of the people in this discussion know the basics.

    Float may not be traction, but you're not going anywhere when you're sinking up to your axles.

    As for wearing snowshoes, that's not an option for me. Firstly I ride miles to where ever I'm going and will have highly variable surfaces en route. I want a bike that can handle most of what gets thrown at it, and am quite happy to hike-a-bike for short portions if necessary.

    There are no such things as groomed snow trails where I ride. There won't be skiers or snowmobiles, and the closest thing to grooming will be on the forestry tracks where some big tractor has left great frozen ruts with icy corrugations. When I go out I have no idea what sort of surfaces will be ahead of me. The fatbike however has been the most versatile at handling them.

    The enjoyable thing about the fatbike forum in the early days was the innovation. Innovation has slowed down, and our bikes are now being shaped more for trail centres with prepared surfaces than the unpredictable great outdoors.

    If we had the snow's wrong, on with the skis/snowshoes mentality we'd still be riding skinny wheels. (I find your opinions interesting, that is not a go at you)

    You may well be right with that opinion for all I know, however the point of this discussion is to keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible, and if we have to look down some dead ends, then at least we then know to look elsewhere.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DirtyHun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,150
    I think innovation in fat bikes has simply been taken up by the manufacturers. When fat bikes arose, they were an innovation. Now, they are an industry, and the manufacturers-of frames, tires, forks, etc. are doing the work. Though it may be costly as a consumer, it is time expedient to be able to buy what you need to enjoy the ride you desire.
    2016 El Oso Grande
    2018 Stolen Zeke
    90's Skykomish

  15. #115
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    Is this a sign of you getting EOG (early onset grumpiness)?
    I think it's a sign that you're being unnecessarily personal and petty in your responses. And that you seem to have opinions that are quite strong for the amount of time you've apparently been actually riding a fat bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    ...our bikes are now being shaped more for trail centres with prepared surfaces than the unpredictable great outdoors.
    You make this point frequently - can you give some specific examples of this? Because honestly, I see very few fat bikes (not counting cheap crap) that I would describe as not suitable for the "unpredictable great outdoors." They may not all reflect your particular geometry preferences, etc. but that hardly means they won't work on a remote trip. And it doesn't have to be an "either/or" thing, as you seem to want to frame it. There are plenty of bikes capable of being fun on trails and being loaded up and taken into the backcountry for days at a time.

    In fact, I think we live in a pretty awesome time for the available choices in adventure bikes.
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  16. #116
    Banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-09-2018 at 10:24 PM.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    Nah.. a proper bike can easily be ridden (no hands even) in conditions so mushy that hiking would really, really suck. At least not enjoyed much.
    Like here:


    Yeah, pretty cool, but now let's see him mount that bike in the waist deep snow and get it rolling again. Even though the east coast of the US is hogging all the snow, I may need that skill someday in the midwest. I hope. I can see grass in some places still, ugh.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyHun View Post
    I think innovation in fat bikes has simply been taken up by the manufacturers. When fat bikes arose, they were an innovation. Now, they are an industry, and the manufacturers-of frames, tires, forks, etc. are doing the work. Though it may be costly as a consumer, it is time expedient to be able to buy what you need to enjoy the ride you desire.
    Well, let's see their work on a fatbike that doesn't dig trenches on really soft going.

    It'll be people like mikesee and other experimenters who will bring this to pass initially, not the major manufacturers.

    "There's no market for that sort of bike," the industry will cry, and they'll be right.

    Right up until the day they see the small guys building bikes for that purpose, then they'll say "Ooh look! there's a bandwagon, let's jump on!"

    Excuse my cynical take on the industry, but we see very little groundbreaking innovation in the cycling world, more an evolutionary progress of refinement (which is also good).
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    ...You make this point frequently - can you give some specific examples of this? Because honestly, I see very few fat bikes (not counting cheap crap) that I would describe as not suitable for the "unpredictable great outdoors." They may not all reflect your particular geometry preferences, etc. but that hardly means they won't work on a remote trip....
    Of course it doesn't mean they're not suitable for the "unpredictable great outdoors." I have toured on dirt in outback Australia on a lightweight racing bike with tubular tyres - probably the most unsuitable bike possible, and very remote places. It was all I had at the time.

    I accept that any bike can be used.

    But some bikes are more suitable than others.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  20. #120
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Of course it doesn't mean they're not suitable for the "unpredictable great outdoors." I have toured on dirt in outback Australia on a lightweight racing bike with tubular tyres - probably the most unsuitable bike possible, and very remote places. It was all I had at the time.

    I accept that any bike can be used.

    But some bikes are more suitable than others.
    But "suitability" is exactly what I'm talking about. I didn't make the comment above the within the context of "you can make any bike work."

    I'm saying that 1) there are quite a few fat bikes available today that are awesome platforms for backcountry exploration, and 2) that the notion that a fat bike is either designed for "having fun on groomed terrain parks" or "backcountry exploration" is a false dichotomy that you are choosing to perceive. Plenty of bikes out there these days that will do a great job of both.

    And trust me, I speak having from spent a little time in the backcountry on bikes.
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DirtyHun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    But "suitability" is exactly what I'm talking about. I didn't make the comment above the within the context of "you can make any bike work."

    I'm saying that 1) there are quite a few fat bikes available today that are awesome platforms for backcountry exploration, and 2) that the notion that a fat bike is either designed for "having fun on groomed terrain parks" or "backcountry exploration" is a false dichotomy that you are choosing to perceive. Plenty of bikes out there these days that will do a great job of both.

    And trust me, I speak having from spent a little time in the backcountry on bikes.
    This is very much how I see this issue. There are dozens of fat bikes that are adventure ready and, with proper tires (another area where personal innovation cannot possibly cater to demand and where the industry has really gone to good lengths), can manage powder as long as the rider astride them knows how to ride on such a surface.
    2016 El Oso Grande
    2018 Stolen Zeke
    90's Skykomish

  22. #122
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Yeah, pretty cool, but now let's see him mount that bike in the waist deep snow and get it rolling again. Even though the east coast of the US is hogging all the snow, I may need that skill someday in the midwest. I hope. I can see grass in some places still, ugh.
    I need to start a FAQ, it seems, but since we are closing in on Groundhog Day, here ye go: Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?

    Demo at the start of the video and again at 1.13
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    I need to start a FAQ, it seems, but since we are closing in on Groundhog Day, here ye go: Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?

    Demo at the start of the video and again at 1.13
    Oh Espen we don't need that thread to start up again.
    Latitude 61

  24. #124
    Banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-09-2018 at 10:24 PM.

  25. #125
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    737
    Fellas:
    Let us focus on data instead of quarreling (as the Brits say).
    Labtype data with scales, etc.
    Outdoor type data with back-back testing.

    Seems that the mile long stays of the Big Fat Dummy arent't optimal (I'd like to test it with my 6'' tires at a slight vacuum, though) and neither are the 0mm long CS of a unicycle.
    Ie. the ideal is somewhere in the middle, and the ideal will vary with conditions, rider weight, tires, pressure and so on.

    Post data, show videos of radical riding (comparative would be super.).
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  26. #126
    Banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-09-2018 at 10:24 PM.

  27. #127
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,804
    I have not had anything to add to this conversation and I suppose this post is only anecdotal at best. We have been blessed with a bunch of snow in the northeast US and conditions have been relatively soft up to this point. My "snow bike" is a Borealis Yampa, whose geometry includes long chainstays that could be described as tractor-trailer length. I can't manual the front end over a ditch to save my life on this bike, but find it fairly easy to do on my other rig. I went for a ride a week or so with some friends in conditions that were marginal at best.

    I seemed to be having the easiest time of everyone, largely due to running Buds on 90 mm rims and airing down appropriately for the conditions. When a tire would punch through it was always the rear, and i found myself keeping my weight forward to compensate. But I noticed that on short punchy climbs that if your rear tire spun it would dig a hole and you would be stopped in your tracks, much the way mikesee described somewhere in here. I found that I had to consciously weight the rear tire to maintain traction on these climbs. It was the first time I have ever experienced this sort of thing in decades of snow riding.

    I'm not trying to make a case for either long or short chainstays with regard to float. Short stays are certainly (in my mind) beneficial for a playful bike. However I had my eyes opened to how critical weight distribution is when riding in conditions that are barely supportive.

  28. #128
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    ...My feeling is that the only time one benefits from having their weight further rearward is in windblown snow (at least in my area). .
    Interesting. What about windblown snow changes the usual variables from your typical conditions? Is it that it's loose and less consolidated?
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,422
    To the forum moderator: Thanks

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gunner.989's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    68
    I found this article today when reading nsmb article it doesnít directly talk about fat biking or chain stays length or float but talks about the industry of bike sizing. Iíve been lucky where I ride a trek farly feels great but I would like to experiment but Iím a one bike guy the only thing I know is when I donít like something. My point by posting this is maybe itís the over all geometry on some of these bikes more then chainstay length.

    Size matters: why we’re all riding bikes that are too small - MBR

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,422
    Itís an interesting article, i read it last year, I might even have been on board with the really long frame and short stem idea until I spent a season riding a large (too large) Wozo.

    Kona has the long and low geo in spades, but too long is just that, no amount of stem shortening can overcome a frame that is too big. Granted, too small is also bad, but for a bike that needs to be pedaled, a longer frame is not the key.

    All things in moderation.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner.989 View Post
    I found this article today when reading nsmb article it doesnít directly talk about fat biking or chain stays length or float but talks about the industry of bike sizing. Iíve been lucky where I ride a trek farly feels great but I would like to experiment but Iím a one bike guy the only thing I know is when I donít like something. My point by posting this is maybe itís the over all geometry on some of these bikes more then chainstay length.

    Size matters: why we’re all riding bikes that are too small - MBR

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,106
    I don't frequent mtbr much any more so it is funny to see the same exact arguments and concerns regurgitated over and over again year after year.

    Rider is faced with adverse conditions and questions bike geo rather than ride skill, technique, and setup. Some snow just sucks to ride and you constantly need to adjust body position, pedaling technique, and tire pressure to compensate based on conditions.

    It ain't easy...it isn't supposed to be!!

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,654
    I've heard short chain stays fixes everything and makes it easy.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    I don't frequent mtbr much any more so it is funny to see the same exact arguments and concerns regurgitated over and over again year after year.

    Rider is faced with adverse conditions and questions bike geo rather than ride skill, technique, and setup. Some snow just sucks to ride and you constantly need to adjust body position, pedaling technique, and tire pressure to compensate based on conditions.

    It ain't easy...it isn't supposed to be!!
    Yes, but...

    If your frame allows you to adjust your wheelbase why not try that, too. This falls under "setup" , no?

    When I lengthened the stays on my Muk, I could suddenly ride in conditions that I struggled with before. The primary benefit was fewer front end washouts and improved "float". I assume this was because it slowed handling, and put more weight on the front wheel allowing knobs to grab while reducing weight on the back. Better fore aft balance for the Muk, for the way I had it set up at least. I can't say rear end traction was improved, but that wasn't the biggest issue I was dealing with. Traction was more than adequate for the trails I was riding at the time, and well within my ability to optimize with dynamic shifts of body position.

    Argue away, but the benefits were real, not imagined.
    Veni vidi velo!

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by gunner.989 View Post
    I found this article today when reading nsmb article it doesnít directly talk about fat biking or chain stays length or float but talks about the industry of bike sizing. Iíve been lucky where I ride a trek farly feels great but I would like to experiment but Iím a one bike guy the only thing I know is when I donít like something. My point by posting this is maybe itís the over all geometry on some of these bikes more then chainstay length.

    Size matters: why we’re all riding bikes that are too small - MBR
    I read this plus a couple of other reviews of uber long bikes and decided to give one a whirl. I bought one of mr Porters 2nd generation Geometrons which has a 510mm reach on a medium. In short I would say discussing the merits of CS length in isolation is a moot point as there are so many other variables however I can confirm that the geometron climbs astonishingly well, provides traction in spades and allows insane high speed drifts plus is extremely comfortable for all day riding despite being a big lump of bike. it's not going to cut it on snow though and it's not ideal for trials style hops!

    After riding the geometron I decided to slack out all my other bikes including my fat bike by 2 degrees with angle sets and have noticed only and improvement in handling having done so. I don't see much snow but like velo bike encounter a wide range of conditions and terrain on each ride. For me, longer bike coupled with 35mm stem and a head angle around the 65 degree mark results in a more comfortable and capable bike. I guess I tend to ride quite front heavy so have never had any front end wash issues from going slacker.

    Horses for courses, what works for one may not work for another, blah blah.

  36. #136
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,441
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    delete

    I guess he took his ball and went home.

  37. #137
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I guess he took his ball and went home.

  38. #138
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,237
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I guess he took his ball and went home.
    Thank goodness, I stayed neutral but found myself really getting annoyed. Many times I typed up a response but deleted it realizing it was worth it.

  39. #139
    Nice day for a ride..... Moderator
    Reputation: Bikin' Bric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I guess he took his ball and went home.
    He got warned after being reported in several threads. I guess he didn't like it and went to delete all his forum posts... I didn't like that so I deleted HIM. C'est la vie.

  40. #140
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikin' Bric View Post
    He got warned after being reported in several threads. I guess he didn't like it and went to delete all his forum posts... I didn't like that so I deleted HIM. C'est la vie.

    Too bad. I'm always grateful for a dissenting opinion when well presented -- it makes us examine our beliefs and remember how we arrived at them. He started out great (in his contradictory sort of way) but then kinda lost his shit and spiraled the drain.

    And then you flushed him.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    400
    Hi Guys,
    After two years riding Trek Farley year round with rear wheel always full forward I moved it back all the way about a month ago. Overall I think I prefer it for winter riding and will keep it there.

    Here's a few SMALL changes I observed with longer wheelbase and chainstays:

    -Front end is calmer. Less steering and body leaning workload to keep on line. This is especially nice when trying to follow a snowmobile ski, or truck rut or a single bikers trail.

    -Climbing in high traction situations improved. IF you have good traction and it's steep, seems like more leverage is applied to rear and it's less likely to slip out.

    -Low traction climbing. I can't decide if there is less traction in soft conditions or not due to a slightly lighter rear, but I do know the calmer front end keeps me tracking straighter and helps with my balance when crawling along very slow.

    -Single track cornering. We have some nice groomed single track in our area and tight or fast cornering is improved. The front end feels more planted and secure while the rear is more likely to skid as opposed to the opposite.

    Overall, very minor improvements. A simple shift of body weight or tire preasure would probably override any of these advantages. But since I haven't found a drawback, I'm now in the long chainstay camp for wintertime.

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: foresterLV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    141
    I dont notice Stache with 425 chainstay to climb any worse than my 465 fat bike... in fact it climbs better due to less weight, wider 12 speed casette, better fork and stiffer frame/wheels.

    as mentioned here already geometry overall defines ride characteristic not just isolated chainstay length. BB height and stem length balance out effects of short chainstay on climbing. and indeed my fat bike BB is higher and have shorter front setup, thus I notice similar climb capability.

    if there would be stache-like fat bike frames available it would be really sweet... it would allow to have really universal bike with less compromises on geometry which "29+ fat conversion" typically involves being based on fat-oriented frame.

    Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    66
    Iíve just spent the past few days riding on multiuse trails after a 18Ē+ dump of dry snow. The trails have been packed down by a combination of snow machines, skiers, snowshoers and walkers and their dogs. Itís been pretty miserable at times. The humidity is 29% and the snow is slow to pack down and even then it never really does. Temps have been in the 20ís and 30ís but the trails arenít seeing that overnight freeze where they become set up. Iím guessing because itís been too warm but not warm enough to get melting and refreezing. The hard base under this new snow is not reachable so my forward progress is brought to a halt by the rear tire trenching out. Sometimes itís caused by me getting thrown off track and my front wheel jacking over. Sometimes itís caused by hitting a soft spot. Thing is, whatever the cause my forward momentum ceases due to my rear tire trenching out or sinking in. I dumped so much air out of my rear tire today I peeled the tire halfway off the rim not just once but twice, within 100í.

    Anyhow, in every case I can think of recently, in no circumstance would I have benefited from having even more weight placed over the back of the bike. Maybe that would have been the case had the rear tire been able to dig down to traction but instead Iím trying to float and distribute my weight as equally as possible to both tires.

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: foresterLV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    141
    actually I suspect pushing loaded front wheel in deep snow is very inneficient... the more weight is on drive wheel (rear) the better.
    like in this video - https://youtu.be/-KZdnRddV24 notice that rider is unloading front to move forward and most of the weight is on the rear on pedal push.


    Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,422
    Wozo

    Quote Originally Posted by foresterLV View Post
    I dont notice Stache with 425 chainstay to climb any worse than my 465 fat bike... in fact it climbs better due to less weight, wider 12 speed casette, better fork and stiffer frame/wheels.

    as mentioned here already geometry overall defines ride characteristic not just isolated chainstay length. BB height and stem length balance out effects of short chainstay on climbing. and indeed my fat bike BB is higher and have shorter front setup, thus I notice similar climb capability.

    if there would be stache-like fat bike frames available it would be really sweet... it would allow to have really universal bike with less compromises on geometry which "29+ fat conversion" typically involves being based on fat-oriented frame.

    Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,422
    There are times when biking on snow is not practical. Itís not the fault of the rider or the machine, itís physics.

    About this point Iím expecting a video from Espen

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowfat View Post
    Iíve just spent the past few days riding on multiuse trails after a 18Ē+ dump of dry snow. The trails have been packed down by a combination of snow machines, skiers, snowshoers and walkers and their dogs. Itís been pretty miserable at times. The humidity is 29% and the snow is slow to pack down and even then it never really does. Temps have been in the 20ís and 30ís but the trails arenít seeing that overnight freeze where they become set up. Iím guessing because itís been too warm but not warm enough to get melting and refreezing. The hard base under this new snow is not reachable so my forward progress is brought to a halt by the rear tire trenching out. Sometimes itís caused by me getting thrown off track and my front wheel jacking over. Sometimes itís caused by hitting a soft spot. Thing is, whatever the cause my forward momentum ceases due to my rear tire trenching out or sinking in. I dumped so much air out of my rear tire today I peeled the tire halfway off the rim not just once but twice, within 100í.

    Anyhow, in every case I can think of recently, in no circumstance would I have benefited from having even more weight placed over the back of the bike. Maybe that would have been the case had the rear tire been able to dig down to traction but instead Iím trying to float and distribute my weight as equally as possible to both tires.

  47. #147
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    There are times when biking on snow is not practical. Itís not the fault of the rider or the machine, itís physics.

    About this point Iím expecting a video from Espen
    Hehe
    The video linked above in post #144 is actually mine, but it is 3 years old or so.
    So: Here is a new one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PolM4TdebmA
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  48. #148
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,219
    Cool video !
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    Hehe
    The video linked above in post #144 is actually mine, but it is 3 years old or so.
    So: Here is a new one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PolM4TdebmA
    Just some observations during these winter:

    -I have not found it possible to get a wide tire on a short chainstay like 16.5"
    -the widest tyre on a 16.5" chainstay is 3.8" 27.5 on a 80mm rim
    -my Lenz Fatillac does not take 4"x26" on a wide rim, probably you need 60mm run or narrower, dis is not giving a wide enough rim for me
    -big tyres like 5" or 2XL is not giving you a agile trail bike, it is giving you a snow floating bike
    -bigger tyres are slowing you down, and you get the compromise between a agile bike or floating bike
    -high endurance athletes probably like Espen W or Mike C is probably going to handle big tyres over long runs, but for normal people like me, it is actually just challenging to go through shorter distances with heavy tires. Sinking in 10-20 cm in soft snow with 1800 grams of tyre is just giving me shorter distances and it ends up with walking anyway.
    -people like weighing over 250lbs
    is probably sinking so much into soft snow conditon, so it will not be possible to run fat bikes in these conditions at all
    -where I live we have had 1.5 meter or more of snow this winter. Snow is growing so much in the trails, that it does not get hard packed.
    -doing 3.8" x 27.5" is just not giving enough support.
    -I tried a 2xl bike and it floated for sure, but it took away all the fun of the ride
    -I have settled with a bike that has 16.9" chain stay bike with 4.4" at 80mm rim. I can run that bike in long chain stay position with 4.8" but do not like that.
    Last edited by Rumblefish2010; 02-18-2018 at 09:40 AM.

  50. #150
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish2010 View Post
    Just some observations during these winter:


    -I tried a 2xl bike and it floated for sure, but it took away all the fun of the ride
    -I have settled with a bike that has 16.9" chain stay bike with 4.4" at 80mm rim. I can run that bike in long chain stay position with 4.8" but do not like that.

    Pretty much my exact experiences.

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    The video linked above in post #144 is actually mine, but it is 3 years old or so.
    So: Here is a new one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PolM4TdebmA
    Hard work once you start scooping snow with your pedals!

    The spread of that tyre gives an idea of how wide a tyre is really going to have to be to 'float' over that surface. Maybe 8" would do the trick?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Hard work once you start scooping snow with your pedals!

    The spread of that tyre gives an idea of how wide a tyre is really going to have to be to 'float' over that surface. Maybe 8" would do the trick?
    Looked at the video too. Was laughing a bit when I recognised that I am probably twice the weight of the rider.
    I will sink in to much the first meters of riding. If not I would be gasping after air after 10 meters😁

  53. #153
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    28,489
    Interesting when we are loaded down with gear, such as sleeping roll, pad, bivvy, food, clothes, water, etc., the bike seems to get much better traction uphill on soft snow, provided you can keep pedaling. Just like an auto. There's stuff I know i'd spin out on that I can make when it's all loaded down. That doesn't mean it's easier, but having reserve leg-power means nothing on some climbs where you spin out. Bike is probably an average of 20lbs heavier than normal in this condition.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Wheelbase vs. Chainstay Length
    By bervin in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-21-2015, 02:36 PM
  2. How does stem length and frame length affect handling
    By Fargo1 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 07:23 AM
  3. Tazer HT chainstay length?
    By cheetabrian in forum Intense
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 05:28 PM
  4. Stem length and handling on a 29r?
    By danza in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-29-2012, 08:15 PM
  5. Chainstay length, sliding dropouts and bike handling...?
    By The_Mickstar in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-12-2011, 01:25 PM

Members who have read this thread: 302

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.