Results 1 to 95 of 95
  1. #1
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326

    Groupthink, and where it goes wrong.

    I was perusing a different thread in this subforum a few hours ago and came upon this phrase:

    "Lighter and less rolling resistence is always better, there is no exception to this."

    I didn't want to take that thread further off topic, so I started this one. That statement was made in the context of discussing appropriate wheels and tires for any given scenario.

    I started this thread because it occurred to me that I didn't agree with the statement at all. Not even for racer geeks.

    But as I ruminated further on it, I realized that nearly everyone else believes it, accepts it as truth, even if they've never really experimented with anything different to have learned otherwise.

    *-On technical climbs, a heavier wheelset (rims + tires) stays more planted, that is, *maintains better traction* than a lighter wheelset. This is true for dirt as well as snow.

    *-On technical descents, a heavier wheelset is less easily deflected, allowing you to maintain traction and hold your line better. Also true on dirt and snow.

    *-On non-technical trails--climbing, descending, or flattracking--increased wheel (rim + tire) weight gives a flywheel effect. This means that once up to speed you can maintain momentum with less effort. Definitely true on both dirt and snow.

    Every other scenario I can think of is basically a subcategory of the statements above.

    I've been intensely experimenting with different rim widths, tread patterns, tire pressures, and casing thicknesses for the last decade. I stumbled onto the above by accident, when out looking for other answers. But the lessons learned, even by accident, have taught me to stop accepting "facts" as such until they're proven as such.

    I don't own a light XC bike anymore--I don't see the point. Why is that important?

    Because riding will always be faster than walking, not to mention more fun and more rewarding. And I can ride more on a bike with heavier wheels and "slower" tires.

    In case it wasn't clear above, I'm talking about *trail* use, not road of any ilk.

    Discuss?

  2. #2
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    This may not make sense if you don't have kids.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    753
    The correct tire is seldom the lightest.

    Having all of the correct tires is pretty expensive for most people, not to mention how many can't even change a tire to begin with.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Lighter and less rolling resistance isn't always better.

    My road bike has extremely light wheels with contact patches the size of dimes. That's low rolling resistance.

    It would be a nightmare off road.

    It seems more correct to say, the lightest wheelset with the lowest rolling resistance appropriate for the situation is best.

    But once you go down that road, my guess is that there are seriously diminishing returns and that experience trumps weight and contact patch.

    Think about it- you weigh 170. your bike weighs 40 pounds. that's a total of 210 pounds. Drop your bike down to 30 pounds and you've dropped 25% off the weight of your bike but only 5% of your total rolling weight, so, it that 5% gonna make that big a difference?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,015
    Mike I think, at least on the face of it, your implication that heavier is always better is as flawed as the other persons statement that lighter is always better. Even you must draw the line on how heavy you will go for any given condition. I think I read you the other day to say how you are trying hundies in new riding environments because the new ones were light enough to work in that application.
    Latitude 61

  6. #6
    Bicycle Obsessed
    Reputation: jpettit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    96
    Lighter and less rolling resistence is always better, there is no exception to this."
    This might be somewhat true for road bikes, but not even entirely for them. You have to understand that rolling resistence = traction. I could be more or less convinced that lighter (given strength is the same) is generally better, but traction generally trumps rolling resistance. If this wasn't true every MTB would be running skinny road slicks.

  7. #7
    I <3 dirt
    Reputation: Ilikemtb999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,427
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I was perusing a different thread in this subforum a few hours ago and came upon this phrase:

    "Lighter and less rolling resistence is always better, there is no exception to this."

    I didn't want to take that thread further off topic, so I started this one. That statement was made in the context of discussing appropriate wheels and tires for any given scenario.

    I started this thread because it occurred to me that I didn't agree with the statement at all. Not even for racer geeks.

    But as I ruminated further on it, I realized that nearly everyone else believes it, accepts it as truth, even if they've never really experimented with anything different to have learned otherwise.

    *-On technical climbs, a heavier wheelset (rims + tires) stays more planted, that is, *maintains better traction* than a lighter wheelset. This is true for dirt as well as snow.

    *-On technical descents, a heavier wheelset is less easily deflected, allowing you to maintain traction and hold your line better. Also true on dirt and snow.

    *-On non-technical trails--climbing, descending, or flattracking--increased wheel (rim + tire) weight gives a flywheel effect. This means that once up to speed you can maintain momentum with less effort. Definitely true on both dirt and snow.

    Every other scenario I can think of is basically a subcategory of the statements above.

    I've been intensely experimenting with different rim widths, tread patterns, tire pressures, and casing thicknesses for the last decade. I stumbled onto the above by accident, when out looking for other answers. But the lessons learned, even by accident, have taught me to stop accepting "facts" as such until they're proven as such.

    I don't own a light XC bike anymore--I don't see the point. Why is that important?

    Because riding will always be faster than walking, not to mention more fun and more rewarding. And I can ride more on a bike with heavier wheels and "slower" tires.

    In case it wasn't clear above, I'm talking about *trail* use, not road of any ilk.

    Discuss?
    Prove it.

  8. #8
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    I find supple tires provide better traction than ones with very stiff casings. Usually the supple tires also weigh less. Ergo, it seems lighter tires roll better. I am not talking about any gyroscopic effects or deflection, just the quality of the contact patch and how it conforms to terrain features.

    I figure I can aim the tire where I want it, but it's the tire's job to provide the traction.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  9. #9
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Mike I think, at least on the face of it, your implication that heavier is always better is as flawed as the other persons statement that lighter is always better. Even you must draw the line on how heavy you will go for any given condition. I think I read you the other day to say how you are trying hundies in new riding environments because the new ones were light enough to work in that application.
    I didn't write "always", but I did imply "often". And I stand by that.

  10. #10
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy View Post
    I find supple tires provide better traction than ones with very stiff casings. Usually the supple tires also weigh less. Ergo, it seems lighter tires roll better.
    The rooster crowing does not make the sun come up. Although supple tires may have more feel on the trail, I find that running lower pressures tubeless on the same tires results in squirm and less confident traction - in that case I prefer a heavier carcass and a stiffer sidewall and will gladly accept the additional weight. My Racing Ralph 2.4s were supple as anything, but at 26psi would barely keep on track - the Ardents and Purgatories were much more confidence inspiring.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,015
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I didn't write "always", but I did imply "often". And I stand by that.
    "Often" it is then.

    As to the individual points in your thread starter I would offer a couple of points:

    On technical climbs if they are steep enough and I am going very slow, which I do on climbs, my weight on the rear wheel seems to be what keeps it planted maybe the front wheel would wander less if it was heavier.....

    On decents heavier does deflect less....

    I have noticed the flywheel effect for sure and love it when it is all spun up but on twisty turny up and down singletrack that requires very much braking then you have to keep spinning up the flywheel.

    This is starting to decend into splitting hairs on my part so I'll just go riding.
    Latitude 61

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bprsnt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    292
    Last edited by bprsnt; 09-23-2012 at 07:30 PM.
    Moonlander's
    Sandman Hogger Ti

  13. #13
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,343
    I think, as I've said before, it comes down to where you ride, and what you're looking for in that ride.

    Bomber solid, never have to think about it, point and go, middle of nowhere, long hike out type desires? Yep, heavier will reward that group, and they should be entitled to product that works for them

    Seldom more than an hour from home, generally never more than a 20 minute to half hour walk out, lots of climbing, off camber, mud, sand, leaves, wet, rooty, mixed conditions, type riding, often appreciate the lighter weight and more supple ride. These riders also, should have stuff that suits.

    Of course, as others have said, both can be taken to the ridiculous, but a middle ground of light, yet sturdy enough for my situations, and I have no issues, nor do most of the folks I ride with. Of course, anything can happen, period.

    If I found myself being let down by my lighter set ups? I'd change. Seeing as I ride without hassle, why strap extra weight on? My downhills are fast enough to scare me a little now and then, my lungs and legs still burn on the climbs.

    Yep, not seeing the need. However, none of my bikes weighs less than 29 or 30 lbs, with several in the mid 30's...

    All this said? The original statement is ridiculous, there is ALWAYS and exception to an opinion.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Larry Endomorph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by jpettit View Post
    You have to understand that rolling resistence = traction. I could be more or less convinced that lighter (given strength is the same) is generally better, but traction generally trumps rolling resistance.
    How can traction trump rolling resistance when rolling resistance = traction?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,015
    I finally read the post that Mike quoted to start off this thread and find it interesting that it started off with a reasonable statement that BFL's had their place over presumably "lighter" tires where the trail was soft and then went on to make the somewhat contradictory statement that lighter is always better....I know I'm supposed to be riding.
    Latitude 61

  16. #16
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    I would say that lower rolling resistance will always be better *if it doesn't compromise traction*. But it almost always seems to do that, sooo....

    I've always been a fan of big, heavy, knobby tires up front and a lighter tire with less rolling resistance out back. I've always run fr and dh rims on my xc bikes though...

  17. #17
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Endomorph View Post
    How can traction trump rolling resistance when rolling resistance = traction?


    Not true. You can have a tire with horrible traction and high rolling resistance just as you could have a tire with incredible traction and low rolling resistance. Tread pattern, rubber compound, casing design, terrain and riding style will have different effects on each quality.

  18. #18
    Bicycle Obsessed
    Reputation: jpettit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Endomorph View Post
    How can traction trump rolling resistance when rolling resistance = traction?
    I meant it in the context that traction trumps wanted less rolling resistance. We are on the same page, i was just not clear. You should be looking for the tire that offers the traction you need, not the tire that has the lowest rolling resistance.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaredbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    258
    With bike wheels I think it is important to not just think of the energy needed to accelerate heavy parts but rather what happens to that energy after you expended it. I think fat bikes do a great job of preserving that energy and giving it back later. As long as you are not braking a ton and your bike is not wasting/absorbing the energy you put into accelerating it you will get it back. A thoughtfully ridden fat bike can be like a potential energy bank in some ways.

    To test this we need someone with two sets of wheels and a power meter ridden over the same course.

    This thred is similar to what I was trying to say here.
    laotzucycles.blogspot.com

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cbrossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,352

    "better" is a bad word

    For me, the problem with these statements is the word "better", it is just to ambiguous.
    I ride heavy, fat, 2.4, tubeless Rubber Queens on my 5" travel bike. They are slower on the climbs then other, lighter tires I've run. But, they allow me to be slower as well, gripping like crazy on technical climbs with little worry of spinning out. So on climbs everyone can make, I'm probably near the end of the group, but on climbs that are more difficult, I am often the only one cleaning them.
    And on the downhills, the confidence they give me is superb!
    So my "better" is clearly different than someone who is interested in faster.
    Craig, Durango CO
    "Lighten up PAL" ... King Cage

  21. #21
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by cbrossman View Post
    So on climbs everyone can make, I'm probably near the end of the group, but on climbs that are more difficult, I am often the only one cleaning them.
    And on the downhills, the confidence they give me is superb!
    This is why I highlighted the word 'technical' in my original post. More mass = more traction, which means that with a heavier setup a given rider stands a higher chance of cleaning something.

    Quote Originally Posted by cbrossman View Post
    So my "better" is clearly different than someone who is interested in faster.
    On roads (dirt, paved, or otherwise), lighter *might* be faster. But on trail, riding is almost always faster than walking. And riding is clearly "better".

    MC

  22. #22
    Losing Ground
    Reputation: Guipago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    213
    You would think that the only proof would be a time clock. But even this would not be total proof. There is always some opposing factor that you cannot duplicate. So I guess mikesee, you are correct in that the dilemma now becomes the perception of what brings you confidence, pleasure, accomplishment, etc.

  23. #23
    i heart singletrack
    Reputation: mgersib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I didn't write "always", but I did imply "often". And I stand by that.
    I wouldn't have agreed at all with you six months ago, Mike, but now that I have the perspective of a few dozen fast rides on my fatbike with fast riders on "regular" bikes, I do agree that, at times, the momentum and gyroscopic effect of heavier wheels can actually be advantageous. I'll give an example of riding against a headwind on a slight uphill. When you put the power into a pair of Fatbike wheels, you feel the momentum and speed build, even against the wind, and the inertia of the wheels is a good partner to have. Speed isn't easily "blown away".

  24. #24
    i heart singletrack
    Reputation: mgersib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaredbe View Post
    With bike wheels I think it is important to not just think of the energy needed to accelerate heavy parts but rather what happens to that energy after you expended it. I think fat bikes do a great job of preserving that energy and giving it back later. As long as you are not braking a ton and your bike is not wasting/absorbing the energy you put into accelerating it you will get it back. A thoughtfully ridden fat bike can be like a potential energy bank in some ways.

    This thred is similar to what I was trying to say here.
    You are nailing it now...

  25. #25
    i heart singletrack
    Reputation: mgersib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    This is why I highlighted the word 'technical' in my original post. More mass = more traction, which means that with a heavier setup a given rider stands a higher chance of cleaning something.



    On roads (dirt, paved, or otherwise), lighter *might* be faster. But on trail, riding is almost always faster than walking. And riding is clearly "better".

    MC
    Amen brother... It's just all a matter of what you're after. I like riding... And cornering hard.

  26. #26
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,041
    I would love to see the mountain bike community stop using the metric of faster=better for everything because unless you are racing, which some do but even then faster is the end all be all unless you are pro and someone is giving you stuff to race on, it is a meaningless metric.

    I much prefer, akin to MC is saying, to ride my bike in lieu of walking, whether it be through increased traction or increased durability. My bike is the best riding when it is wearing the WTB Dissents but my recent exploration with a wheel 2 pounds heavier in the front but with 3.7inches of soft tractiony traction has made me realize that there can be even more fun.

    I blame magazines for this preoccupation with faster is better.
    Try this: HTFU

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,563
    Schwalbe have done some research into this



    I put a set of Big Apples on my 29er in summer. Freewheeling down a hill in company with other riders on quality road bikes I was having to drag my brakes slightly - much to my surprise. I had fitted the BAs for comfort rather than speed, so now I'm inclined to believe Schwalbe's claims.

    Since trying out the Black Floyds, I'm beginning to wonder whether I should bother with narrower tyres for the road - I'm not likely to spend long at speeds where aerodynamics matter, and I love the speed and security on fast downhills.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  28. #28
    Caveman
    Reputation: Bearbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,002
    drats, I was just about to drill out my 18 spoke carbon hundies.

  29. #29
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    I find that my 27tpi Nate is more gooder than my 120tpi bfl where I ride

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post

    *-On technical climbs, a heavier wheelset (rims + tires) stays more planted, that is, *maintains better traction* than a lighter wheelset. This is true for dirt as well as snow.

    *-On technical descents, a heavier wheelset is less easily deflected, allowing you to maintain traction and hold your line better. Also true on dirt and snow.

    *-On non-technical trails--climbing, descending, or flattracking--increased wheel (rim + tire) weight gives a flywheel effect. This means that once up to speed you can maintain momentum with less effort. Definitely true on both dirt and snow.


    Discuss?
    Greater unsprung weight doesn't necessarily increase traction or increase the ability to hold the line. In fact, on bumpy, technical climbs, greater wheel/tire weight can mean your suspension works less effectively (if you have it), and with or without suspension, can mean that your tires have more inertia driving them away from the ground when you hit a little lip or bump.

    And flywheel effect would be great if energy transmission were 100% efficient. But whatever energy you're storing in your wheels got there from your legs...and you're losing much of it along the way. I'd rather have lighter wheels and fresher legs.

  31. #31
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    I'm going to start carrying all of my camping gear in between the spokes of my wheels. With 170 spacing, there's tons of room down there, and the flywheel effect should get me to Nome what, like 2 days faster than carrying it high on the bike?

  32. #32
    danaco
    Guest
    Your all full of crap...more expensive bikes are faster than less expensive ones. It's a proportional mathematical fact.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,015
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    I'm going to start carrying all of my camping gear in between the spokes of my wheels. With 170 spacing, there's tons of room down there, and the flywheel effect should get me to Nome what, like 2 days faster than carrying it high on the bike?
    Man I can see a whole new area for "Wheel Pack" designing. If we ran solid discs from the rim edge to the hub flange and then put in a couple of doors......We could carry way more stuff
    Latitude 61

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Man I can see a whole new area for "Wheel Pack" designing. If we ran solid discs from the rim edge to the hub flange and then put in a couple of doors......We could carry way more stuff
    Something like Rokon's aluminum drum rims:

    Rokon Trail-breaker Motorcycle

    You can carry water, fuel, or whatever, or if you leave them empty they float the bike.

  35. #35
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Guipago View Post
    You would think that the only proof would be a time clock. But even this would not be total proof. There is always some opposing factor that you cannot duplicate. So I guess mikesee, you are correct in that the dilemma now becomes the perception of what brings you confidence, pleasure, accomplishment, etc.
    Keep in mind that I'm talking about technical trails--stuff where you either make it, or you don't.

    No clock needed if a heavier wheelset keeps you riding and the lighter wheelset has you cresting the crux on foot.

    I don't often ride tech trails on fat tires, BUT I think my experience with 29" wheels translates, in that a light XC rim and light tubeless tire are never, ever any match for a much heavier "FR" rim and (usually tubed) tire. The only advantage to the lighter setup is that it's easier to carry the whole bike through the tech sections...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vmaxx4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Lighter and less rolling resistance isn't always better.

    Think about it- you weigh 170. your bike weighs 40 pounds. that's a total of 210 pounds. Drop your bike down to 30 pounds and you've dropped 25% off the weight of your bike but only 5% of your total rolling weight, so, it that 5% gonna make that big a difference?
    I like the thought of lightening up a bike due to the fact that I'm 135lbs soaking wet. A 30 lb bike to a 200 lb guy is a weight ratio of a 20 lb bike to me. I'm not going to spend big dollars to get down to a 20 lb bike, but at my size I'm sure a lighter bike (25 - 26lb mountain bike) will be a benifit to me and increase the "fun factor". My Mukluk 2 was 33 lb when I bought it and It's getting real close to 30 lb now. That is the weight I want for my size.

  37. #37
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I was perusing a different thread in this subforum a few hours ago and came upon this phrase:

    "Lighter and less rolling resistence is always better, there is no exception to this."

    But as I ruminated further on it, I realized that nearly everyone else believes it, accepts it as truth, even if they've never really experimented with anything different to have learned otherwise.

    *-On technical climbs, a heavier wheelset (rims + tires) stays more planted, that is, *maintains better traction* than a lighter wheelset. This is true for dirt as well as snow.

    *-On technical descents, a heavier wheelset is less easily deflected, allowing you to maintain traction and hold your line better. Also true on dirt and snow.

    *-On non-technical trails--climbing, descending, or flattracking--increased wheel (rim + tire) weight gives a flywheel effect. This means that once up to speed you can maintain momentum with less effort. Definitely true on both dirt and snow.

    Discuss?
    My disjointed thoughts are that yes, in general you are getting a benefit from the heavier tire/tread, etc in technical conditions. However, there is a point of diminishing returns from a motor (or gearing) standpoint. If my rides are 2/3 climbing, there is a limit to how much weight I can push for how long up however steep a trail. Going down, those same heavy wheelsets will be less nimble. Great for plowing over stuff, crappy for changing direction quickly.

    Ideally, I want wheels/tires that are just barely heavy enough for my application, and no more. I usually err on the side of just a little heavier for durability's sake.

    Upsides to weight: Better traction, less bumping off line, less flats, less rim breakage, holds momentum better.

    Downsides: less nimble, slower to accelerate, and they require more of the motor. I do not know of any suspended type high performance application where unsprung weight is looked at in a positive manner.

    Off road motor bikes wheelsets are very heavy, have incredible traction and capability, are almost impossible to flat, and I would never want to push them on a bike.

    I guess I don't see this as an either/or issue. Weight has its purposes, but on a bike where I am the motor, in the wheels where the weight is unsprung, I will preferentially take the lightest possible weight that suits my needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    64
    Ah if it were only so simple...

    First, I disagree with the whole premise that "technical" snow climbs and/or descents even exist.

    Also...

    "On non-technical trails--climbing, descending, or flattracking--increased wheel (rim + tire) weight gives a flywheel effect. This means that once up to speed you can maintain momentum with less effort. Definitely true on both dirt and snow."

    ...is simply not true.

    Okay, two identical riders on two identical bikes, with the exception of one having a lighter wheelset, ride from the bottom to the top of a given non-technical climb in the exact same amount of time. Which rider expended less energy? If you pick the heavy wheel rider...I guess we're done here.

    But I'm pretty sure that you (MikeC) aren't saying that the heaviest wheels are always better. I'm pretty sure that you are saying that the lightest *appropriate* combination of rims and tires are always preferable. Having ridden with you a little bit I can see how that is sometimes a pretty beefy combo.

    I've been on rides and in races with wheels that were both too heavy and too light and from my perspective there is little difference.

  39. #39
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by joatley View Post
    First, I disagree with the whole premise that "technical" snow climbs and/or descents even exist.
    That's because you're usually walking them.

    Tongue in cheek. Kinda...

    There are a few techy bits to ride, on snowpacked trail, around here. You just have to be into that sorta thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by joatley View Post
    "On non-technical trails--climbing, descending, or flattracking--increased wheel (rim + tire) weight gives a flywheel effect. This means that once up to speed you can maintain momentum with less effort. Definitely true on both dirt and snow."

    ...is simply not true.
    Really? To put it in terms you're most familiar with, a disc rear wheel and deep section front don't give you a flywheel effect on the road?

    My experience is that they emphatically do. It was unmistakable to me the few years that I was riding road. Heavier wheels/tires maintain their momentum better.

    I have lots of good examples, but first--are we at least disagreeing about the same thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by joatley View Post
    Okay, two identical riders on two identical bikes, with the exception of one having a lighter wheelset, ride from the bottom to the top of a given non-technical climb in the exact same amount of time. Which rider expended less energy? If you pick the heavy wheel rider...I guess we're done here.
    If you're talking about non-tech like as in buff, smooth, or even road, the guy with the heavier wheels expended more energy.

    As the trail gets more technical, they get closer to even.

    As the trail becomes super technical, the guy with heavier wheels/tires has an unfair advantage--the mass in his wheels is less likely to get deflected or stopped. It also requires more steering input for the heavy wheel rider to change direction--think about the importance of that (in the context of a super tech climb) for a second. The guy with the lighter wheels (even if he's a superstar rider) doesn't have the same amount of wheel mass keeping them planted. They're getting deflected, spinning slightly, and he's fighting the bars as his weight gets moved around on the bike by the slipping of the tires and the deflection of the wheels.

    Guess who dabs first, then walks?

    Next question: Which is faster--walking or riding?



    Truthfully, I don't care which is faster. I'm more interested in what keeps me riding where most are walking.

    Quote Originally Posted by joatley View Post
    But I'm pretty sure that you (MikeC) aren't saying that the heaviest wheels are always better. I'm pretty sure that you are saying that the lightest *appropriate* combination of rims and tires are always preferable. Having ridden with you a little bit I can see how that is sometimes a pretty beefy combo.
    This is a good way to put it. I don't pick out the heaviest stuff deliberately, stick it on my bike, and trust that it's going to be the best compromise. I ride all sorts of wheels and tires, in lots of different conditions, on lots of different bikes. If I'm riding tech trail (and I think the definition of tech trail is probably a cause for confusion for some reading this) and I want to ride the highest possible % of it, you'll find me on a 29" fully with ~700g rims and ~1400g tubed tires. 6 x 6" of travel, total bike weight of about 38lbs, and yes--this is the bike I use most for all-day epics.

    How can I be so sure that's the best combo to be able to ride the highest % of trail? I have a huge amount of tech trail in my 'backyard', and I've been riding it for more than a decade. So have all of my friends. When I was still racing I'd show up to group rides fitter than most and on a lighter bike than most. And I'd be walking the most. It took a LONG time for me to finally "get" that the guys I was riding with were beating me up tech climbs and down, well, everything, because their heavy wheels and tires kept them from getting bounced off line.

    Which brings up yet another rhetorical question: Who's having more fun--the girl cleaning the hard lines, or the girl that bleeds trying, right up until she loses confidence and decides walking is more prudent?

    All I had to do to prove this was start experimenting with heavier rims and tires. No contest--I'm a more competent and confident tech rider when I've got (what most XC geeks would consider appallingly) heavy wheels and tires on my bike.

    All I have to do to start flailing again is stick some XC wheels and light tubeless tires on my bike. Can almost guarantee I'll bleed if I try to ride tech on that sorta setup.

    Thanks for continuing the discussion.

    MC

  40. #40
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Something like Rokon's aluminum drum rims:

    Rokon Trail-breaker Motorcycle

    You can carry water, fuel, or whatever, or if you leave them empty they float the bike.
    It's somewhat ironic that you use this as an example, because this was one of my 'aha!' moments.

    I was riding a fat wheeled/fat tired bike on a frozen river in the Idita race years ago. It had been super windy the night before, with the result that there were lots of drifts across the trail. It'd be hardpacked for ~100 yards, then a ~foot high drift across the trail for maybe 8 or 10 feet, then back to hardpacked. It was like this for miles and miles and hours and hours.

    If you just pedaled into the drifts without lifting the front wheel you'd get stopped, now, every time. My 'technique' to get through each drift was to ramp up into a sprint, then manual the front wheel as far as I could through it--kind of what most people do when trying to get across a stream. Half the time it'd work and I'd wobble through, ~half the time the rear wheel would skate sideways and I'd dab, then have to drag the bike through the drift, remount, then get back up to speed before the next drift. Sprinting to get up to speed for the manual was work, but NOWHERE near as hard as re-accelerating from a dead stop.

    As the day went on my success rate increased substantially--I was clearing more like 90% of them. Wondering why (I still had 20 miles to go to the next village--plenty of time to think on it and nothing much else to think about) I started looking for reasons. One thought was that I had just adapted to the conditions--the length of the drifts, consistency of the snow, gear I needed to be in, effort needed to manual, etc... Very possible.

    Another thought was that the drifts might have changed--gotten smaller. I started looking more closely at them, but couldn't really conclude anything either way because I hadn't looked that closely before.

    Then I stopped to take a leak. Set down the bike, walked away for a few, then when I walked back I was fairly well shocked at what I saw: The wheels were solid discs of white. Each time I busted a drift there'd been an explosion of snow, and obviously some of that 'splosion was getting stuck inside the wheel. Hours and hours of that and they had literally built up into discs--you couldn't make out the hubs at all. Naturally, being a card-carrying weight weenie, I took the time to poke and scrape most of the snow out of there before continuing.

    You already know what happened next. Easier to accelerate, much, much harder to actually make it through the drifts.

  41. #41
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    993
    I think a rider that is infused with chocolate chip cookies is a happier rider, whether he is faster or not.

  42. #42
    rmb
    rmb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rmb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    660
    My first time out on the Fatback was after a blizzard and we had really deep snow and drifts on my local trail. I could not ride through the deep snow and drifts and thought the snow getting caught in the huge rim surface was stopping me. I did not let it build up into a disc, but i was thinking that is what I needed to slice through the deep stuff. My thought was a Wheelbuilder disc, front and back, like I use on the rear of my triathlon bike. My next thought was that I was crazy, now not so much. Maybe the weight of the wheels and the fact that the snow packed discs cut right through............

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    If I'm riding tech trail (and I think the definition of tech trail is probably a cause for confusion for some reading this)...
    I think you nailed it with this comment. I look at some of your photos and I think your definition of tech is probably way off of my definition.

    I always assumed that lighter wheels would be better because, on a mountain bike, you accelerate all the time. I mean, it's really rare to maintain a constant speed on singletrack (well, the singletrack I ride). Even consistent pedaling is filled with little accelerations with each pedal stroke (unless you're really smooth and spinning). So, my assumption was that there is too much lost energy with all the accelerations that take place every minute.

    Of course, I own a Mukluk now.

    I'll have to do some back-to-back riding on what I consider to be technical trails with my light bike (26") and my Mukluk. You're arguments are compelling enough to make me reconsider my stance, for sure.

    Thanks.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,563
    When the winter is over I think I'll have to do my long road loop (140+m) on the Black Floyds.

    I know how long it takes on a normal road bike at my cruising pace, so it would make an interesting comparison.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  45. #45
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,684
    Question for mikesee and anyone - ever thought of trying a 36er?

    Some thoughts from Walt on the subject.

    I'm interested in trying one.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  46. #46
    danaco
    Guest
    In the latest edition of Mountainflyer magazine, Mike Mccalla does a great expeiment comparing 26" vs 29" wheels. I would say it's about as scientific as anyone has done to date.

    I think it relates well to this discussion in regards to perceptions of how different tire systems compare in the bike world. It is well worth reading. It does not have the out come probably most would have hope for which makes it all the more compelling to to be weary of perceptions.

    I have been a decent technical rider for many years and have found what is important to me is tires and rims. Two things that I find are most important are rim width and the deadness of a tire. As rim widths have grown, they allow the larger tires to footrint better (wider) and use more of their available tread thus allowing better traction and slowing down their steering like a steering damper, giving more directional control especially at slow speeds.

    The deadness of a tire I find is important too, one that damps well, one that is not boingy. True UST tires, not tubless ready versions have an extra layer of rubber inside that I find increases this damping and makes for a more stable tire and ride, they are heavier but worth it for tehnical and high speed riding like bombing down the Porupine Rim trail.

    There is also the durometer of the rubber to consider too as most tire manufactures have a this point. That makes a difference too but I still find the carcus has alot to do with how well a tire performs.
    Last edited by danaco; 01-26-2012 at 10:34 AM.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaredbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    258
    One of the factors that is important in these discussions is the type of power humans put out. We are not electric motors in a physics 101 class pulling weight up an incline. Fat bikers exert bursts of power in each pedal stroke and between each snow drift or between each roller hill. Although it ultimately takes more energy to move heavier wheels in real world conditions, with the thoughtful bursts of energy followed by recovery that humans produce I find quality fat bike tires and wheels often helpful.
    Last edited by Jaredbe; 01-26-2012 at 10:44 AM.
    laotzucycles.blogspot.com

  48. #48
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    So the reason I'm slow and suck on the technical stuff is that my bike is just not heavy enough? I wish it was true.
    I have no doubt that added weight and stability can improve a bike's overall technical performance, but you need the motor too. An F350 will plow through things that would kill a Fiat, but put the Fiat motor in the truck and it's a total failure. I'm afraid I have a Fiat motor - so the weight burden has an upper limit that I can't ignore.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  49. #49
    Losing Ground
    Reputation: Guipago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    213
    ^ ^
    It's true that some riders are just inherently better in some applications now matter what equipment is given. I mean, compare and contrast Fabian Cancellara and Andy Schleck. For me, I am a good technical rider and just kill it on the flats, even good on short steeps, but really suffer on long climbs. I love doing endurance events and now I want to be more competitive in them. I believe that the best climbers usually win long races and this is the area I need to improve in, so I finally got a set of reasonably light wheels. But I'm keeping my big tires; I love them. I think that skinny, no-tread XC tires are a complete hindrance unless on a complete non-tech short course (lame). I think you have to even out your efficiencies to you inefficiencies. We'll see if this helps me out come summertime.

  50. #50
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,352
    It is good to have someone like Mikesee around. He's got a veritable fleet of different bikes, doesn't mind trying new things, and thinks about things to figure them out. His solutions may not apply for me, but they have a good basis in thought behind them.

    One major aspect of bicyclists that I've noticed? Conservatism. "This is the way that it is done". A certain lack of interest in new concepts, or a faith-based approach. I know that I started mtb'ing on the advice and knowledge of experienced bikers. I remember that a couple of them actually got frustrated with me because I was listening to what they said, applying it,messing around with it - and making up my own mind if it worked for me! I wasn't just blindly doing what they said!

    I've never been anywhere close to being a weight-weenie. I weigh 210ish, I tend to ride way out in deserted desert by myself and carry 10-15lbs of food/water/tools/parts, even for a much lighter/shorter ride. When I built up my Fatback, I was after maximum float and durability - and got 100mm double wall 36h rims. Heavy wheels. I'm still learning that they can roll over some of the roughest chunk around - whether from outer diameter, flex/float or plain momentum. I actually found out the other day that the best route over a rocky section was straight thru the worst looking part, rather than maneuver a torturous path of nicer looking stuff. Didn't even have to build up speed, just kept going at uphill arroyo cruising speed.

    When I first got the Fatback running, I was riding singletrack with my main riding buddy. His comment was "that thing sure doesn't slow you down any". He now has a Pugs complete, and the other day said "I never imagined I'd be riding this heavy of a bike thru this kind of terrain - and enjoying it!"
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  51. #51
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    The rooster crowing does not make the sun come up. Although supple tires may have more feel on the trail, I find that running lower pressures tubeless on the same tires results in squirm and less confident traction - in that case I prefer a heavier carcass and a stiffer sidewall and will gladly accept the additional weight. My Racing Ralph 2.4s were supple as anything, but at 26psi would barely keep on track - the Ardents and Purgatories were much more confidence inspiring.
    Here you're saying that heavier tires with stiffer sidewalls are preferable. I've ridden all three of the tires that you mention, and I know exactly the differences you're referring to. The RR's have a really flimsy casing that, at a too-high pressure, can feel OK on boring trail. Push them hard or drop the PSI's or ride them on tech and they're next to worthless. FWIW the RR in 29" is a ~660g tire.

    The Ardent's and Purg's that you refer to are indeed an improvement--in casing stiffness, casing durability, and in their ability to not squirm when hauling the mail on moderately technical trails. These are ~850g tires. And for reference, you're pushing them on ~540g (Flow) rims. Tubeless IIRC.

    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    I have no doubt that added weight and stability can improve a bike's overall technical performance, but you need the motor too. An F350 will plow through things that would kill a Fiat, but put the Fiat motor in the truck and it's a total failure. I'm afraid I have a Fiat motor - so the weight burden has an upper limit that I can't ignore.
    But wait--last week we did a multi hour ride where you were pushing ~1000g rims with ~1400g tires using (guessing here) 250g tubes. In other words, you easily doubled the amount of rim/tire/tube weight. Doubled, maybe more. It doesn't take a crack team of attorneys to realize the significance of that...

    My point is simply that we're all hard wired to be able to accept certain compromises and not even consider others. Who we ride with, what we read, where we live, and a zillion (<-tech term) other factors dictate this. And then fat bikes come along and we're so smitten with the look, feel, and newness of them that we can somehow push the weight, and enjoy it, except when we're arguing that we're not capable of pushing that amount of weight?

    Kinda funny.

    MC

  52. #52
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    You left out the part about how that ride left me feeling like a hollowed out gourd - a virtual husk. The closest I've come to a bonk in awhile Part of that was due to the extra energy needed to roll those fat wheels. I can bust out a 30 miler on the roadbike in a less than 2 hours and have energy left over to push my walker all over the living room.

    I basically agree with everything you're saying, but the climbs we rode were not particularly steep or technical, just long and grueling. I have no doubt about the virtues of big rubber and burly wheels in the tech - I'm only saying that you need a bigger motor on the long steep climbs to keep the machine moving - for me there's a point where the extra weight just plain hurts more than it helps. I know - a few less burritos and beers might fix that.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  53. #53
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    You left out the part about how that ride left me feeling like a hollowed out gourd - a virtual husk. The closest I've come to a bonk in awhile Part of that was due to the extra energy needed to roll those fat wheels. I can bust out a 30 miler on the roadbike in a less than 2 hours and have energy left over to push my walker all over the living room.

    I basically agree with everything you're saying, but the climbs we rode were not particularly steep or technical, just long and grueling. I have no doubt about the virtues of big rubber and burly wheels in the tech - I'm only saying that you need a bigger motor on the long steep climbs to keep the machine moving - for me there's a point where the extra weight just plain hurts more than it helps. I know - a few less burritos and beers might fix that.
    If the ride had been an hour shorter, you'd have finished tired but not wrecked. I don't think it was the weight of the rims/tires that hurt you, I think it was the resistance of fat tires at low pressure on soft snow. Few understand how much that matters until their first epic in those conditions, and then they never forget...

    Even though we all wring our hands and decry even one extra gram, the human machine can adapt to just about anything you throw at it. You just have to have the willingness to try. You've seen how it works, now you just have to decide whether to accept it...

    MC

  54. #54
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I don't think it was the weight of the rims/tires that hurt you, I think it was the resistance of fat tires at low pressure on soft snow. Few understand how much that matters until their first epic in those conditions, and then they never forget...
    THAT is very true - couldn't get over the difference between too soft and just right. So I guess I need a pair of MTX33s and Dissents on the Behemoth to really see for myself.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  55. #55
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    THAT is very true - couldn't get over the difference between too soft and just right. So I guess I need a pair of MTX33s and Dissents on the Behemoth to really see for myself.
    I think you'd be surprised how much you liked Dissents if you took the time to adapt, and used them on appropriate trails.

    MTX 33's are (IMO) definitely overkill for you though.

  56. #56
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Question for mikesee and anyone - ever thought of trying a 36er?

    Some thoughts from Walt on the subject.

    I'm interested in trying one.
    Love the idea. Owned a Coker Cruiser for a few years to start scratching the itch.

    Haven't gotten pushed over the edge just yet, though I've talked to a few builders casually about it.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andy74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    226
    OK, I have a surly 1x1 with 24" Marges & duro leopards. The traction's unbeleivable, I find I don't have to get my weight over the rear wheel when climbing, the tire never slips, but the wheels are too short bringing the pedals too close to the ground, and I'm gonna bust my toes someday. I also have a pair of DT ex500's laced to a rohloff and have been running Kenda 2.35 navegals, good combo, but it didn't take long before I wished I built them on alex dx32's or snowcats or something wider, too much "squrim" as you say, then I could run some 2.7's. I also just got my hands on a moonlander, there's lots of sand around here. Now I'm torn between relacing this rohloff on a clownshoe, or building it up on some wide rims for the 1x1 for some long sandy road rides. So far the longest ride I've done was a 21 mile beach ride, but no long sandy road rides on the moony yet. I'll get some of these under my belt first before I make my decision.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    64
    I don't decry that extra gram. I just want to know if its working for me or against me.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andy74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    226
    Damn! I guess I'm where it goes wrong. I'll keep lurking and learning,..........love this forum

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,310
    I don't own a scale or weigh my bikes. I wouldn't shoot for lightweight or heavy as a primary goal. The best thing you can do is get your hands on different gear/bikes and try them out to see what works for you.

    For the last few years my main MTB has been a Santa Cruz Nomad [LBS weighed it as 37lbs with tools/pump/tube] so that's what I have ridden for just about everything other than soft conditions or bikepacking where my Pugs got the nod. I've always been impressed with how well the Nomad handles whatever I throw at it going up or down. The trail rides I have done with the Pugs have also been a pleasant surprise in terms of how well it performed at everything but fast lumpy high speed descents.

    I'm building a 29er HT that will be my lightest MTB - although I couldn't help myself and I'll be using an Alfine 11 in back with Flow rims. Interesting reading the comments here about lightweight tires at low pressure on wide rims. I have a set of Racing Ralphs in 2.35" on my shelf I'll use on the HT, but I'll score a set of Ardents as well and do some back to back runs and see what I think.

    It's always worth challenging your own assumptions. Even if you stick with them in the end you can't lose by testing them out. If you were right - awesome and if you were wrong you have the chance to go in a new direction...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    102
    I think the take-home here is this: When choosing a tool for a given job, we should question - before anything else - which tool will be most effective at completing the task at hand? Firmly targeting undefinable or wishy-washy attributes such as "better", "lighter", "heavier" ultimately puts the cart before the horse. I sense that Mikesee is also trying to express that the *heaviest* OR *lightest* is rarely the most effective tool, when it comes to bicycling.

    I also think this thread simply suggests to think outside of our respective boxes, assumptions, and biases. It's real easy to read something in Bicycling and assume that the editor knows what they're talking about, or that their context applies to ours. Have you actually tried something different? Actually tested it... for yourself?

    And yes, like Mikesee, I almost never pick the lightest part. Maybe it is part on principle as I become older and grumpier. But I think the larger part is that I like riding more than I like wrenching. I want the stuff to work with a minimum of fiddling. Bikes are no good if they don't work. A lot of the true weight weenies I see are the ones who don't ride all that much and are real good at armchair quarterbacking the equipment choices of others. "But you could be so much faster if you rode XYZ component..." they say in the distance as they get dropped. Heh.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaredbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    258
    Well said Greg.
    laotzucycles.blogspot.com

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    33
    i have to say the worst thing about my fatbike is the wheel weight when carrying it and the second worst thing is the buoyancy when pedaling deep crossings.

    so maybe we ditch the air pump and bring a water pump? should solve my second problem and make mike's fattier bomber more bomb, yea?

  64. #64
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by wild_ride View Post
    i have to say the worst thing about my fatbike is the wheel weight when carrying it and the second worst thing is the buoyancy when pedaling deep crossings.

    so maybe we ditch the air pump and bring a water pump? should solve my second problem and make mike's fattier bomber more bomb, yea?
    Booyah!

    Opposite of groupthink right there--until more think about it, and then the herd may follow...

  65. #65
    Caveman
    Reputation: Bearbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by wild_ride View Post
    i have to say the worst thing about my fatbike is the wheel weight when carrying it and the second worst thing is the buoyancy when pedaling deep crossings.

    so maybe we ditch the air pump and bring a water pump? should solve my second problem and make mike's fattier bomber more bomb, yea?
    I certainly recall an incident of yours where that would have helped!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Bearbait View Post
    I certainly recall an incident of yours where that would have helped!
    That was a chilly willy deep spot embarassment where neutral density wheels would have been ideal.

  67. #67
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    This may not make sense if you don't have kids.
    Girl...you're huge.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  68. #68
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    ...And then fat bikes come along and we're so smitten with the look, feel, and newness of them that we can somehow push the weight, and enjoy it, except when we're arguing that we're not capable of pushing that amount of weight?
    Not me dude. The weight killed me. That is the main reason I don't like them for trail.

    But I don't have snow. If I did, riding is preferable to not riding, and if fat let me ride instead of the alternative that shall not be named, I would happily tool along pushing 7 lb wheels at low speeds with low gearing.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  69. #69
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    I really don't think the weight is that big of a deal. I add two teeth to the rear cog on my ss for the winter, going from 29 to fat. That's mainly for touring though. If I was only riding without camping gear on local trails, it wouldn't change at all. I think that the amount the tires conform to the surface, and the increased smoothness of the surface, ballances out the increased weight.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    745
    Even on the road, people misunderstand what is rolling resistance. Quote from the Zipp tech site here:

    [[Higher pressure is definitely slower on anything other than perfect surfaces. Think of it in terms of a bunch of 1mm tall bumps in the road. If you have a lower tire pressure, the casing of the tire will deflect over each bump (we'll assume the casing deflects the entire 1mm) converting a small amount of energy into heat as the casing deflects, but the amount of energy necessary to compress the air is almost non-existent. Now at a higher pressure, we will assume that the tire deflects half as much. Now the bike and rider are lifted by 0.5mm and the casing deflects by .5mm, the energy necessary to deflect the casing by .5mm is less than it takes to deflect it by 1mm, but is nothing compared to the amount of energy necessary to lift the bike and rider by 0.5mm, so the end result is that the total energy requirement for the high tire pressure condition is much greater.

    The other thing that happens is that on smoother roads, high tire pressures keep the casing from deforming over and into small cracks and crevices and over pebbles, which means that some of the deflection is transferred into the tire tread, which is not as elastic as the casing. Excessive tire wear comes about as the tire rubber begins to fail in shear as it is deformed by the road surface, and this generates heat as well as breaks down the cross-linking within the tread material.... overall, you are using more energy to go slower and you're wearing your tires out faster. The problem is that high tire pressures feel fast as your body perceives all the high frequency vibrations from the road surface as being faster than a smooth ride.

    Lennard Zinn had a great analogy when he said that 100kph in a Jeep will scare the crap out of you but 200kph in an S class Mercedes feels effortless...the same is true of bike tire pressures, but it's just hard to convince ourselves of that. As athletes we tend to buy into the 'if some is good, more must be better' philosophy, but this is rarely true. Of course the tire manufacturers have given up on this and continue to try and make higher pressure tires as that's what the consumers demand, as I think that they've decided that it is easier to just give people what they think they want than to try to educate and argue with them :-) ]]

  71. #71
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post

    But I don't have snow. If I did, riding is preferable to not riding, and if fat let me ride instead of the alternative that shall not be named, I would happily tool along pushing 7 lb wheels at low speeds with low gearing.
    That's pure gold. This "alternative that shall not be named" as opposed to riding- I love it. I am going to use that on my future rides, thanks!

    Now I've watched your videos. I can understand where, with all the power moves you make, to get up and over stuff would be that much more of a chore with fat bike wheels. All that "heavy lifting" would wear me out for sure.

    I ride like that in winter here when I come to street corners and the snow is piled high, frozen, and hard. Big ups are fun when the penalty for missing is a landing in a soft(er) snow pile. Don't even need no stinkin' body armor.

    But that to say that I can certainly see where a lighter wheel set would be a bit better. Lighter than fat bike wheels with less uncontrolled rebound that those ballooner tires have too.

    That's my observation, maybe I've got it wrong.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  72. #72
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by gregk View Post
    I think the take-home here is this: When choosing a tool for a given job, we should question - before anything else - which tool will be most effective at completing the task at hand? Firmly targeting undefinable or wishy-washy attributes such as "better", "lighter", "heavier" ultimately puts the cart before the horse.

    I also think this thread simply suggests to think outside of our respective boxes, assumptions, and biases.
    Some good thoughts there.

    I still believe in the benefit of weightweenieism since my motor is pathetic and fading, I just try to keep it in the context of where and how I'm riding.

  73. #73
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    Not me dude. The weight killed me. That is the main reason I don't like them for trail.

    But I don't have snow. If I did, riding is preferable to not riding, and if fat let me ride instead of the alternative that shall not be named, I would happily tool along pushing 7 lb wheels at low speeds with low gearing.
    I realized the fun, went bigger than the tubed, Endo, LM I'd started on and bumped to a CUS hundie. Yeah, it floated better, but yes, the weight sucked, and I whined like a little girl about it. I'd ride the bike when I absolutely knew based on conditions, that I could smoke all the others on their skinnies, but otherwise it sat, as I was so far off the back, I wasn't fun to ride with.

    Now? I pick the fatties as often as not, thanks to better tread, lighter rims, and tubeless.

    Since I have a solid track record of success, I'd say it's working for my trails and riding.

    If Surly came out with a tire that was 500gms lighter, but tore when you looked at it funny, I'd say they went too far, and avoid it.

    If they came out with one 500 gms heavier, I'd avoid it like the plague, as it's heft offered me no perceptible benefits.

    That being said, just slapped a Husker Du on, saved 100 gms over the Nate it replaced. Took it out in mixed mud/snow conditions this AM? Sweetness.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    ...My front BFL on a hundie definitely feels "slower" than my ROL (regular ole Larry) on the same hundie...on the same trails, with the same carefully calibrated hand squish...that being said, it also seems to help me get into and, more importantly, out of ruts and such, where on ROL's I would quite probably dab...but at some point there have got to be diminishing returns...if not, every Baja and Paris-Dakar racer would be set up like Grave digger...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,563
    Where possible I try to save weight on my bike because at some point in just about every ride I'll either have to carry the bike or lift it over a deer fence.

    Up to now I have always fitted the widest tyre I can get regardless of weight - I'd sooner save weight on tubes than tyres. My rims remain undrilled because I figure I'd sooner let you guys do the R&D on that for me.

    So for me, when it comes to weight my attitude is simple - no heavier than necessary (rather than weight weenie).
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  76. #76
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    So for me, when it comes to weight my attitude is simple - no heavier than necessary (rather than weight weenie).
    ^This^
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  77. #77
    Dr. Frost
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    ...if not, every Baja and Paris-Dakar racer would be set up like Grave digger...
    It's hard to even pick a quote here because there are so many good ones in this thread.

    Riding what it takes to clean the most technical 100 yards of the ride seems a bit like overkill. How fast are you riding these techy climbs anyway? Can't I walk pretty much the same speed?

    And if your thin casing tires are squirming and that's your *only* problem then maybe it's a rim width problem, right? Or maybe 2 psi?

    Now two points that have been made....#1 I like to ride, not walk and #2 speed isn't everything....are completely valid. Might even be a more mature way to look at riding.

    But I still want to go as fast as the motor will go....

    Joe

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,422
    Here's my take - get the heaviest bike you can, work the hell out of your muscles until they adapt to the load, then use your 60 pound beast rolling on huge nobbies to blow past the whole peleoton of kitted out road geeks, laughing the whole time.

    In all seriousness, I am a big guy who never worries about the weight of my components. I'm always more worried about keeping the machine in one piece and running smoothly. I've destroyed frames, wheelsets, chains, and everything else on bikes that were not beefy enough to handle my jelly. I'd rather train my muscles to deal with a bit more resistance and know that when I bomb down one of my favorite trails I don't have to worry about killing myself and destroying the bike in the process.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,563
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    Here's my take - get the heaviest bike you can, work the hell out of your muscles until they adapt to the load, then use your 60 pound beast rolling on huge nobbies to blow past the whole peleoton of kitted out road geeks, laughing the whole time....
    I can't think of a more miserable way to spend time on a bike than training.

    I want to be able to ride at a comfortable pace all day (say 10 to 12 hours), and I'll regard it as a mundane ride if there's no places where I have to get off and slog along pushing it.

    Just enough bike, no more, and don't worry what other riders are doing - not that I usually see other riders when I'm out.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  80. #80
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
    Antoine de Saint-Exupery
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I can't think of a more miserable way to spend time on a bike than training.

    I want to be able to ride at a comfortable pace all day (say 10 to 12 hours), and I'll regard it as a mundane ride if there's no places where I have to get off and slog along pushing it.

    Just enough bike, no more, and don't worry what other riders are doing - not that I usually see other riders when I'm out.

    Sarcasm, man...just doesn't work on the webs. I agree with your take. To be honest, I have no idea what it means to train. I just ride. Yeah, my bike is heavier than others out there but not as heavy as some. It works for me. That's what's most important, right? That the bike you ride is the one that works for you?

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
    Antoine de Saint-Exupery
    Pretty profound, dude. Much more literate than your average fat bike forum post. I'll be pondering that one while I'm ordering that super light wheelset....

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,563
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat View Post
    Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
    Antoine de Saint-Exupery
    Patron saint of Drillium
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    293

    Where the rubber meets the trail

    Great comments. Now a real life question to test these thoughts and theories.

    You are gong to compete in a 500 mile, self-supported mountain bike race and NOT a snow race. The race has a ton of climbing, many mile of road, it is on a hiking trail by design. yep, it's the Colorado Trail Race.

    you have two choices
    1) A 23 lb titanium 29" hard tail, Reba, Stan's, Mountain Kings, tried and true bike
    2) A 30 lb Mukluk, fully rigid, RD's, HuDu's

    which would you choose? This is my delema 4 months out. I just built up the Muk so have no rides in snow, but I do know that on an out and back ride that I do 2 -3 times a week; it takes me 43 a 45 minutes one way. early season riding has me riding the same section in 44 minutes the other day.

    I keep thinking that the Muk would allow me to ride more than " the other option that shall remain nameless". Anyone who knows the trail will know what I am talking about. those section of scree, strategically placed rocks, section 23. ten mile etc.

    While I will try both on trail and decide for myself, if it were you, would you go light and skinny ( in this context 2.4 will be considered skinny) or would you go heavy and wide (4 inches)
    Zip

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by ZipMTB View Post
    While I will try both on trail and decide for myself, if it were you, would you go light and skinny ( in this context 2.4 will be considered skinny) or would you go heavy and wide (4 inches)
    I will be back at the CTR again this year... and I would rather push my 19lb ss than my 34lb geared pugsley. And you will be pushing.

    Last years' full up starting weight of my bike+gear (that wasn't on my body) was 36lbs. I couldn't imagine starting with a bike that weighed that much....

    g

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,563
    Quote Originally Posted by ZipMTB View Post
    ...You are gong to compete in a 500 mile, self-supported mountain bike race and NOT a snow race....
    Don't know about 500miles, but I tried my Pug in a 24 hour. Weighs about twice my usual bike, same gearing, did a PB for that race. Plenty climbing. I think the advantages of the fat tyre overcomes the disadvantages of the weight.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: younox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    31
    I like light bikes because I like the fast response when accelerating from slow speed or standstill. It's real fun feeling a light, stiff bike transforming your effort - subjectivly - direct into forward motion. Climbing with a light bike on trails can by tricky but one can react/correct faster. I don't mention times when you have to carry the bike over a longer distance ... Also, lighter bike parts are most of the times more thought through from an engineering point of view as there's more attention to details to my opinion and most of them look nicer if you care for this. The downside is always the money you have to spend for them though some parts are worth it in my opinion.

    On the other hand it's also fun to feel for example these gyroscopic-whatever-forces on a fatbike pushing you like magic up small bumps at a certain speed. I found climbing on a fatbike is like steamrolling upwards. You don't need to care that much for the ground and the extra weight keeps you from slipping (panniers on the back are great climbing helpers ) so you can climb more steady and finally be not much slower compared to a lighter bike. I also like steel frames for their sturdiness, ride quality, looks and repairing capabilities. I would always choose a steel (or Ti if I could afford) frame/part over other materials and don't even think about the extra weight. I also love big, forgiving rubber on all my wheels and don't care about the weight.

    So in fact, I don't care much about weight itself but more about the weight to durability ratio. It's nice having a quite light bike but not at the expense of durability and ride comfort. There is light parts that survive way more then heavy parts and worth the extra money (such as Syntace or Thomson to me) and the other way round there are parts only a little heavier but a third of the price with same durability (the lower Easton parts or certain Shimano/Sram derailleurs/shifters). Of course there's also parts that are expensive and not that light but still worth it for their unmatched reliability (such as Phil Wood or White Industries to me).

    I always try to go the middle path. Look for what I need or what bugs me and then look for something affordable, long-lasting and not too heavy. Building as light as possible is a nice and interesting hobby though horribly expensive and definitely not mine. I tried it. Either you engineer things yourself or you scrape off some more 5 grams for another 50 bucks .. Guess everybody has to find it's own way of building and actually it's about riding your stuff as good as you can and enjoying it and if you don't like certain things to change them and try different stuff .. at least it is for me.
    Last edited by younox; 09-21-2012 at 09:08 AM.

  88. #88
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,326
    Bumping, because this hasn't been discussed in years and fatbikes have gotten so much more popular in the interim...

  89. #89
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Bumping, because this hasn't been discussed in years and fatbikes have gotten so much more popular in the interim...
    $199 at Wal Mart now.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  90. #90
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by younox View Post
    So in fact, I don't care much about weight itself but more about the weight to durability ratio. It's nice having a quite light bike but not at the expense of durability and ride comfort.
    Do it however you want to do it. You don't owe anyone an explanation.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    When I get to the Trailhead, people always stop me and say, "So the rolling resistance must be huge!". At this point I just say, "Nope, its fine!". I'm tired of having to feel like I need to justify anything to group-think. I run Nate's on 80mm alloy (forgive me carbon overlords) Mulefuts, and couldn't be happier. Also durability > weight savings every time, no questions asked. I tend to break things, so I prefer rock solid parts so I'm not stuck in the middle of the forest.

    I've never thought I needed lighter wheels, or smaller knobs. The same people who talk about rolling resistance, instead of pedaling, are the ones looking for an excuse on the uphill. When I'm in the middle of a climb I've never thought, "Hmm I could really use some lower rolling resistance tires or lighter wheels!". Its more like "Butch up. No stopping sunshine. Get to the top, Oh look a little squirrel!, Oh look a cougar!, Oh sh*t!"

  92. #92
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by l3eaudacious View Post
    When I'm in the middle of a climb I've never thought, "Hmm I could really use some lower rolling resistance tires or lighter wheels!". Its more like "Butch up. No stopping sunshine. Get to the top, Oh look a little squirrel!, Oh look a cougar!, Oh sh*t!"
    Haha...


    Superlightweight components = $$$$$

    HTFU = Free

    Do it however you want to do it. You don't owe anyone an explanation.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    If I wanted light and low rolling resistance I would steer clear of fat bikes. Light enough - is enough. As I've said in other threads traction is a "if some is good, more is better" equation, a bit of rolling resistance be damned. Not saying I want to do a 15 mile pavement ride in Lous.

  94. #94
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,615
    ...like this thread needs my input, but I've been riding long enough to know that my chances of walking are greater as the weight of any of my components decreases.
    All the light tires have been shredded.
    All the light rims have been dented.
    The light forks bent.
    The light handlebars bent. Well, in all truth, those were embarrassingly cheap handlebars. I was asking for it.
    The weak brakes burnt.
    The light hubs exploded.

    I know that while heavy wheels can sometimes slow down your steering, they do provide increased stability. I think everything on my go-to bike right now is right in the sweet spot (durable, light-enough, priced right).
    My fatbike is sorta heavy, but it serves its purpose precisely and leaves me wanting nothing.

    Adding weight without adding strength = useless
    (saving weight at the cost of strength = dangerous)

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

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,563
    A bike should be no heavier than it has to be, and no lighter than it needs to be.

    And the best way to get a light bike is to leave the unnecessary stuff off it.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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