Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67
  1. #26
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    how so??
    Yeah, I heard they do custom colors if you ask very nicely but I didn't want to know what that would cost

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,124
    Quote Originally Posted by JordyB View Post
    Since I use Hadley, I run Hadley. Tools, bearings, parts are all the same, so why not! Plus they are made local(america), designed even more local(Alaska), and proven to work where I need them to(below -20).
    I tried to purchase hadley but they were out of stock and it took 6 weeks to get a message about avail so i went with paul WHUB.

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,124
    Quote Originally Posted by AC/BC View Post
    Yeah, I heard they do custom colors if you ask very nicely but I didn't want to know what that would cost
    $50 and while it doesn't match the CK rear its very close.

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by modifier View Post
    Really? 130 grams difference in the rear hub? That's huge. Hadley used to be considered light hubs. What are the actual weights of both?

    I have 2 sets of Hadleys and one 170mm rear hub. They all work great and are easily rebuildable with all parts and tools available and it's literally a Mom and Pop store in the USofA, which is nice to support when you can.

    But they are expensive and 130grams is..a.. huge. That's well over 1/4 lb for you metricly challenged individuals.
    Hub weights- please note that I did not personally weigh most of these, just harvested information off of the internet (mostly here):

    Hope 170: 349 grams
    Salsa Mukluk 170: 508 grams (with titanium skewer)
    616 170mm: 375 grams (Ultegra freehub) 345 grams (XTR freehub)
    616 front 135mm: 140 grams
    Paul WHUB: 210 grams
    Paul RHUB 170: 427 grams
    Fatback Hadley front: 282 grams
    Fatback Hadley rear: 506 grams w/bolt on axle, 480 grams empty

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    86
    I would go hope on both. Providing the rear disk spacing on a front hub is not a huge issue for you. The reason I say this. Anodizing from hope is some of the most consistent in the biz. Weight is super low. Service is super easy. I also have a feeling that before long they will make bolt on and thru axle kits for these as they do for rest of their hub line up. Convertibility was what originally sold me on hope hubs, durability and weight were a serious bonus. Their head sets take me less than 10 minutes to swap from a rigid to a suspension fork on my 29er with out spending money on a extra race and star nut. No special tools required for this job just your metric allen set.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Hub weights- please note that I did not personally weigh most of these, just harvested information off of the internet (mostly here):

    Hope 170: 349 grams
    Salsa Mukluk 170: 508 grams (with titanium skewer)
    616 170mm: 375 grams (Ultegra freehub) 345 grams (XTR freehub)
    616 front 135mm: 140 grams
    Paul WHUB: 210 grams
    Paul RHUB 170: 427 grams
    Fatback Hadley front: 282 grams
    Fatback Hadley rear: 506 grams w/bolt on axle, 480 grams empty
    The new Sandman hubs. The rear is 165mm, the front is a 135mm to go in the new suspension fork. Both come with thru-axles and Enduro bearings.
    Servicing the 6-pawl freehub is easy: just loosen the nut on the drive side with a normal 15 key (and another at the non-drive side) and you pull the thing right off the axle.

    The front hub end caps will be redesigned slightly to add stiffness to the already very, very stiff new 125mm travel fork so that might add a few additional grams in the end.

    People have already been running 170mm hubs in Sandman frames with no problems at all. Who wants to try one of these in a 170mm frame ? Price still to be determined, but they won't break the bank.




  7. #32
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,755
    Nice hubs and weights !!!
    Ti O'Beast
    Indy Fab
    One9
    Dirty Disco CX

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: modifier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,811
    I imagine I weighed my Hadley 170 hub before I built my wheel but at the time there was no other choice so what else was I going to do? But now that I see the big difference I think my next set of fat wheels will start with something else.

    Those Sandmans look good, however for accuracy they really need axles, and the Hopes look good too. I only have a Hope front hub on one bike so I can't attest to longevity but others have had good luck with them.

    The Hadleys are noisy too but not as loud as Hope or i9 (the worst). I think I heard i9 was coming out with a 170 hub too.

    As far as packing the hubs with grease to quiet them down, I'm not sure that isn't going to cause engagement problems in the future. But I guess if you take them apart every so often and clean and repack they may be ok. But that is just one more thing to deal with and it seems like I have to service something on every bike I ride every time I ride them. But then most all my bikes are test sleds for something new or non existent outside of my world so service and tweaking goes with the territory. Hadley specifies mineral oil so I use their mineral oil and don't worry about the noise.

    I totally agree with the idea that the hub flanges should be moved as far out as possible rather than offsetting so much to gain symmetry.
    No it never stops hurting, but if you keep at it you can go faster.

  9. #34
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,415
    What colors will the Sandman hubs be available in?


    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    Nice hubs and weights !!!
    x2
    Wish these had been available when I built my wheelset.

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,124
    Quote Originally Posted by AC/BC View Post
    What colors will the Sandman hubs be available in?
    question is who actually manuf the hubs for sandman?? hope, hadley, chris king??

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bethany1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    659
    Not sure if I should start a new thread, but found this post interesting so I'll ask it here. How big of a difference will hubs make? In the Beginner Forum there was a post about wheels and it brought up that a better hub allows you to have better engagement.

    With my Mukluk, if I put my pedal at the top and go down, it's almost 1/4 of the way around before it engages, maybe more. Is this normal for the Mukluk hub and maybe why it's a pain with the pedal strikes and other issues I have with roots and rocks? Is it worth considering one of the hubs in this post? And it it normal for the pawls to be extremely loud and annoying?

    I'm finally understanding how all the parts work to make a bike better and more efficient so the talk of hubs and the brands really help.

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    question is who actually manuf the hubs for sandman?? hope, hadley, chris king??
    Nope, when you see the price you'll know they don't come from any of those brands... Up until now they made and assembled almost everything in Belgium.
    Advantage: small series, great quality control, high-end stuff.

    But the market for high-end trail fatbikes is small, so this year they've been very busy finding Taiwanese companies who could and would make things according to their designs. Affordable frames, 125mm suspension fork, lightweight hubs, UST tires & rims, tubeless kits for 47mm rims... all arriving pretty soon now. If you're in the market for upgradeable to- and performance fatbikes & components, I'd advise you to wait a few weeks. There's some exiting stuff coming up.
    We'll get the prototypes of the new forks next week and we'll take them straight into the mountains for some serious testing.

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pbasinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    716
    Hadley vs Hope

    Iíve had pretty bad luck with Hope hubs for summer use. Multiple broken pawls, crap bearings right out of the box, problems with play in the front hub that never was resolved even after going back and forth with Hope on replacing this part and that partÖ

    I have really only used Hadleys in cold, dry winter conditions, so they have seen less abuse than the Hopes, but they have been very reliable, but not without their small issues.

    All that said, given the difference in price and weight and availability Iíd probably still try the Hopes over the Hadleys unless I was doing some expedition or something where I really needed be sure about reliability, then Iíd spend the extra cash on the Hadleys.


    165mm hubs? Thatís so 2006. Whatís the point? The future is ~190mm

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger View Post
    ...Iíve had pretty bad luck with Hope hubs for summer use. Multiple broken pawls, crap bearings right out of the box, problems with play in the front hub that never was resolved even after going back and forth with Hope on replacing this part and that partÖ..
    On the other hand, I've never had any problem with my Hope hubs, and spec them on all my bikes. However, I'm a fairly conservative rider - carry the bike over deep water, etc.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger View Post
    165mm hubs? Thatís so 2006. Whatís the point? The future is ~190mm
    Soon them Alaskan fatbikes will resemble the back end of those choppers I see on Discovery Channel.
    I recently talked to a guy about the 135offset-165-170 discussion. He likened it to the BB standard evolution: we were all perfectly happy with the square taper Shimano cartridges until industry types decided Isis was the next best thing. Then Isis was "passť" and along came the next standard...
    Now up to 190mm... sigh... what's the spin ?

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pbasinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by caminoloco View Post
    Soon them Alaskan fatbikes will resemble the back end of those choppers I see on Discovery Channel.
    I recently talked to a guy about the 135offset-165-170 discussion. He likened it to the BB standard evolution: we were all perfectly happy with the square taper Shimano cartridges until industry types decided Isis was the next best thing. Then Isis was "passť" and along came the next standard...
    Now up to 190mm... sigh... what's the spin ?
    135 standard for fatbikes works with a 17.5 offset = 170 non offset
    135 with 17.5 offset or 170 non offset works great up to a certain size tire and rim, but lots of folks want bigger so a wider hub, offset crank, frame with more offset, or some combination of those is required like the Moonlander. People were using 165 on symmetrical frames because 170 wasnít available back in the day, but less than ideal for chain to tire rub on big tire rim combos and chainline with most of the 100mm cranks. Just donít see why somebody would choose to go 165 now a days. Maybe Iím missing something though?

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger View Post
    135 standard for fatbikes works with a 17.5 offset = 170 non offset
    135 with 17.5 offset or 170 non offset works great up to a certain size tire and rim, but lots of folks want bigger so a wider hub, offset crank, frame with more offset, or some combination of those is required like the Moonlander. People were using 165 on symmetrical frames because 170 wasnít available back in the day, but less than ideal for chain to tire rub on big tire rim combos and chainline with most of the 100mm cranks. Just donít see why somebody would choose to go 165 now a days. Maybe Iím missing something though?
    165 is basically obsolete at this point, and most of what was/is available is quite heavy and is thru-axle mount. Not sure why Sandman stuck with that spacing. However, my "165 mm" Sandman frame accepts a 170 hub with no trouble.

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger View Post
    135 standard for fatbikes works with a 17.5 offset = 170 non offset
    135 with 17.5 offset or 170 non offset works great up to a certain size tire and rim, but lots of folks want bigger so a wider hub, offset crank, frame with more offset, or some combination of those is required like the Moonlander. People were using 165 on symmetrical frames because 170 wasnít available back in the day, but less than ideal for chain to tire rub on big tire rim combos and chainline with most of the 100mm cranks. Just donít see why somebody would choose to go 165 now a days. Maybe Iím missing something though?
    You bring up an interesting point there: people want bigger tires & wider rims. But at the current prices (those tires cost more than what I pay for a brand A/T tire for my Land Cruiser !!) the enthousiasm might be short lived...
    Ofcourse 150mm rims will offer more float, 220mm hubs and 125mm BB a better chainline to go along, and 250$ 6-inch tires still acceptable weight. With yet another frame to accept all that, because your old one is hopelessly outdated by the time you unpacked the box...

    But do we really want to go there ?

    A 165mm width frame does just fine with 80mm rims and 4.8" tires. With some tweaking of the drivetrain and the right frametube forms it even does just fine with hundies. The newer Sandman frames go along that line, instead of entering in the "more-is-better" arms race they choose to perfect their current design: lighter, more tire clearance, stiffer, UST solutions, affordable sus fork... which, by the way, has 122mm clearance between fork legs, so OK for 80mm/4.8" combos.

    That way their current customers can upgrade/update older bikes or buy a new one in the confidence that it won't be outdated a few months later by some marketing guys or the next expensive fad or extreme use reserved for the happy few.

    But if you want to put in a 170mm rear hub: just go ahead... plenty to choose from and they all fit. You'll just buy more grams, more flex and less than a cog-width extra at the rear...

    Let's also not forget those Sandman bikes are essentially designed to go fast and efficiently on "summer" mountain and coastal trails. Being able to run hundies is more of a pleasant side effect than a goal.

  19. #44
    RIDE...
    Reputation: MarcoL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    411
    Caminoloco.-
    please let us know when those hubs are available, I want a pair of those red ones for my hoggar

  20. #45
    RIDE...
    Reputation: MarcoL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    411
    Caminoloco.-

    You mean that the flame fork can take 4.8" tires with the original rim in the Hoggar?
    (do not give me more ideas...)

  21. #46
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,566
    I'm impressed with the Fatsnos, though I only have 40mi on them. I've been looking into the compatability with Hope's axle conversion kits. A 12x142 maxle front hub could be nice

    I was going to use the 616's because I like centerlock disc's, if they were cup and cone I'd be sold. But the budget didn't really have the funds for them, and they aren't too much lighter.

    I saw the 9zero7s in the flesh for the first time a few days ago, the fit and finish were really nice. And the bearings felt super smooth right out of the box. They are listed as 238g front / 368g rear.
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  22. #47
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,566
    Woah, double post
    Last edited by G-reg; 11-24-2012 at 07:45 AM. Reason: dbl pst
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  23. #48
    Hole Maker.
    Reputation: cendres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    185
    I've got about 50 miles on my Hopes and I'm really happy with them, too. I wish the freehub was a bit less obnoxious, but the solid engagement makes it a lot more tolerable.

  24. #49
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,566
    I rebuilt my Hopes out of the box with Lubriplate (my favorite cold wx grease). That toned them down a bit, and they have gotten quieter over those few miles.
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  25. #50
    Hole Maker.
    Reputation: cendres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    185
    I may follow suit. Any drag issues after doing this? I'm wuss and don't generally ride when it's colder than -10įF.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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