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

Thread: Future of 170

  1. #1
    I'm how far behind?
    Reputation: Soloracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    555

    Future of 170

    I'm looking at drawings of my new fat bike. Stuck between 170 or 190 front and rear. If I go 170 it will be through axle with a slight offset to fit 100s and Bud/Lou. If I go 190 it will have to be QR but no offset. Offset doesn't bother me a bit, been 2 1/2 seasons on my Moonlander. My worries is whether 170 will be around for a bit or is it an in betweener and eventually phased out. Any thoughts?
    Fatter than most.

  2. #2
    I'm how far behind?
    Reputation: Soloracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    555
    Also going to have a second set of wheels built up 29+
    Fatter than most.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    156
    Why would Salsa spend the money on building a Carbon Beargrease if that standard would be obsolete anytime soon?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,527
    170mm isn't going anywhere.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    125
    I don't think 170mm is going anywhere but consider this:

    If you want 4.8'' tires and 29er+, then 190 is the way to go. 170 built up offset doesn't make much sense because you do not have any of the advantages of a 135mm offset wheel, namely internal geared and/or cheap hubs.

    If I was building from the ground up and I didn't want to run internal gear hubs or have the ability to swap front and rear wheels then I would definately go 190mm. With 190 you will get great clearance for fat tires, have lots of rim choices for 29er+ with the only downsides being a more rare/expensive rear hub and a slightly wider Q factor.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,247
    Quote Originally Posted by ntm1973 View Post
    I don't think 170mm is going anywhere but consider this:

    If you want 4.8'' tires and 29er+, then 190 is the way to go. 170 built up offset doesn't make much sense because you do not have any of the advantages of a 135mm offset wheel, namely internal geared and/or cheap hubs.

    If I was building from the ground up and I didn't want to run internal gear hubs or have the ability to swap front and rear wheels then I would definately go 190mm. With 190 you will get great clearance for fat tires, have lots of rim choices for 29er+ with the only downsides being a more rare/expensive rear hub and a slightly wider Q factor.
    Nothing inherent in 170 that makes 29+ impossible. Q factor may be a big deal for some people. Many 190 bikes being built up around here with 80mm or narrower rims and 170 chain line cranks which then means not so hot chain line on the 190. Seems like those would be better off as 170s but many of the new frames are 190 only.
    Latitude 61

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Nothing inherent in 170 that makes 29+ impossible. Q factor may be a big deal for some people. Many 190 bikes being built up around here with 80mm or narrower rims and 170 chain line cranks which then means not so hot chain line on the 190. Seems like those would be better off as 170s but many of the new frames are 190 only.
    The OP's requirement was for bud/lou AND 29er+. If you run a 170mm offset then you have exactly one rim option (the rabbit hole.) Why limit yourself to just one 29er rim? What is the upside of a 170 offset? Maybe I am missing something but a 190 seems like a no brainer for the OP's requirement. That is not to say that the 170 is dead just that 190 is better for someone wanting to run bud/lou and 29er+.

  8. #8
    I'm how far behind?
    Reputation: Soloracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    555
    Hub selection is the issue for 190. Unless I'm missing something, there are no TA options for 190.
    Fatter than most.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    602
    I agree with sryanak. You can run 29+ with 135. Why would 190 be better for 29+?

    Quote Originally Posted by ntm1973 View Post
    The OP's requirement was for bud/lou AND 29er+. If you run a 170mm offset then you have exactly one rim option (the rabbit hole.) Why limit yourself to just one 29er rim? What is the upside of a 170 offset? Maybe I am missing something but a 190 seems like a no brainer for the OP's requirement. That is not to say that the 170 is dead just that 190 is better for someone wanting to run bud/lou and 29er+.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    156
    I think 907 has a through axle 190 for their white out. Could be wrong though.

  11. #11
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,155
    The Whiteout frame uses a 197mm rear dropout spacing to work in conjunction with a 12mm thru-axle 190mm rear hub.

    HA DITCHMAN
    I am slow therefore I am

  12. #12
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Burnt-Orange View Post
    The Whiteout frame uses a 197mm rear dropout spacing to work in conjunction with a 12mm thru-axle 190mm rear hub.

    HA DITCHMAN
    Oh yeah 197
    And I love beer!!

  13. #13
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,356
    Quote Originally Posted by JAGI410 View Post
    170mm isn't going anywhere.
    This. Plus if you buy quality hubs like Hopes, they should a very long time and be easily rebuildable.

    EDIT: I think Hope has more fat- axle options now though. (170 and 190)

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    336
    I asked my local Salsa dealer if Salsa would ever go 190. He said never. According to the Salsa rep they are focused on the more "race oriented" 170 standard. That doesn't really make much sense to me. I can't see 190 slowing you down and it opens all the options. You want to go Bud/Lou on a Clownshoe? No problem. You want to throw a Husker Du on Marge Lite? You can do that too. The only argument against 190 that seems to have any real validity is the crank Q-Factor.

    My guess is companies like Salsa will go 190 once they realize they are losing sales by sticking to 170. I ride a Mukluk and really like it, but if I was shopping for a new bike now you can bet it would be 190.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,848
    But don't overlook the increasing trend toward 1x11, which will have more varied and affordable flavors as time goes on. Lamere carbon sym 170 can run big rear tire, with ring mounted outboard on Next crank.

    That, plus the fact that I have large feet and heel clearance issues even on some sym 135ers, is why I'm leaning toward a Salsa 170 this winter.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  16. #16
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,356
    There are plenty of custom examples of sym. 170 that fit Bud on 100mm rims. It can be done. And with 120mm BB now an option there would be plenty of clearance to go bigger.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    I agree with sryanak. You can run 29+ with 135. Why would 190 be better for 29+?
    Because you can not run bud/lou with 135 and get a 29er+ wheel to work with acceptable spoke tension. Even a Rabbit hole doesn't work with a moonlander because there is not enough offset in the spoke bed on a 50mm rim.

    There is no reason to run 190 if you don't want bud/lou. With 1x11 drivetrains, it is possible that someone will make a frame that can run bud/lou in a symmetrical 170 frame but right now, the 170's that can shoehorn in bud/lou don't have enough clearance for a less than perfect wheel and sloppy riding conditions IMHO.

    I also think it is more likely that hub manufacturing will catch up to 190 hubs than for wheel manufacturing to catch up to offset 29er+ spoke beds.

    170 isn't dead or going anywhere, it just isn't the best option for the OP based on what he wants to do.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    232
    If you are doing a custom frame I think I would go 1x11 with a 170 symmetric hub. Im pretty sure even a Bud on 100 will clear the chain and it should be possible to build the frame to also accommodate. Keeping the Q-factor as narrow as possible helps with comfort and for trail riding. I know Q-factor isnt a big deal but if you can go narrower why not.

    If your choices are 170 offset or 190 then why not 190. It seems to be at least as common as 170 and availability should improve. 135 offset makes sense in providing the option of inexpensive hubs, IGH or electric assist, but 170 doesnt seem to have much of an advantage over 190 as far as hub availability or selection.

    Craig

  19. #19
    Missouri sucks...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    There are some people, like me, that have no desire whatsoever to ever run anything wider than a ML and won't ever need Bud/Lou. 170mm is all I'll ever need. I, personally, see 135mm, 170mm and 190mm sticking around in some capacity for the long haul. Fatbikes are expanding quickly and will be a worldwide pandemic before we know it and all three sizes have their merits for certain types of riders.

    I'm waiting for a savvy company to offer swappable dropouts that will work with any of the three standards like my Banshee Prime

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by ntm1973 View Post
    Because you can not run bud/lou with 135 and get a 29er+ wheel to work with acceptable spoke tension.
    Really?

    The motobecanes (135mm front and rear, 21.5mm offset) have been shown to run the Bud and Lou (both with and without shaving the rear side knobs). Granted this may cause some snow or mud buildup, but this happened when I was riding hardtail xc bikes as "freeride" bikes with HUDGE 2.1" tires in the mid 1990's too. Not ideal, but doable and acceptable if you're not interested in winning any races.


    Quote Originally Posted by ntm1973 View Post
    Even a Rabbit hole doesn't work with a moonlander because there is not enough offset in the spoke bed on a 50mm rim.
    I haven't seen it, but I thought that 135 (21.5m offset, ie. motobecane) could run 29+ because you could "create" more tension with more spoke crossovers on the one side (eg. 3x or 4x) when compared to the other side (eg. 2x or 3x)?

    And can't lengthening the spokes on one side but with more crossovers also make the 135 21.5mm offset work for 29+ on a rabbit hole or some other similar rim?

    Not saying this is ideal, but is it possible?
    If you're riding the snot out of this potential 135mm 21.5 mm offset 29+ set up in the summer on very chundery tech trails, then probably not a good idea. But if you're riding a bit more casually on double track type trails or around town, it should be okay, no? Again, doable if you're not interested in winning any races?

    I could be way off. Any explanation would be appreciated.

    Sorry for the thread derail.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    569
    I would like a 170 rear with a frame that will clear a 4.8 tire on 100mm rims. The chain clearance can be had with a standard 100mm X9 crank and a Wolf Tooth BB30 direct mount ring. You do not need to go 190mm rear unless you want a 2x front set-up. This keeps the Q-factor reasonable and keeps the rear hub lighter and stronger.
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  22. #22
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti View Post
    I would like a 170 rear with a frame that will clear a 4.8 tire on 100mm rims. The chain clearance can be had with a standard 100mm X9 crank and a Wolf Tooth BB30 direct mount ring. You do not need to go 190mm rear unless you want a 2x front set-up. This keeps the Q-factor reasonable and keeps the rear hub lighter and stronger.
    Your chainline is going to be pretty bad with this setup. I experimented with it briefly and was turned off pretty quickly by the terrible chainline.
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey View Post
    Your chainline is going to be pretty bad with this setup. I experimented with it briefly and was turned off pretty quickly by the terrible chainline.
    Why do you think X9 and Wolf Tooth direct mount will make the chain line bad with 170mm hubs? Seems like that is the ideal chainline and the 190mm hubs would make for a very poor chainline.

    Maybe I need to study this page more.
    Tech Speak: Decoding Fatbike Hub Spacing and Drivetrain Compatibility with Wolf Tooth Components

    It does appear that a 1x setup with the ring in the ideal location for a 170 hub may not clear the fattest setups.

    Craig

  24. #24
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by CBBaron View Post
    Why do you think X9 and Wolf Tooth direct mount will make the chain line bad with 170mm hubs?
    I've tried out several different setups and there is just no way to make a 170mm hub work with a full cassette and 100mm/4.8" tires. Sure, you can install components that will allow the chain to clear the tire......but your chainline needs to be roughly 10mm from ideal.

    The only way to set it up and get everything to clear is to run 6-7 cogs from a 9 or 10 speed cassette. That would likely get you there.....but now you're riding a bike with a really, really limited drivetrain. Not something I would want to do.
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  25. #25
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,733
    I run a 170 next crank with a direct mount chainring mounted backwards on a 190 frame and I have a very good chainline. Just saying there are ways around the wide q factor on a 190 if you don't mind running a single ring.
    And I love beer!!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Future for the TRc
    By h20-50 in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-21-2013, 11:19 PM
  2. Future of Asr 5?
    By Scarsandtears in forum Yeti
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 02:45 PM
  3. Future of the HD
    By 2wheelsnotfour in forum Ibis
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 01-20-2012, 09:41 AM
  4. The Future Of MTB
    By bigboulder in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 09:30 AM
  5. Future passion!
    By Justin Credible in forum Passion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2011, 11:55 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
  •