Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    47

    If you had to do it all over again...4" or 5" tires?

    My winter goal is to build up a fat bike. Being a bigger guy larger tires make good sense to me. I went with 2.4 x 29 on my SS. The worked much better for me. I can't help but feel 5" vs 4" tires will offer me the same improvement in any riding condition.
    The new Surly Krampus is getting a ton of press due to the 29+ concept. A 4.7" tire is also a 29+. At 762mm in diameter the 5" tires are nearly an inch larger in width and diameter over the 3.7 (4") size. This puts the 5" size very close in diameter the much touted Knard from Surly.
    Beyond the extra float wouldn't the larger diameter of the 5" roll over obstacles better.

    I feel the question of tire size and drivetrain need to be answered before I can determine frame and other items.
    Do you agree with my thoughts on the 3.7 vs 4.7 debate?

  2. #2
    Single Speed Junkie
    Reputation: crux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,106
    I'm hoping for a 29+ with 4" wide tires. While I'm at it might as well have a number of tire options as well... Think if this happens demand would be intense.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Schott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    586
    I love my necromancer, and while I haven't ridden a moonlander, I can't help but be jealous and maybe even a little bit regretful that I didn't go bigger. I think that if it was just a little bigger it would be fine, but looking at the two side by side....they are much wider and taller. Yes, your larger diameter is only going to increase the ability to roll over things, but they are going to be heavier as well. Where there are pros, there are generally cons.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    665
    I think the choice is easy for a big guy wanting a fatbike for winter. Maximum float would be the key, which probably means a Moonlander.

    Now, for year round use the choice is more difficult. I bought a new fatbike in June this year to be used as my number one fatbike year round. I'm also big at 6'4 and 210 lbs, but opted for a Mukluk, even though I could have used the float of 100 mm rims and the fattest tires. For summer use the Moonlander isn't as good since the offset design makes some lighter rim choices for summer use impossible.
    My bike blog: www.yetirides.com

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: No_Roads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    75
    I bought my Moonlander specifically to ride through snow and stay away from the indoor trainer. After 10+ inches of snow I know I made the right choice. The thing I didn't consider was how much I would enjoy using the local trails before the snow. Thing is that the moonlander did fine on all of the advanced trails pre-snow. Just not fast. I'm not going to beat anyone on Strava with it :-) I guess that would be the trade off. I was pulling over quite a bit to let the 29'ers zoom by me.

    Then I test rode a Krampus last weekend. 3" tires seemed like a good compromise for summer fat-trail-riding, and it was a FAST bike!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kreater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    706
    i too was amazed how much fun and playful my moonlander has been pre snow on my local trails. yes slower but a blast to ride. 4.8 tires on RD rims, climbs and goes down almost everything i have put it through.
    "Live dangerously and you live right."
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    741
    As a big guy as well (6' 1", 260+) I find that the Pugs is a bit slim on some deeper stuff. However, I've been riding nothing but the Pugs since May and like having the option of running a bit thinner rubber on the LM wheels during the summer months. 90% of my riding is on packed and groomed trails for my daily commute, so the extra float isn't as much of a factor most days. There have been a number of times when I would really like more float.

    I'm currently toying with the idea of moving to a Moonie front with a 5 inch wheel up there and sticking with the narrower on the back. Ideally I'll be moving to a Fatback in the next year or so and will at that time step up to a bigger footprint.

  8. #8
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,699
    I started with a Fatback and 3.8 tires. Riding in loose sand/gravel, I could see I could use more float - but was already having chain issues 3x9 with the 3.8. I did put a BFL on the front and got good value there.

    My riding buddy got a Pugsley, and would have issues on things my fatterfront Fatback didn't. He then got a chance at a Moonlander complete, and now I'm the one having more issues! Next plan: BFL on the back of the Fatback (it will fit, I know that) with a moonlander MWOD crankset to take care of chain issues. I'd rather have the OD crankset, but it's not out yet. Maybe I can wait.

    Bottom line: If you're riding in loose stuff, go as fat as you can.

    I keep having daydreams of 2 skinnyLarrys cut and sewn into a 6-7" monster tire - but that would also mean a custom frame as well as cutting up 2 $$ tires. Also some kind of multichain drivetrain to clear said monster tire. sigh.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bprsnt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    288
    If I had to pick one it would definitely be 5”
    4” is fine most of the time but 5”covers all the bases.
    Moonlander's
    Sandman Hogger Ti

  10. #10
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    i ride my moonlander easier than i did my pugsley, and over rougher terrain.....that says it all for me.
    2014 milage so far - 2,167
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yoreskillz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    239
    I started riding a Pugsley last in October of 2011 at 6'1" 315lbs and today I ride a Moonlander at 229lbs...despite being lighter than I was when I started I still opted for the widest I could get.

    One could compare the query to snowshoeing as well in my opinion, the heavier you are the wider/longer the shoe you will want to get the most float. Sure you can get by with a smaller shoe and likely enjoy it still, but why not go bigger and make it a bit more easy? I wouldn't change the choice I made.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    653
    A Pugs will take BFLs on 80mm rims, as well as the thinnest tires around there. This is something to consider if you want a versatile bike

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    347
    On my 2012 mukluk I run a Clownshoe/Bud on the front and Darryl/Nate on the back. The Bud is way bigger than the Nate and has noticeably more float. The combo works really well and I'm happy with it. Although I sometimes wonder how much better it would be with a large tire on the back as well. As it is I can pretty much get through 99% of what my buddy can with his Moonlander/Bud/Lou.

    It is unfortunate there is no good 4.5" tire option out there. The Mukluk has gobs of clearance with the Nate, but not quite enough for the Lou. It would have been nice if Surly had stuck to a BFL size casing (which fits nicely on a Muk) for the Bud/Lou. I'm guessing Surly upped the size intentionally to cut out the competition.

    At the end of the day, if I could do it over again, I'd still go with the Mukluk because it cost significantly less $$$ and it works really well.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails If you had to do it all over again...4" or 5" tires?-dsc01420.jpg  


  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    What at your most frequent ridden trail conditions. If your trails are highly used having a packed solid base then go fat, pump them up to 10 psi and rip it up. If you have packed snow on top of loose/unconsolidated base it a whole new game. Being 6'4" and just north of 200lb mostly riding the later I want float (currently BFL's on RD's) to keep me on top of the snowpack and rolling along rather than busting through the crust, even if it means I'm slower on the really packed out trails.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,683
    I'm waiting for 6" tyres
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,123
    I've been riding "3/4" fat singlespeed for 3 years now during winter and muddy spring so I'm sold, I'll be taking the plunge for a fatbike sometime after Christmas. The way fat tires ride through not just snow but float over frost heaves, plow through thick mud bogs and generally over and through conditions I never realized possible on "skinny" tires is a blast. If you're gonna go fat why not go thephattest with the moonie?. How many times have you read about a fatbike rider who upgraded to a moonie and then regretted it?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    121
    I rode an original Purple Sizzurple Pugs with Larrys on Large Marge Rims for a couple years, and now run a Moonlander with Clownshoes, a Lefty and (previously) Big Fat Larry's, and now Bud and Lou. There's nothing I've ridden with the Moonlander that I couldn't have ridden with the Pugs, but it's just a lot easier. You can run higher pressure on snow and sand, so it doesn't feel like as much of a chore.

    I went out with 2 other guys on Dec 1 in Eastern Washington. One riding a Fatback with 100mm rims and Endos, the other on a custom bike with Large Marge's, a Mav SC32 fork and Husker Du's. They were lighter or the same weight as me and pretty certainly better riders. We could all muscle up the same firm sand. I had more control going downhill in sand, but it didn't really matter. They outpaced me going uphill on the rocky dry trail (my weaker legs probably contributed more than drag from the tires) but I caught up when we hit a section of trail with a lot of big loose rocks. I just bombed through and the tires ate it up, where they were getting bounced around a lot and had to pick through the obstacles. The difference between the 4.8" tires and the 3.8" or 4" tires, even on the same rims, is significant.

    I still take the Moonie out on the local single track, and it's fun. Which is the point, I think.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    On my 2012 mukluk I run a Clownshoe/Bud on the front and Darryl/Nate on the back. The Bud is way bigger than the Nate and has noticeably more float. The combo works really well and I'm happy with it. Although I sometimes wonder how much better it would be with a large tire on the back as well. As it is I can pretty much get through 99% of what my buddy can with his Moonlander/Bud/Lou.

    It is unfortunate there is no good 4.5" tire option out there. The Mukluk has gobs of clearance with the Nate, but not quite enough for the Lou. It would have been nice if Surly had stuck to a BFL size casing (which fits nicely on a Muk) for the Bud/Lou. I'm guessing Surly upped the size intentionally to cut out the competition.

    At the end of the day, if I could do it over again, I'd still go with the Mukluk because it cost significantly less $$$ and it works really well.
    FYI....the Lou fits the Muk's just fine on a CS rim and perhaps better on a CS than a Darryl as it may make it too tall with the skinny'r rim. That is where it gets close on the lower chain stay brace. With the CL rim it's make a perfect radius of the tire to fit the frame.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I'm waiting for 6" tyres
    give ya props for patience (lots of it too)

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by danaco View Post
    FYI....the Lou fits the Muk's just fine on a CS rim and perhaps better on a CS than a Darryl as it may make it too tall with the skinny'r rim. That is where it gets close on the lower chain stay brace. With the CL rim it's make a perfect radius of the tire to fit the frame.
    Got any pics and clearance numbers? I have the non-alternator frame. I know guys with the alternators are using Lous no problem.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rumblestrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    105
    I have a Moonlander bias. That's what I'm riding currently, and I love that thing more than any bike I've had in a long long time. I've ridden both. For a big guy, non expedition, year round rider like myself I would not trade it for a 4" tire bike. This is just better for me.

    However that doesn't mean that I wouldn't really like to have a 4" tire bike in addition to my Moonie. Why not? N+1 you know.

    I'm seeing some people regretting going 4", but not the other way very often. Maybe the question could be, has anyone regretted going 5"

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,290
    for my area and rides 4" is plenty and have no desire to go bigger.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    Got any pics and clearance numbers? I have the non-alternator frame. I know guys with the alternators are using Lous no problem.

    I don't have any pics but trust me, they fit in the regular 2012 frames (non alternator type) the little whiskers rub but I cut all those off.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    Got any pics and clearance numbers? I have the non-alternator frame. I know guys with the alternators are using Lous no problem.
    Oh oh, I smell an upgrade coming your way!

    As to the question at hand, I'm on a 4" Pugsley, I wish I was on a 5" Moonlander but it wasn't widely available in Canada when I bought my fat gear last year. I get around OK on my Nates on RD's so I'm not about to spend the $1500 it would probably cost me to get the extra inch.

    If I was buying now I'd get a Moonlander, but I wish there was some other color options.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    Oh oh, I smell an upgrade coming your way!

    As to the question at hand, I'm on a 4" Pugsley, I wish I was on a 5" Moonlander but it wasn't widely available in Canada when I bought my fat gear last year. I get around OK on my Nates on RD's so I'm not about to spend the $1500 it would probably cost me to get the extra inch.

    If I was buying now I'd get a Moonlander, but I wish there was some other color options.
    I'd spend 1500 to get an extra inch any day... I know you and BobShort have a serious case of tire envy...
    Last edited by chunkylover53; 12-12-2012 at 03:37 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •