Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 801 to 843 of 843
  1. #801
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by PerraHunter View Post
    Regarding upgrades, aside from changing parts to customize the fit to the individual rider, some people just like tinkering and building up their perfect bike. There are tons of us riding the original 1.0 and 2.0 with minimal changes, and are perfectly happy.

    The Framed 1.0 and 2.0 are not race bikes out of the box, so a lot of people have upgraded them for that purpose. But if you are more of an adventure/recreational rider, you may not need to upgrade at all.

    For my 1st shipment 2.0, I changed the pedals from a bike I was not riding, and ditto the seat (zero $ each). I changed the small chain ring for easier hill climbing ($21 part and tool). I added a dropper post ($110) because, well, who wouldn't. On-One Mary bars for $29 for comfort and fit. So, $160 on upgrades. Hardly what you would call extravagant. Add another hundred for replacing stuff I broke.

    Here is my take on it; if you enjoy that sort of thing, the 1.0 and 2.0 are great platforms to build up your perfect bike, but if you just like riding, these bikes are ready to ride straight from the box.

    Ps. Forgot to mention the On-One floaters, to replace the worn down
    Vee Missions. Obviously, Your Mileage May Vary.
    Agree completely with this. I'm a tinkerer as well. I got my 2.0 directly through the House when I walked in out of curiosity and there was a wrong size web purchase return for $700. It walked out with me. I've changed out shifters (Sram X0), grips (Ergon GS1) and rear derailleur (Sram X9), and I'm using a Brooks and pedals I had on hand. I bought an On One Fatty Carbon Fork that I'll be installing when I have time, as the existing fork is the only part of the original "base" I don't really care for. I also upgraded to Floaters, about the best thing out there for the cost. It's good as is and fun to work with.

  2. #802
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    ...oh, and why do the rims need to be upgraded? Weight?
    Part of the attraction of the women's model is the purple rims.
    I'd consider lacing those hoops to better hubs down the road for her if the're up to snuff.

    Edit - reading earlier posts, I'm guessing it's width.
    It's basically that they suck for tubeless. There isn't anything "wrong" with Weinmann HL80 rims. They are a little heavy and are a pain for tubeless but the rims hold up.

    The fatboy SE is a good bike but the 3.0 might be a more "comparable" bike. 3.0 has better components/brakes, but same 190mm, 150mm front tapered for bluto. With Mulefuts tubeless rims for under $300 you would come out still under the price of the Fatboy SE and could sell your old rims to offset some of that price or just run 2 wheel sets/ one studded for winter.

  3. #803
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,612
    OK - sounding like a solid plan for her.

  4. #804
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    As for upgrades, I dont' even have my bike on hand and I'm already looking at changing the crankset ontop of everything else I've ordered. Is there anything wrong with the crank arms or bb? No, but I just dont' like square taper bb's, too difficult to work on, can't work on them as easily. Doesn't mean there is a single thing wrong with it, just not for me.

    I bought some new chainrings, 24 and 32, then the next day, after sleeping on it, ordered a 32 NW, that way it'd be similar to my FS bike. Never know what you are going to do, but I just will do anything to tinker and make it my own. No ones Minnesota 2.0 will be quite like mine.

    shm

  5. #805
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by shmtastic View Post
    As for upgrades, I dont' even have my bike on hand and I'm already looking at changing the crankset ontop of everything else I've ordered. Is there anything wrong with the crank arms or bb? No, but I just dont' like square taper bb's, too difficult to work on, can't work on them as easily. Doesn't mean there is a single thing wrong with it, just not for me.

    I bought some new chainrings, 24 and 32, then the next day, after sleeping on it, ordered a 32 NW, that way it'd be similar to my FS bike. Never know what you are going to do, but I just will do anything to tinker and make it my own. No ones Minnesota 2.0 will be quite like mine.

    shm
    Cup and cone square taper bb require some expertise, but sealed bearing square taper bb are no more difficult than and every bit as good as other types.

  6. #806
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by revcp View Post
    Cup and cone square taper bb require some expertise, but sealed bearing square taper bb are no more difficult than and every bit as good as other types.
    They are awfully heavy and in order to remove the crankarm, you need to use your square taper crank arm removal tool each time. I don't want to have to carry that with me on every ride just on the offhand chance I need to remove the crank arm for a stuck chain. I've never had that issue, but I have helped out others on the trail with that problem before, and I don't want to have to torque my chain to reef it out of there.

    And once again, just personal preference. I don't like them. If I choose to keep the 24t inner chain ring, you can't remove it without pulling the arm. Thats my reasoning behind it. Just my thoughts though. Bike will show up today. Can't wait!!

    I plan on putting my 3.0 tires on the fattie slims just to take some pictures before hand, that way it can be documented before and after the Dually's. They show up Monday, so hopefully late next week I'll have the wheelset rebuilt and can share that experience as well

    SHM

  7. #807
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Yeah I'm leaning more and more toward the Framed for my wife. Pretty much the same kit as the $1800 Mukluk - pretty impressive. Room to change the brakes and maybe the bars. Thanks for the Mulefuts tip too...but then see just with those rims I'm getting close to Fatboy territory. That's what I mean. That base Fatboy is a pretty good price considering the upgrades I see going into the 2.0.
    FYI....the 1.0 and 2.0 have high top tubes....watch you stand over or there will be sadness.
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  8. #808
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by jhammer221 View Post
    Let us know how this fits. I am a bit taller than you with long arms as well and concerned with the short ETT. Seems like it might be cramped. I'm right under 6'4" with 37 dress shirt and 36" cycling inseam roughly.
    I'm not entirely sure how to measure properly to give you a comparable cycling inseam, but after a quick 15 minutes to build the bike, and a two minute midnight test ride, I will say that wearing jeans, the standover is just barely enough with shoes on. When I bike, I wear spandex style shorts. Tonight I did not have them on. I'll be able to answer this a bit better in the next few days, after actually riding the bike, rather then just spinning down the street and back.

    I will say that I was a bit disappointed. The seat post screw was not included, and a cable tab was missing from the fork. On top of that, the authorized dealer that I bought the bike from said that the fattie slims were 32h and after a few dozen counts, the rims/hubs are 36h. I'm not overly happy about this. I'm not taking the zip ties off the wheelset yet, until I hear what the dealer wants to do.

    I LOVE the pavement ride sound though, I will say that. Reminds me of a jeep I had with oversized tires. Love that sound. Will update more very soon.

  9. #809
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Mounted up the 29+ on the fattie slim wheel. I was told by Framed that they were 30mm wheels. It is actually 18.4mm internally, 24.6ish external.. Not sure where 30mm came from. Here are the pics though.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150409_200716722.jpg
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150409_200745089.jpg
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150409_200709358.jpg
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150409_200702336.jpg

  10. #810
    MPE
    MPE is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by shmtastic View Post
    Mounted up the 29+ on the fattie slim wheel. I was told by Framed that they were 30mm wheels. It is actually 18.4mm internally, 24.6ish external.. Not sure where 30mm came from. Here are the pics though.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150409_200716722.jpg 
Views:	118 
Size:	143.0 KB 
ID:	980006
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150409_200745089.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	133.9 KB 
ID:	980007
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150409_200709358.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	111.5 KB 
ID:	980008
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150409_200702336.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	88.1 KB 
ID:	980009
    What 29+ tires are those? How do they ride? I have a set of fatty slims still in the box from my 2015 2.0. I never messed with them because I was have too much fun with the fat tires. Your pictures are making me think some more.

    Take care,

    Mike

  11. #811
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by MPE View Post
    What 29+ tires are those? How do they ride? I have a set of fatty slims still in the box from my 2015 2.0. I never messed with them because I was have too much fun with the fat tires. Your pictures are making me think some more.

    Take care,

    Mike
    They are just Innova Gravity Vadar's. I just got my 2.0 last night, had a trip today so I only put 4 miles on the fat tires on pavement. Going to be testing both out off road tomorrow. I picked the tires up on amazon for 35$ with tubes. They are sold out right now though. Only added 4 ounces, I repeat, 4 ounces, from the stock fattie slims.

    Just an added note, my rotors didn't come with bolts, going to pick them up tomorrow morning before I go riding. Will post pictures also all put together.

    Shm

  12. #812
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    So its a cold, rainy/misty day here, currently around 36 degrees, so I'm not going to get to go out and ride, but I did take some pictures with the fatty slims with Innova Vidar 29x3.0 tires on them. Haven't got to ride them yet, and they do have a bit more air in them then I will ride, but oh well. At least its something to look at? Hopefully will get to ride them tomorrow.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150410_120154512.jpg
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150410_120158026.jpg
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150410_115912900_hdr.jpg
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20150410_115917312_hdr.jpg

  13. #813
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    52
    Minnesota 2.0 (2014) headset question. I'm upgrading the original Neco. I was advised to buy the Cane Creek IS42 Tall Complete (42mm top and bottom head tube diameter) and it's not compatible. It appears the MN 2.0 IS A semi Integrated headset and not fully so. The IS42 is for a fully integrated headset. What has worked for others? Particularly interested in the Cane Creek 40 series.

  14. #814
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    43
    Headsets are usually the last thing people upgrade, so I doubt people have done it. Have you tried measuring the frame and using Cane Creek's headset finder?
    Headset Fit Finder | Cane Creek Cycling Components
    2013 Salsa Colossal Steel
    2013 Salsa Beargrease
    2010 Trek Fuel EX

  15. #815
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Triggsie View Post
    Headsets are usually the last thing people upgrade, so I doubt people have done it. Have you tried measuring the frame and using Cane Creek's headset finder?
    Headset Fit Finder | Cane Creek Cycling Components
    Thanks. Got the answer from the FB site. For anyone else who's curious, it's a ZS44, tall.

  16. #816
    MPE
    MPE is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by shmtastic View Post
    So its a cold, rainy/misty day here, currently around 36 degrees, so I'm not going to get to go out and ride, but I did take some pictures with the fatty slims with Innova Vidar 29x3.0 tires on them. Haven't got to ride them yet, and they do have a bit more air in them then I will ride, but oh well. At least its something to look at? Hopefully will get to ride them tomorrow.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150410_120154512.jpg 
Views:	99 
Size:	118.5 KB 
ID:	980121
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150410_120158026.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	119.7 KB 
ID:	980123
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150410_115912900_HDR.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	125.0 KB 
ID:	980124
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20150410_115917312_HDR.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	116.0 KB 
ID:	980122
    How did they ride? Do they work / ride well on the fattie slims? I have a set of fattie slims sitting in the box, but if those 29x3.0 tires work, I might get them out and set up. Ride report please!

    Thanks and take care,
    Mike

  17. #817
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Hey Mike, I got a bad set of Fattie Slims. I only got about half a mile on them. I believe the hubs suffered from the slightly oversized bearings. Felt like rocks in the rear end. I already have the Dually's and my BHS hubs should be here tomorrow, then off to the LBS to get built up with proper 29+ wheels.

    On a side note, the tires seemed to grip well for the price. Hopefully next week I'll get on them and I'm sure there'll be even less snow. Right now, its the mud/ice season here. I took a decent digger today trying to ride a trail that had mealy snow and ice on it. Had my tires inflated more than I plan on using for snow, going too fast, all sorts of bad juju combined to me eating it.

    The Innova's only mic'd out to be about 2.79"ish, so not a true 3.0 either. 18ish mm inner width may have had something to do with that. I'll be attempting to go tubeless with these, wire bead, never know 'til ya try!

    SHM

  18. #818
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4
    Would you be so kind as to provide a link to a 32/22T and bash that you used? Thanks - newb with 2.2 on order.

    Quote Originally Posted by linklight View Post
    Chainrings - I originally thought that the 38/28T gearing was fine and I could have probably lived with it. Going to a 32/22T chainring gave me 2 extra low gears and I only gave up one tall gear. Sounds like a good trade off to me. I never used the tallest cog on the rear cassette anyways. I had to remove 2 links from the chain and I had to remove the crank arm to replace the small chainring. The crank arm was super tight and I had a hard time getting it off.

  19. #819
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by cal21guy View Post
    Would you be so kind as to provide a link to a 32/22T and bash that you used? Thanks - newb with 2.2 on order.
    Any with the BDC of 104 and 64mm will work. Bashguard will need to be 104BDC, which is pretty standard for 2nd and 3rd chain rings, as will the 32T. The 22T will be the 64BDC, which will be your granny gear.

    Be careful removing your crank arm, mine was on tight enough that the crank removal tool actually stripped the threads. In order to get it off, I literally had to cut off the square taper attachment with a cut off disk on a grinder and replace with a Raceface XC, then did away with the front derailleur all together, 32T NW up front.

    Rides great with my 29+ set up. A bit jealous of the 2.2, as I got the 2015 2.0. Would have changed things, but oh well.

  20. #820
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4
    Again, please don't shoot the newb here, but I can't find a Jenson or Amazon anywhere to buy just a 32 104mm and 22 64mm chainring. I was hoping to find anodized green to match the wheels on the Mn2.2, but at this point will be happy with anything! Please provide link??

    Thankfully, LBS happy to remove crank and swap for minimal $10 labor cost.

  21. #821
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4

  22. #822
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Hey no problem man. If you look at the pull down tab on the right of the page, you will see a 22t and a 32t, and this was just the first that I pulled up. There are many, many options out there.


    Shimano XT M770 Series Chainring > Components > Drivetrain, Brakes and Pedals > Chainrings | Jenson USA

  23. #823
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Narrow wide rings are only for 1x riding. The only way that could work is if you ghost granny geared the 22t 64bdc, which would mean no front derailleur, and if you wanted to use your small ring you have to stop, reach down and manually lift it off the NW and onto the granny.

    There are no shift ramps on a NW and the way a narrow wide works means you're chain has to set on the chain ring a certain way, which is why you don't see odd numbered teeth on a NW.

    Hopefully that answers your question. Remember to add a new post, not modify an old one if you want quicker responses, just a tid bit of info, hope this all helps.

    Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

  24. #824
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 9.8m/s/s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by shmtastic View Post
    Narrow wide rings are only for 1x riding. The only way that could work is if you ghost granny geared the 22t 64bdc, which would mean no front derailleur, and if you wanted to use your small ring you have to stop, reach down and manually lift it off the NW and onto the granny.
    I'm actually running that and it is more beneficial than you would think. With semi slicks on the fatty slims, I run a main narrow wide gear of 36t in front which takes care of roads and doubletrack/ buff singletrack, and I keep a bailout 22t. Haven't had to use it much, but happy it's there. And when I hop back on the road/ get to the top its easy enough to stop for a second and switch.
    I call for a mandate to allow only road bikes on trails to limit our speeds and increase our line picking skills-FB

  25. #825
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    135
    guys, help me out here. Got my 2.0, checked everything and went for a ride. I got the 18in ver (I am 5'11). Tires are at 20 psi , I rode on pavement, this is my first fatty.

    1-) my freaking hands got numb, Need better grips. Not sure which ones though?
    2-) I feel a little tight on this bike, would like to get a longer stem and riser bars. but what size stem?100mm?) and what width bars?
    3-) those little fenders help?? I don't want to get the massive ones. I am shocked how much crap fat tires pick up. lol

    thanks!

  26. #826
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    104
    Hey there, hopefully you have this all figured out, but just in case, I have the 20" and an around 6'3" with long arms. I ride with the seat back as far as I can without a set back post, 60mm RF stem and Answer 2" riser, 720mm bars. I push the sweep quite a bit forward, and absolutely love it.

    I run 40mm and 760 spank riser bars on my full squish XL and it rides line a dream. Haven't found the ideal grips yet, so can't help there. I believe I have some standard checkered On One grips on my Minny.



    Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

  27. #827
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cold Trigger Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    453
    I'm planning on getting either a 2.0 or the 3.0 this Saturday. Lord Willing! It mostly depends on if the lbs has my size in stock. I'm not leaving town without a fat bike!! Its 200 miles from my house to the Framed dealer 1 way. My 1st alteration will b a 22 tooth front chainring.
    One question I have that I haven't seen on this thread yet. What racks can I put on the 2.0 ? And does anyone know if the 3.0+2.0 are set up to take the same racks?

  28. #828
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Trigger Finger View Post
    I'm planning on getting either a 2.0 or the 3.0 this Saturday. Lord Willing! It mostly depends on if the lbs has my size in stock. I'm not leaving town without a fat bike!! Its 200 miles from my house to the Framed dealer 1 way. My 1st alteration will b a 22 tooth front chainring.
    One question I have that I haven't seen on this thread yet. What racks can I put on the 2.0 ? And does anyone know if the 3.0+2.0 are set up to take the same racks?
    I have a 2015 2.0 and the Topeak Explorer 29er w/Disc mounts fits like a charm
    Om Mani Padme Hung

  29. #829
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cold Trigger Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    453
    Thank you.

  30. #830
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Trigger Finger View Post
    I'm planning on getting either a 2.0 or the 3.0 this Saturday. Lord Willing! It mostly depends on if the lbs has my size in stock. I'm not leaving town without a fat bike!! Its 200 miles from my house to the Framed dealer 1 way. My 1st alteration will b a 22 tooth front chainring.
    One question I have that I haven't seen on this thread yet. What racks can I put on the 2.0 ? And does anyone know if the 3.0+2.0 are set up to take the same racks?
    I have the 2.0. I have an Old Man Mountain Sherpa rack on the back. Very solid.

    Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

  31. #831
    occasional browser
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    6
    I have a 2015 2.0 and installed an Ibera rack (disc mount). It is much less expensive than OMM but still pretty sturdy. You may have to come up with your own adapters to make it fit.

  32. #832
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cold Trigger Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    453
    I went to the Framed dealer when I was in town and he didn't show up. Start up dealer.
    We got a Boris from Craigslist. And I have my eye on a KHS.
    The framed dealer should have some Alaskans instock in my size so I may still get one and the 3.0 is still in the running.

  33. #833
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    236
    I have the 2.0 with the orange wheels. I'm looking to trade for for another color wheelset if anyone in Michigan wants to trade.

  34. #834
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,191
    I purchased a 2.2 a couple days ago. Swapped out parts and upgraded to BB7s. After some tinkering and attempts at setting the pad clearance I noticed that the insertion/removal tabs on the brake pads hit the welded mounting bracket. It didn't hit by much, but it took me longer than it should to notice it. The fix is to cut off/down the tab on the left side pad. This is for the 150mm thru axle alloy fork although it could be an issue on carbon fork as well. If you have purchased a 3.0 this was already done for you.
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-imag0349.jpg
    The guys at the House have been very helpful, so thanks to Chris for the fix and Dylan for the patience and time it took to get me to jump. First new bike in a few years. I haven't ridden the bike other than in the lot, but I'm looking forward to some easier winter biking.
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-imag0361.jpg
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  35. #835
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,989

    If it ain't broke...

    Oh wait. It's broke.

    I don't know this guy. He's not a large person but seemed to be a good pedaler. He rode up one large step and this happened. It was not a noteworthy impact.
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-minn1.jpeg The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-minn2.jpeg

    What is not apparent in the pix is that, while the right CS is cracked, the left CS buckled a little (maybe from chain tension/pedal forces).

    Of course I don't know any history on the bike or the guy. He was a short walk from the bar so he was OK.
    I'm trying to follow up with him to see if it was a warranty or what he decided to do.
    Maybe check your chain stays/rear triangle.

    -F

    PS - obviously, he didn't come here to complain so maybe he's been mean to it lo these many months.
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  36. #836
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,191
    Warranty is 3 years for the frameset. This has happened before (same spot), but I only know that because of an earlier post in this thread.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  37. #837
    guy
    Reputation: Kleebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    Oh wait. It's broke.

    I don't know this guy. He's not a large person but seemed to be a good pedaler. He rode up one large step and this happened. It was not a noteworthy impact.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Minn1.jpeg 
Views:	30 
Size:	58.5 KB 
ID:	1040887 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Minn2.jpeg 
Views:	32 
Size:	49.7 KB 
ID:	1040888

    What is not apparent in the pix is that, while the right CS is cracked, the left CS buckled a little (maybe from chain tension/pedal forces).

    Of course I don't know any history on the bike or the guy. He was a short walk from the bar so he was OK.
    I'm trying to follow up with him to see if it was a warranty or what he decided to do.
    Maybe check your chain stays/rear triangle.

    -F

    PS - obviously, he didn't come here to complain so maybe he's been mean to it lo these many months.
    Boy that bike looks familiar

    That is my bike. I admit that I have never babied my Minnesota 2.0, but I also don't abuse it anymore than what should be expected from a fat bike or any other mountain bike. It has seen a fair share of riding down stairs, trips to Ray's, and some cross races (fat bike class). Nothing that I would expect to weaken the frame. I think it was just my massive quads that did the frame in

    Honestly, I'm not in a bad mood about it because Framed has been pretty cool about the whole thing. As dbhammercycle mentioned, the frame warranty is 3 years and they were super upfront about replacing it. I just have to pick a new color frame because they were out of the silver (not a big deal).

  38. #838
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    217
    Good customer service. Nice to see a manufacture stick to the warranty and not look for a reason to deny it.

  39. #839
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Kleebs View Post
    Boy that bike looks familiar

    That is my bike. I admit that I have never babied my Minnesota 2.0, but I also don't abuse it anymore than what should be expected from a fat bike or any other mountain bike. It has seen a fair share of riding down stairs, trips to Ray's, and some cross races (fat bike class). Nothing that I would expect to weaken the frame. I think it was just my massive quads that did the frame in

    Honestly, I'm not in a bad mood about it because Framed has been pretty cool about the whole thing. As dbhammercycle mentioned, the frame warranty is 3 years and they were super upfront about replacing it. I just have to pick a new color frame because they were out of the silver (not a big deal).
    Thanks for following up! Sorry that happened, but I'm glad it's working out. Sorry if I stole your thunder by posting. Hopefully we'll see the new one soon!

    -F

  40. #840
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,191
    So, it would appear that my front wheel may be off center by 2mm. It's noticeable to me even though it may not be a big deal to others. Also, the mounts for a rack are off a bit. These kind of QC things were mentioned in a review so no real surprise. I've also noticed a couple of other things that were part of the first build (the top bolt of the stem was higher than the steer tube for example) I had when I swapped parts. I did have a frame swap because part of the top tube was lacking some paint under the clear coat. Granted, that's awesome they were cool and swapped it. Anybody else notice some of this stuff, is this just supposed to be acceptable because it's a fatty under 1K?

    I don't know if this has been talked about on the FB page, because I'm an FB holdout.

    Followup: Fork swap, seems the fork was off, the hub didn't sit on the ledges for the thru axle dropouts so it wasn't straight and was too wide to boot. New fork doesn't have those issues. I'm going to ride the wheels a bit and have them trued and tensioned after 50miles or so, which is par for the course with new wheels. That said the dish is off to the disc side a little. Customer service has been great so far and I know they are interested and proactive in me being happy. Still, the issues I've been having, IMO, should be found and remedied prior to me being handed the bike. I'm sick with my son's latest and greatest virus, so I haven't ridden it since I got the bike back. Hopefully we'll get a warm up here in MN soon.
    Last edited by dbhammercycle; 01-19-2016 at 09:49 AM.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  41. #841
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2
    hi 6'0 about 195 - looks like most would recommend the 17" for the sake of the "jewels" - what I do want to know is how well will this (1.0) handle on trails with lots of rocks and roots etc, no suspension on the 1.0 and I'm worried about fork breaks, can't decided if I need to go with a front suspension FB like a Gravity Bullsye Monster Comp or one like this the Minnesota 1.0

  42. #842
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,920
    I'm 6'1 and no way I could ride smaller than a 19. 20/21 xl is what i ride and I have only a 33" inseam.


    The "jewels" almost never at risk, if you hit then you have worse problems lol.
    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    Trek Marlin 29er

    Like It, Love It, Want Some More Of It!

  43. #843
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,191
    @Scarface

    You can get the MN 1.2 option which could come with the Bluto or Renegade. You could just call the guys at the House and see what your options are for upgrades or component spec. I have the MN 2.2 18", standover is tall for the toptube length. I would not skimp on the top tube length since the frames run shorter than other fatties for a more upright position. I don't know your pricepoint, but if you have 1K+ I think you might have options.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617

Similar Threads

  1. FAQ for Wisconsin & Minnesota
    By JmZ in forum Minnesota, Wisconsin
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-14-2014, 10:22 AM
  2. December in Minnesota?
    By Mapkos13 in forum Minnesota, Wisconsin
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 07:54 AM
  3. Minnesota River Bottoms
    By AC/BC in forum Photography for mountain bikers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-19-2011, 09:35 PM
  4. Cuyuna Trail - Minnesota
    By AC/BC in forum Passion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-17-2011, 11:16 AM
  5. Minnesota FatBikeFest 2011
    By Foofwa in forum Videos and POV Cameras
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 06:34 PM

Posting Permissions

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