Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 633
  1. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    Anybody else order one of these yet? I had been going back and forth between the Minnesota 2.0 and the Motobecane Boris X9 for the past month.

    I really wanted the Boris X9 but the uncertainty of the Feb 25th ship date and the possibility that it wouldn't ship until March 25th made me hesitate on ordering Boris X9. So I started looking at other options and time and time again I kept coming back to the Minnesota 2.0 in White and Orange.

    I kept talking myself out of the Minnesota 2.0 by telling myself that it would probably only ship in early Feb and that it was only a couple of weeks more for the Boris X9 if it did ship on Feb 25th.

    Tonight I was looking on the Framed Facebook page and they are saying that the 2.0 bikes are scheduled to arrive ahead of schedule (Jan 23rd or 24th) and that was the final push I needed to place my order.

    So tonight I went ahead and ordered White and Orange 2.0 in 18" and I picked the Slick 29er wheelset as the extra freebie wheelset.

    Now I play the waiting game but I'm looking forward to the new bike.

    A big thanks to nikj for taking those pictures at the showroom and to mncyclist for the mini-review/ride report.
    I ordered the white and orange 2.0 back in november and I'm stoked to see them arrive. Customer service told me they might have them in as early as the 20th, which means that I might have it for my bike packing trip to Pisgah in February.

    It seems so crazy to pay $940 and not see a return for almost 3 months

  2. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Truitnow View Post
    I was torn the same and decided to order one of each. A Boris X9 Large for my Son and a Med 2.0 in that same Orange as you. These orders were made back before Thanksgiving so its good to hear that the Minnesota 2.0 will be in early.
    Please check back and give us a review as far as which one you prefer and why. I had been thinking about getting a Bikes Direct fatty, as I have a Ti Motobecane already thats awsome.

    The extra wheel set isn't something I'd probably get any use out of, but like a few have mentioned, you could sell them to recover some cost. But really, I'm just looking for a quality cheap fat bike. I've been eyeing down those (gasp) Mongoose Beasts for awhile, but for what I'd have to put into it in upgrades makes me wonder what the point would be when I could just get a complete for abit more.

  3. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    Well we now know that the 2.0 will wheelie at will.
    Check out the video

    Instagram
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

  4. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2
    I'm looking at the Minnesota 2.0. I'd like to put a wider tire on it...maybe the Surly Bud and Lou. Or, something very close. Would this fit on the Minnesota 2.0?

    I, too, am deciding between the Minnesota 2.0 and the Motobecane FB4 Elite. Any thoughts or experience people might relay?

  5. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    According to Framed Bike's Facebook page, they are saying that it's quite possible that the bikes are going to ship on January 17th. That's less than 4 days away. Here's to hoping.
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

  6. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    Also a couple cool pics they posted on their Facebook Page
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1530514_10151810390611816_1844958488_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1524710_10151810390476816_398281976_n.jpg
    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1016363_439618622832944_458067284_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1551570_440064506121689_184431096_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1488100_440064516121688_1318605915_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1601166_439630249498448_2033135403_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1604647_440064319455041_1771006108_n.jpg
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

  7. #82
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by RDGear View Post
    I'm looking at the Minnesota 2.0. I'd like to put a wider tire on it...maybe the Surly Bud and Lou. Or, something very close. Would this fit on the Minnesota 2.0?
    Lots of info right here in this very thread you commented on. I'll help though so you don't have to go through the work of looking like most have to: No, the bike was designed around 3.8 - 4" tires.

    Quote Originally Posted by RDGear View Post
    I, too, am deciding between the Minnesota 2.0 and the Motobecane FB4 Elite. Any thoughts or experience people might relay?
    Again... threads all over with opinions... lots under the Bikes Direct thread.

    Thumbs up

  8. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    According to Framed Bike's Facebook page, they are saying that it's quite possible that the bikes are going to ship on January 17th. That's less than 4 days away. Here's to hoping.
    That would rock!! My group has 5 to pick up, it'd be nice to get them early. Everyone post up if u get the call!!!

  9. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    Lots of info right here in this very thread you commented on. I'll help though so you don't have to go through the work of looking like most have to: No, the bike was designed around 3.8 - 4" tires.

    Again... threads all over with opinions... lots under the Bikes Direct thread.

    Thumbs up

    Thanks, but just because the bike is "designed" around 3.8-4" tires doesn't mean that you couldn't put on a wider tire... people have done that with the FB4 even though it's "designed" for 4" tires.

  10. #85
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by RDGear View Post
    Thanks, but just because the bike is "designed" around 3.8-4" tires doesn't mean that you couldn't put on a wider tire... people have done that with the FB4 even though it's "designed" for 4" tires.
    You really start to run into clearance issues then. You have to leave room for snow and mud pack. Also, that is why bikes are now going to a 190 rear, so they can fit a 4.8 centered with no sacrifice to drivetrain. People who have stuffed bigger tires than a bike is built for usually sacrifice clearance and also modify the cassette by removing cogs. Also the FB4's are designed to fit a 4.25 according to the man himself.

    There is no way you will fit a 4.8 on the rear of a Minnesota or an FB4... they are simply massive compared to a 4.7 BFL even.

  11. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    331

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    There is no way you will fit a 4.8 on the rear of a Minnesota or an FB4... they are simply massive compared to a 4.7 BFL even.
    Except for the pictures and reviews of people who have actually put 4.8 bud and lou on the FB4 in the motobecane thread.

  12. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3
    Would the 1.0 be better suited to longer rides?

  13. #88
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by iscariot View Post
    Except for the pictures and reviews of people who have actually put 4.8 bud and lou on the FB4 in the motobecane thread.
    With modifications. Shaving side knobs and having to run higher pressure so you don't rub on rider weight is rediculous. Just run a Nate if you want aggressive and good clearance. 4.8's aren't all they are cracked up to be. I love mine for when I ride thick mud, but on snow and all other surfaces, 3.8's would do.

  14. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    Framed Minnesota 1.0 & 2.0 Fatbike Facebook Group

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/691226087566074/
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

  15. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    331

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    With modifications. Shaving side knobs and having to run higher pressure so you don't rub on rider weight is rediculous. Just run a Nate if you want aggressive and good clearance. 4.8's aren't all they are cracked up to be. I love mine for when I ride thick mud, but on snow and all other surfaces, 3.8's would do.
    Actually they can run up to 7 to 9 pounds, without contact. Shaved knobs of you want to run higher pressure than 9 pounds, which doesn't really make sense for snow riding.

    As far as "having to run higher pressure so you don't rub on rider weight"... as I learned, more pressure equals less clearance. Less pressure equals more clearance. Not a bad thing with regard to fat bikes on snow. The aforementioned pressures are in a very usable / practical range for winter riding.

    So bud and lou on an FB4 for snow riding is fine, according to reviews and evidence. Chainline has 3/8" clearance.

    Personally I'd run nates too. But it is inaccurate to say, as you did previously, that there is "no way a 4.8 would fit the ... FB4."

    Now back to this thread topic...

    [/thread jack]
    Last edited by iscariot; 01-14-2014 at 05:49 PM.

  16. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    Looks like the White/Orange 16" are also sold out. That only leaves the 18" available in White/Orange.
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

  17. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    42
    I would wager a bet that its not a frame clearance issue...but rather drivetrain.

    My Norco Bigfoot is advertised as "designed for 4" tires" but I'm running a 4.8 Bud up front with a 3.8 Nate in the back. A Lou rear would definitely clear the frame but I'd have to change out the crank to get the proper chain clearance. I surmise that this would be the case with the Minnesota as well.

  18. #93
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
    I would wager a bet that its not a frame clearance issue...but rather drivetrain.

    My Norco Bigfoot is advertised as "designed for 4" tires" but I'm running a 4.8 Bud up front with a 3.8 Nate in the back. A Lou rear would definitely clear the frame but I'd have to change out the crank to get the proper chain clearance. I surmise that this would be the case with the Minnesota as well.
    ^ This. It's the whole reason bikes are going to 190 rear for 4.8 tires and why the moonlander is offset 28mm with a 135 hub. Lots of people have fit 4.8 on their Mukluks and so on... but usually at the cost of a couple gears and shaved side knobs. I was merely answering the other guys question - you can't just throw a 4.8 on a 170 rear bike and do nothing, and it will just work. I guess I should have been more specific/detailed.

  19. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    17
    Help me out please, I'm a confused noob. The Minnesota 1 and 2 have different frame geometries, with the 2 having a shorter top tube? Now I know little about geometry and even less about fat bikes (something I'd like to change). What does that really mean as far as riding the bike? Would that difference be noticeable? Does that mean the 1 would be a better snow/sand bike and the 2 be a better fire road/single track dirt bike?

    If I got a fat bike, I could see myself riding unimproved forest roads and paths, getting to the never fished ponds, and places where my hard tail Rockhopper would not enjoy going. Never say never but I don't see this as being a snow bike, I mean our annual snow storm has already come and gone.

    Thanks.

  20. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2
    Does anybody know if the rear hub is a new style cassette freehub or the old style screw on freewheel? The Quando website only shows one 170mm hub and it's a screw on style. I haven't seen that used in over 20 years. Not sure id want one.

  21. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by PerraHunter View Post
    Help me out please, I'm a confused noob. The Minnesota 1 and 2 have different frame geometries, with the 2 having a shorter top tube? Now I know little about geometry and even less about fat bikes (something I'd like to change). What does that really mean as far as riding the bike? Would that difference be noticeable? Does that mean the 1 would be a better snow/sand bike and the 2 be a better fire road/single track dirt bike?

    If I got a fat bike, I could see myself riding unimproved forest roads and paths, getting to the never fished ponds, and places where my hard tail Rockhopper would not enjoy going. Never say never but I don't see this as being a snow bike, I mean our annual snow storm has already come and gone.

    Thanks.
    It appears that the 1.0 has a slightly longer wheelbase and the top tube is longer so I'm thinking that the 1.0 would probably be a more comfy bike for longer distance riding while the 2.0 will be more playful and nimble but probably not as comfy over a long distance.
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

  22. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    96
    I called the House, and talked to Mark. He said he has no idea where the earlier date came from. He said the feb 1-5 ship dates are what they are expecting. Sorry to disappont, but it appears the wait will be a couple more weeks, like we expected anyways!

  23. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    All earlier shipping dates have been coming from Framed Bikes on their Facebook Page.


    Framed Bikes Jon, I'm sorry about that...it wasn't my intention to tease. We just like to push the bikes in nar nar conditions...always testing. Good news also...the 2.0's are coming in ahead of schedule. We're hoping the 23rd or 24th of this month.

    Like 1 January 2 at 12:05pm



    Framed Bikes Kevin Stulen You might not have caught wind yet but The House Boardshop Might be shipping out their orders as soon as the 17th!


    Like Reply 6 January 13 at 6:33pm


    Framed Bikes We just got word that they hope to be assembling Framed Bikes around the 20th. A few days later than hopped but still way ahead of schedule.

    Like Reply January 14 at 10:20pm
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

  24. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hokiebrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    737
    Why, why, WHY?! ... Did I have to see this?!?!

    A 18" white/orange MN 2.0 with the extra 29er slick tires was just put on my VISA...

    I've been wanting a fat bike and a townie bike path bike. This bike, with the free wheelset, covers both.

    My fiance' is going to shoot me. She wants to redo the bathroom and I just bought another MTB...

  25. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    223
    Congrats hockiebrett, that's the exact same setup I ordered.

    The only way to remedy this situation is to order a second one for the fiance. LOL

    I was planning on ordering one and I borrowed a friend's Norco Bigfoot for a day and let the GF try it out. She had a blast and she now wants a Fat Bike. So I told her I'd order one first and once we see the sizing of the 18" we can order her one too.
    Current bikes:

    2014 Framed Minnesota 2.0 Fatbike
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2011 Specialized Rockhopper

Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FAQ for Wisconsin & Minnesota
    By JmZ in forum Minnesota, Wisconsin
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 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
  •