Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Fatty gets LOW

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    571

    Fatty gets LOW

    It was super nice of SRAM to make us a nice X9 fatbike crankset. Too bad they never rode in the snow.... The 22T-36T rings were just not going to cut it, 22T is too low and 36T is to high for actually riding a fatbike in the snow. I would be shifting between them way too much.

    Luckily we have some pretty smart guys and hardcore fatbikers right here in the Twin Cities who took this opportunity to make something cool!! The guys at Wolf Tooth Components have a direct mount 28T and 26T that will go on the X9 crank. This is great gearing for the snow with plenty of tire clearance for the chain. The standard rings work great for 170mm frames. On my 170mm 9zero7 frame, I have 9mm of clearance between the tire and the chain when in granny. This is for a 3.8 larry on Rolling Darryls. The chain is pretty much lined up with the chainstays, so if the frame will clear a tire then there should be no problem with the chain.

    Oh yeah, and it also took 105g off of the crankset.

    Fatty gets LOW-wt4.jpg

    Fatty gets LOW-wt3.jpg
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  2. #2
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti View Post
    22T is too low and 36T is to high for actually riding a fatbike in the snow.
    Can you prove this?
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  3. #3
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,290
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    Can you prove this?
    ^^^^This +1^^^^
    And I love beer!!

  4. #4
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    195
    My 22/36 rocks on trails!

  5. #5
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti View Post
    I would be shifting between them way too much.
    This part. This is the bit lots of us can agree on, I think.

    Subjective debates on what gear ratio is too tall or short for whom aside, it seems a lot of us can agree that front derailleurs suuuuck. And here's another option, and with one less bolted interface to possibly creak? Sounds good.
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    571

    Re: Fatty gets LOW

    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    Can you prove this?
    8 years of riding fatbikes in the snow have proved it to me.
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  7. #7
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti View Post
    8 years of riding fatbikes in the snow have proved it to me.
    Anecdotal evidence, not proof.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,282
    ...uh, I use a 20, 36 with an 11-34...I ditched the 4-bolt cranks because I couldn't find anything smaller than 22...36 worked for me pretty well for years too...glad you could enlighten us with a new product offering though...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  9. #9
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    Anecdotal evidence, not proof.
    Yo it's subjective, we all have different legs.

    Me for instance, I get made fun of by guys when climbing that I'm using the wrong tool (fatty in the summer), they don't know I get dropped by everyone during winter group rides too.

    The issue at hand is ditching the front mech, not how strong your legs are. You're asking for proof that is too difficult to meaningfully provide (watt / torque meters are expensive!) with too low a reward (convincing you).

    Sorry if I'm sounding a little cross, but you're asking for proof when there is none and the guy shouldn't even give a crap about providing it anyway.
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    Can you prove this?
    Can you disprove it?

  11. #11
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Can you disprove it?
    All I have to do to disprove this is find one person that needs a gear lower than 22 for riding in the snow. And that would be me. Now its been disproven. It doesn't matter if every other fatbike rider doesn't need a gear lower than 22. And what does 22 really mean anyway? 22 X 34, 22 X 46, or 22 X 11?

    Now if the OP had said " I find that 22T is too low and 36T is to high for actually riding a fatbike in the snow.", I wouldn't be having any issue with this statement.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti View Post
    It was super nice of SRAM to make us a nice X9 fatbike crankset. Too bad they never rode in the snow.... The 22T-36T rings were just not going to cut it, 22T is too low and 36T is to high for actually riding a fatbike in the snow. I would be shifting between them way too much.

    Luckily we have some pretty smart guys and hardcore fatbikers right here in the Twin Cities who took this opportunity to make something cool!! The guys at Wolf Tooth Components have a direct mount 28T and 26T that will go on the X9 crank. This is great gearing for the snow with plenty of tire clearance for the chain. The standard rings work great for 170mm frames. On my 170mm 9zero7 frame, I have 9mm of clearance between the tire and the chain when in granny. This is for a 3.8 larry on Rolling Darryls. The chain is pretty much lined up with the chainstays, so if the frame will clear a tire then there should be no problem with the chain.

    Oh yeah, and it also took 105g off of the crankset.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WT4.JPG 
Views:	199 
Size:	122.8 KB 
ID:	825724

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WT3.JPG 
Views:	147 
Size:	64.6 KB 
ID:	825725
    What was the total weight of your crank setup after swapping chainrings?

    thanks

  13. #13
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,290
    I like 22-36 as well and I like that the op pointed out a new product as well but what works for one might not work for another. Also no mention of rear gearing either, I commute all winter plus do a lot of trail and backcountry exploring and I like having a bigger range of gears.
    And I love beer!!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,920
    I have been thinking a lot about going 1x10 for the added chain clearance, as a chain even 3-4mm away from the tire picks up a lot of gunk from the tire.

    10mm of clearance would be nice on my Nate, but I don't know if 1x10 would provide a broad enough range for me. I will have to do a study.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    306
    Its a pretty cool chainring. I understand the type 2 derailleurs make it so you don't even need a chainguide. I'd pair that thing up with a type 2 1x10 set up.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    571

    Re: Fatty gets LOW

    Quote Originally Posted by mtn_nut View Post
    What was the total weight of your crank setup after swapping chainrings?

    thanks
    765g for crank, ring and BB.
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  17. #17
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,686
    Blah D Blah D Blah;

    I think we'd ALL like to ditch the FD. Balance that against the fact that I have done snow rides where it was all I could do to keep moving in 22/36 granny. Could not pull middle ring at all. No float and the snow was to heavy to plow through. Hard to ride in granny because the snow was too wet and slick, but it was the only way to keep moving.

    I've proven I need them all. Whatever works for you is just fine. Seeing other options is never bad. It's all good.
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  18. #18
    nothing to see here
    Reputation: Stevob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,019
    Is that Wolftooth spiderless chainring flat or offset?
    I see hills.

    I want to climb them.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    All I have to do to disprove this is find one person that needs a gear lower than 22 for riding in the snow. And that would be me. Now its been disproven. It doesn't matter if every other fatbike rider doesn't need a gear lower than 22. And what does 22 really mean anyway? 22 X 34, 22 X 46, or 22 X 11?

    Now if the OP had said " I find that 22T is too low and 36T is to high for actually riding a fatbike in the snow.", I wouldn't be having any issue with this statement.
    I recall that, in high school English, we were encouraged to avoid writing opinion pieces in that fashion. Since the piece was assumed to be an opinion, constantly stating that became redundant. Forum posts pretty safely fall into the opinion category. But who knows, maybe my teachers didn't know what they were talking about (no sarcasm intended there).

    For what it's worth, I ride a 20-36 low gear in the winter.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    192

    Re: Fatty gets LOW

    i bought the wolftooth 30t and love it i now use all the gears and gained about 2 extra for hill climbing but lost 2 for downhill ,but i dont often pedal downhill

    Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatty gets LOW-uploadfromtaptalk1377152586859.jpg  


  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlowinFlo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    it seems a lot of us can agree that front derailleurs suuuuck. And here's another option, and with one less bolted interface to possibly creak? Sounds good.
    I totally agree!

    Another way to widen the gear range is to go with a custom made 42t cnc machined sprocket by an user of the german mtb forum.
    You combine this with f.i. a 10speed xt cassette (11-36t) and replace the 17t and 15t sprocket including the spacer between with a single 16t sprocket. Some derailleurs (xt shadow plus f.i.) can deal with the big sprocket without any issue.
    This makes: 11 - 13 - 16 - 19 - 21 - 24 - 28 - 32 - 36 - 42.

    - 42t sprocket: 79g
    - modified cassette: 398g

    This combined with a single chainring gives you a 382% gear range and saves weight + money compared to the prices of 1x11 gearing.

    Really great!

  22. #22
    Cassoulet forever !
    Reputation: 20.100 FR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,024
    Can you give us more info on this cog ?
    Will he sell them ?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlowinFlo View Post
    I totally agree!

    Another way to widen the gear range is to go with a custom made 42t cnc machined sprocket by an user of the german mtb forum.
    You combine this with f.i. a 10speed xt cassette (11-36t) and replace the 17t and 15t sprocket including the spacer between with a single 16t sprocket. Some derailleurs (xt shadow plus f.i.) can deal with the big sprocket without any issue.
    This makes: 11 - 13 - 16 - 19 - 21 - 24 - 28 - 32 - 36 - 42.

    - 42t sprocket: 79g
    - modified cassette: 398g

    This combined with a single chainring gives you a 382% gear range and saves weight + money compared to the prices of 1x11 gearing.

    Really great!
    Frenchspeaking 29"ers community site http://VingtNeuf.org

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlowinFlo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    99
    Yes, he sells them, but only privately (30€ + shipping) and there are many people using them already.
    And as far as I read they´re very satisfied.

    If some of you are interested in this cog,
    it shouldn´t be a problem to send them to you, if the shipping costs aren´t too much so that it wouldn´t make sense and one could use the general lee instead.

    You can find more pics, just search for "mirfe ritzel".

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,920
    This interests me

  25. #25
    dvn
    dvn is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    545
    I've ordered a 30T Race Face narrow/wide ring and a General Lee cassette. I'll post pics and ride impressions when everything is installed.
    "Either way it doesn't really matter, I just got back from a bike ride."
    > dbhammercycle

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. on one fatty bud and lou
    By stesteste in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-04-2013, 07:11 PM
  2. $25 Fatty
    By mtbxplorer in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-07-2013, 10:40 PM
  3. Fatty SS?
    By fwinter in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-21-2013, 07:51 AM
  4. On One Fatty
    By craigstr in forum Titus
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2012, 07:51 AM
  5. I'm such a fat fatty-a**-fatty-fat-butt
    By pippinr in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-13-2011, 09:03 PM

Posting Permissions

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