Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 844
  1. #401
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    67
    The Minnesota 2.0 does just fine in sand. I rode a few miles in the sand yesterday. Today will be trails. Tomorrow will probably be mostly road. I love the versatility of this bike! Is it light...not no but hell no! Part of the reason I ride is to get in better shape, and I feel that this bike is a good tool for that goal. When I want to go fast, I have the light road bike for that.

    Here is the gratuitous beach pic. I did OK with the out of balance wheels and even though the wind made the 65 degrees a tad nippy, I had a fleece top I got a Walmart off clearance for $5 that kept me warm enough!


    Gotta go get dirty!

    Galen

    Edit: I hate not knowing the location I am viewing. This is Gulfport, Mississippi.

  2. #402
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,128
    Been reading this thread for 2hrs off and on just to find one piece of info, if larger tires would fit... Not only did I find that but much more mods on the white orange one I'm ordering soon (stupid truck cost $200 of my funds to fix). Thnx for the pics and info here, can start planning this build out since I am for sure ordering one of these for my fatty!

    Sent from my Nokia Stupidphone using Tapatalk

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    47
    Don't forget to look at the Framed Minnesota FB group.

  4. #404
    mtbr member
    Reputation: letitsnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    198
    I rode a friends 2.0 today. It is a nice bike and felt like the weight was similar to my Mukluk 3. The stock tires are really bad in snow though. So bad that I would just take them off and save them for summer riding. My 27 tpi Nate's worked many times better than the Vee Missions. Many, many times better.

  5. #405
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    99
    i am looking at these bikes what is main difference between 1.0 and 2.0? also i am 5'8 with 30inch inseam what size do you recommend. I usually ride a medium but it seems some people size down on these bikes? You cannot get a small seems backordered but not sure if medium is to big. thanks

  6. #406
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    The 1.0 is 1x9 while the 2.0 is 2x9. The 1.0 has a longer top tupe. The 1.0 comes with 72tpi Vee Missions while the 2.0 comes with 120tpi Vee Missions

    Also the 1.0 won't be available until Feb 25th.

    As for the sizing you should be fine on a 18". I have a 31" inseam and the 18" fits me with lots of clearance on the top tube. This is the sizing

    16" -- 5'5" - 5'9"

    18" -- 5'8" - 6'0"

    20" -- 5'11" - 6'3
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  7. #407
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Built mine up yesterday. Rode it once with the fat tires, the the slicks.

    Spent last night swapping parts from the parts bin.

    9sp XT drivetrain (stock cassettes are HEAVY!)
    Hayes Stroker Trail brakes (BB5's weren't strong enough for my tastes)
    Parts bin stem (liked a little longer reach)
    Different grips
    Different seat post clamp (stock clamp is junk)

    Anybody notice the front D routing is a little weird with the white tube running down to the derailleur? I think I might skip the front D boss on the seat post and run a longer cable straight to the Front D.

  8. #408
    Ride good on the internet
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    214
    Have seen a couple of these come through now. Not too shabby for the price!

    That seat clamp is garbage. The rest of it is about what I expected.

  9. #409
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Great value for the money. If it was my only bike I would be inclined to upgrade more, but it's OK as is. I did shorten the cables and replace the seatpost, seat clamp and grips, but that's it so far. I was surprised at how well the X5 works. As it is, I'll wait until stuff starts breaking/wearing out to replace. It will be interesting to see how it works as a 29er. If it can replace another bike in the stable, I might be more free with the upgrades.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  10. #410
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by jfaust97 View Post
    I know it's still too snowy to run them... but how are the second wheel-sets everyone received? Seem like they add any real value to the deal?
    They added value for me (see below). But, I already have a 4" FS XC 29er (and a 26er/650b 6" AM bike), so I didn't expect the Minnesota 2.0 to be a summer trail bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by MTBLoCo29 View Post
    It will be interesting to see how it works as a 29er.
    My needs for a 29er was a town/bike path bike that I could take out when I want to run the dog or want to pedal to the 6 miles to Lowe's to pick up something for the house. I didn't want a road bike because they feel 'frail' to me (I'm a curb hopper) and I don't like the bent over position for riding in traffic.

    For these needs, the wheelset works fine. Yes, they are heavy, but I'm not breaking land speed records. Normally we're just putz'ing along on the bike paths, headed to the park or tagging the dog for her jog.

  11. #411
    Roadie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    20
    Anybody notice the front D routing is a little weird with the white tube running down to the derailleur? I think I might skip the front D boss on the seat post and run a longer cable straight to the Front D.
    Yea, I just cut a piece of housing to fit that section. It relieves the stress forces created by the angled cable at the stops. It works, and IMHO looks better than stock, or skipping the frame cable stop and zip tying.

  12. #412
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    They added value for me (see below). But, I already have a 4" FS XC 29er (and a 26er/650b 6" AM bike), so I didn't expect the Minnesota 2.0 to be a summer trail bike.



    My needs for a 29er was a town/bike path bike that I could take out when I want to run the dog or want to pedal to the 6 miles to Lowe's to pick up something for the house. I didn't want a road bike because they feel 'frail' to me (I'm a curb hopper) and I don't like the bent over position for riding in traffic.

    For these needs, the wheelset works fine. Yes, they are heavy, but I'm not breaking land speed records. Normally we're just putz'ing along on the bike paths, headed to the park or tagging the dog for her jog.
    If the handling is right on, I could see spending some upgrade $ to lighten it up for 29er mode. I know the rims/tires are heavy, but it would be easy enough to lace up some better rims and a lot cheaper than buying a whole wheelset.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  13. #413
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Just did a couple more upgrades to mine tonight. I completed the 1x10 conversion by installing a 10 speed XT Shadow Plus Rear Derailleur, SLX Shifter, SLX Cassette and SLX Chain. Also changed the stock tubes to QTubes Superlight tubes and also shorten the cables to clean up the cockpit. I'm now down to 31.5lbs and I'm still waiting on the Carbon Seatpost, Seat and new tires. Should be right at 31lbs once all done.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-pic01.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-pic02.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-pic03.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-pic04.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-pic05.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-pic06.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-pic07.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  14. #414
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowdy Sluggins View Post
    Yea, I just cut a piece of housing to fit that section. It relieves the stress forces created by the angled cable at the stops. It works, and IMHO looks better than stock, or skipping the frame cable stop and zip tying.
    My front D has a lot of drag. I'm thinking its where that cable comes through the white tube/front D stop at a weird angle.

    Did you just butt the upper end of the cable housing to the cable stop on the seat post? Obviously the stop on the seat post only has an upper "cup", so it can't hold cable going both directions. Does that make sense?

    I was thinking skipping the seat post cable frame stop and zip tying... I think it would be fine to just run from the boss/cable stop on top tube and on down to the stop on the front D.

  15. #415
    Roadie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    My front D has a lot of drag. I'm thinking its where that cable comes through the white tube/front D stop at a weird angle.

    Did you just butt the upper end of the cable housing to the cable stop on the seat post? Obviously the stop on the seat post only has an upper "cup", so it can't hold cable going both directions. Does that make sense?

    I was thinking skipping the seat post cable frame stop and zip tying... I think it would be fine to just run from the boss/cable stop on top tube and on down to the stop on the front D.
    I cut a piece that was the right size to fit between the stops, then put some black cable ends on both sides of the segment. Since the top side (frame mount) doesn't have a cup for the cable stop to sit in, it doesn't look quite as perfect as one would like, but it protects the cable and lines up the forces going to the FD, and looks nicer.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-cable_route.jpg

  16. #416
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Perfect. Got it. Thanks.

  17. #417
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by letitsnow View Post
    I rode a friends 2.0 today. It is a nice bike and felt like the weight was similar to my Mukluk 3. The stock tires are really bad in snow though. So bad that I would just take them off and save them for summer riding. My 27 tpi Nate's worked many times better than the Vee Missions. Many, many times better.
    Can't compare the 120TPI missions to any other fat tire, but I did reverse tread direction on both wheels, rode for about 2 1/2hrs in a mix of 3 inch fresh, ice and some decent climbing. More testing is required, but there is definitely more grip in the snow and climbing, and a little less self steer on the front.

  18. #418
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    67
    My chain is barely touching the tire when small/large is in use. Does anyone else have this problem? I want to replace my tires in the not so distant future, but it looks like I am severely limited on width.

    Thanks all!

    Galen

  19. #419
    Ride good on the internet
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    I was thinking skipping the seat post cable frame stop and zip tying... I think it would be fine to just run from the boss/cable stop on top tube and on down to the stop on the front D.
    You should do that. Then the cable can run through the hole on the front derailleur correctly, instead of rubbing and making things feel crappy.

  20. #420
    Roadie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    20
    I was also thinking of just drilling out the bottom of the cable stop on the seat tube, and turning it into a cable guide, but I decided it might be a little tricky, so I decided I'd let someone else post a DIY.

  21. #421
    Ride good on the internet
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    214
    You could really go over the top and make it more complicated than it needs to be:


    Problem Solvers

  22. #422
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowdy Sluggins View Post
    I was also thinking of just drilling out the bottom of the cable stop on the seat tube, and turning it into a cable guide, but I decided it might be a little tricky, so I decided I'd let someone else post a DIY.
    That could be done with a dremel tool in about 5 minutes... But you'd still have to use a zip tie

  23. #423
    Roadie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    That could be done with a dremel tool in about 5 minutes... But you'd still have to use a zip tie
    Why would you need a zip tie? It's a cable guide!

  24. #424
    Roadie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Pancake Adventure View Post
    You could really go over the top and make it more complicated than it needs to be:


    Problem Solvers
    Ok, somehow I got a link in my email from this that has a better (and cheaper) solution:
    Jagwire Cable Guide

  25. #425
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowdy Sluggins View Post
    Why would you need a zip tie? It's a cable guide!
    I guess what I'm envisioning is different than what you're envisioning

    I have zero, I repeat, zero problems with skipping the seat tube boss and using a zip tie! Hell, I ran my dropper post cable with zip ties for a year.

  26. #426
    MPE
    MPE is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    88
    The House says my Fattie Slims Trail rims and tires have shipped. Have any of you measured the rim width of the Fattie Slims? I am wondering what 29" tires can be fitted to these rims. Could a 29+ tire be used on these rims? Not sure I would ever do that, but I like to know my options.

    Take care,

    Mike

  27. #427
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trout_smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    52
    In case anyone's interested, I tore down my 2.0 and got a pretty good list of weights... sorry about the format, I copied and pasted from Excel.

    (All weighed on Park DS-2 tabletop digital scale - confirmed that stated weight of 137g for front derailleur matches manufacturer's stated weight)

    PARTS LIST WITH WEIGHTS FOR FRAMED MINNESOTA 2.0
    Description Weight (g) Notes
    Pedals, Framed Alloy 607-X 362g pair
    Seatpost clamp 42g
    Seatpost w/ hardware 398g
    Saddle, Velo Plush 346g
    Grips, w/ clamps 124g pair
    Bar w/ end caps (5g pair) 322g
    Stem 150g
    Chain, KMC X-9 113 links w/ 2 quick links 288g
    Cassette, SRAM 9-sp 11/34 w/ lock ring 448g
    Crankset, Truvativ 28/38/Bash 892g
    Crank Bolts 26g
    Shifter, Front 2-sp SRAM X-5 125g
    Front Shifter Cable / Housing 31g
    Derailleur, Front 2x10 SRAM X-7 137g
    Headset, Neco 1-1/8 w/ 15mm Spacer 115g
    Stem Cap / Bolt 16g
    Other stem spacers, 10mm 15g total for 2
    Front Wheel w/ skewer and rotor 1694g stock rim strips replaced with vinyl tape and duct tape
    Rear Wheel w/ skewer and rotor, no cassette 1870g stock rim strips replaced with vinyl tape and duct tape
    Tube, Vee Rubber 26" x 4.0" #1 476g Wow - wide range here
    Tube, Vee Rubber 26" x 4.0" #2 435g Wow - wide range here
    Tire, Vee Mission 120tpi #1 1399g
    Tire, Vee Mission 120tpi #2 1425g
    Rim Strips, black, stock #1 79g
    Rim Strips, black, stock #2 80g
    Fork, incl. crown race, star nut 934g
    Frame, 2.0 20" incl. BB, hanger, FD bolt, housing clips 2525g If someone knows bottom bracket weight, I can infer exact frame weight. Inquired of Framed Bikes.

    Parts not weighed
    Rear Brake and Lever not weighed
    Front Brake and Lever not weighed
    Rear Shifter and Derailleur not weighed
    Bottom Bracket unknown, could not remove, included in frame weight

  28. #428
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    9

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by trout_smith View Post
    In case anyone's interested, I tore down my 2.0 and got a pretty good list of weights... sorry about the format, I copied and pasted from Excel.

    (All weighed on Park DS-2 tabletop digital scale - confirmed that stated weight of 137g for front derailleur matches manufacturer's stated weight)

    PARTS LIST WITH WEIGHTS FOR FRAMED MINNESOTA 2.0
    Description Weight (g) Notes
    Pedals, Framed Alloy 607-X 362g pair
    Seatpost clamp 42g
    Seatpost w/ hardware 398g
    Saddle, Velo Plush 346g
    Grips, w/ clamps 124g pair
    Bar w/ end caps (5g pair) 322g
    Stem 150g
    Chain, KMC X-9 113 links w/ 2 quick links 288g
    Cassette, SRAM 9-sp 11/34 w/ lock ring 448g
    Crankset, Truvativ 28/38/Bash 892g
    Crank Bolts 26g
    Shifter, Front 2-sp SRAM X-5 125g
    Front Shifter Cable / Housing 31g
    Derailleur, Front 2x10 SRAM X-7 137g
    Headset, Neco 1-1/8 w/ 15mm Spacer 115g
    Stem Cap / Bolt 16g
    Other stem spacers, 10mm 15g total for 2
    Front Wheel w/ skewer and rotor 1694g stock rim strips replaced with vinyl tape and duct tape
    Rear Wheel w/ skewer and rotor, no cassette 1870g stock rim strips replaced with vinyl tape and duct tape
    Tube, Vee Rubber 26" x 4.0" #1 476g Wow - wide range here
    Tube, Vee Rubber 26" x 4.0" #2 435g Wow - wide range here
    Tire, Vee Mission 120tpi #1 1399g
    Tire, Vee Mission 120tpi #2 1425g
    Rim Strips, black, stock #1 79g
    Rim Strips, black, stock #2 80g
    Fork, incl. crown race, star nut 934g
    Frame, 2.0 20" incl. BB, hanger, FD bolt, housing clips 2525g If someone knows bottom bracket weight, I can infer exact frame weight. Inquired of Framed Bikes.

    Parts not weighed
    Rear Brake and Lever not weighed
    Front Brake and Lever not weighed
    Rear Shifter and Derailleur not weighed
    Bottom Bracket unknown, could not remove, included in frame weight
    Great, thanks for doing this Trout. This will help me make cost efficient upgrades.

  29. #429
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by trout_smith View Post
    In case anyone's interested, I tore down my 2.0 and got a pretty good list of weights... sorry about the format, I copied and pasted from Excel.

    (All weighed on Park DS-2 tabletop digital scale - confirmed that stated weight of 137g for front derailleur matches manufacturer's stated weight)

    PARTS LIST WITH WEIGHTS FOR FRAMED MINNESOTA 2.0
    Description Weight (g) Notes
    Pedals, Framed Alloy 607-X 362g pair
    Seatpost clamp 42g
    Seatpost w/ hardware 398g
    Saddle, Velo Plush 346g
    Grips, w/ clamps 124g pair
    Bar w/ end caps (5g pair) 322g
    Stem 150g
    Chain, KMC X-9 113 links w/ 2 quick links 288g
    Cassette, SRAM 9-sp 11/34 w/ lock ring 448g
    Crankset, Truvativ 28/38/Bash 892g
    Crank Bolts 26g
    Shifter, Front 2-sp SRAM X-5 125g
    Front Shifter Cable / Housing 31g
    Derailleur, Front 2x10 SRAM X-7 137g
    Headset, Neco 1-1/8 w/ 15mm Spacer 115g
    Stem Cap / Bolt 16g
    Other stem spacers, 10mm 15g total for 2
    Front Wheel w/ skewer and rotor 1694g stock rim strips replaced with vinyl tape and duct tape
    Rear Wheel w/ skewer and rotor, no cassette 1870g stock rim strips replaced with vinyl tape and duct tape
    Tube, Vee Rubber 26" x 4.0" #1 476g Wow - wide range here
    Tube, Vee Rubber 26" x 4.0" #2 435g Wow - wide range here
    Tire, Vee Mission 120tpi #1 1399g
    Tire, Vee Mission 120tpi #2 1425g
    Rim Strips, black, stock #1 79g
    Rim Strips, black, stock #2 80g
    Fork, incl. crown race, star nut 934g
    Frame, 2.0 20" incl. BB, hanger, FD bolt, housing clips 2525g If someone knows bottom bracket weight, I can infer exact frame weight. Inquired of Framed Bikes.

    Parts not weighed
    Rear Brake and Lever not weighed
    Front Brake and Lever not weighed
    Rear Shifter and Derailleur not weighed
    Bottom Bracket unknown, could not remove, included in frame weight

    Thanks a ton for weighing that out...huge help. You rock!

  30. #430
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trout_smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    52
    Someone weighed their BB, So I'm inferring that frame is 2,184g (w/ hanger + FD Bolt + housing clips). BB is 341g

  31. #431
    bhc
    bhc is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    442
    Anybody see this about a 2.0 racing the Crashed Ice course in St. Paul this weekend?

    Bikes To Race On Precipitous, Frozen Track At Red Bull 'Crashed Ice' Event | Gear Review | Gear Junkie

    Good exposure for the new bike.

  32. #432
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    I've decided the stock head set is junk. The split race is made of plastic and there is no amount of alignment that will get it as tight as I want.

  33. #433
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    9
    Here are my thoughts on my Minnesota 2.0 after four rides. I only rode it once in the snow (it is all melting here right now) but two things were obvious. It is geared way too high-the 32/22 chainring swap is mandatory. Also the tires aren't great in the snow. It was pretty soft so no tires would have been perfect though. The seatpost did slip a lot, I replaced it with a bolt on model, problem solved.

    In the dirt it is a whole different beast. Surprising is the only way to describe it. Surprisingly good at climbing, surprisingly playful handling and surprisingly fast. I initially thought it was going to be a 3 month a year bike but after my ride yesterday I will consider it a very good alternative to my Giant Anthem X 29r. Downhill the thing just rails, may have to upgrade the brakes but they are still breaking in so I will let that slide for now.

    I am sure I will replace a bunch of components as they show their weaknesses but right now I would say the only things you need to do are the chainrings and the seatpost clamp.

  34. #434
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by bhc View Post
    Anybody see this about a 2.0 racing the Crashed Ice course in St. Paul this weekend?

    Bikes To Race On Precipitous, Frozen Track At Red Bull 'Crashed Ice' Event | Gear Review | Gear Junkie

    Good exposure for the new bike.
    I was at the event. The course was insane, I can't imagine biking it! The rider on the Minnesota 2.0 took second place but really aired out the last two jumps.

  35. #435
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    I upgraded the tires to On-One Floaters and I'm very happy with the upgrade.

    I've only got 7.5 miles on them but here's a quick comparison to the stock Missions.

    I was running 7.5psi front and rear and I didn't notice any additional rolling resistance compared to the Missions which is good.

    They are quite a bit noisier on pavement but I'm glad to report, NO MORE SELF STEER on hard surfaces!!!!

    Trails are getting quite firmed so I didn't get a chance to test them out in real soft snow but the traction is much better compared to the Missions . I was able to stand up and power up various climbs where as with the Missions I would of had to stay sitting on the seat to get maximum weight on the rear for traction. If I would of tried to stand up and power up a climb with the Missions, I'm pretty sure I would of spun out.

    The side grip is also noticeably quite better. I was able to push a lot harder in the corners without having fear that the front was about to wash out at any second. I almost washed out the front twice but the tires got grip and saved me just as the front was starting to go. I'm pretty sure I would of been a goner with the Missions LOL

    The other place where I found a great improvement was during breaking, especially while cornering. You can really feel the tire digging into the snow to get you traction.

    For the price of them, I think they are a worthwhile upgrade to the bike plus they match the White/Orange Minnesota really well.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_0127.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_0129.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20140224_101412.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_0132.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_20140224_132915.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  36. #436
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    109
    Here's the race mentioned above. The bike race starts at 1:42:00
    Red Bull TV - Red Bull Crashed Ice 2014

  37. #437
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Pics from today's noon hour ride.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1743505_10153853910910416_680419692_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1900098_10153853910875416_1774369426_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1794534_10153853910925416_410469420_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1932442_10153853911305416_323762738_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1959346_10153853911230416_1024235922_n.jpgThe Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1966963_10153853911150416_1750646819_n.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  38. #438
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    109
    More footage from before the race of the Minnesota 2.0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuM9upjSu0k

  39. #439
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by trojan9x View Post
    More footage from before the race of the Minnesota 2.0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuM9upjSu0k
    That's Awesome!

  40. #440
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    109
    More good press for them. Wonder if they are on a big marketing campaign?

    Best Fat Bikes - Gear Patrol

  41. #441
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    9
    Any suggestions for improved braking? I have ridden my Minnesota twice on dry trails here in Boise, ID and it flat out rocks on the downhill stuff, especially the sandy corners. However, the brakes could use more power. I don't necessarily want to go XT on them due to cost, but brakes are important. Can you change pads and put a larger rotor on the BB5s? Is it cost efficient?

    Thanks

  42. #442
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    40
    Anyone put on a carbon fork yet
    Curious

  43. #443
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by nikj View Post
    Anyone put on a carbon fork yet
    Curious
    A guy on the Facebook Owner's Group put on a Carver O'Beast Carbon Fork and a few guys are waiting on their On-One Carbon Fork.


    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1798146_10202643132653221_266100237_n.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  44. #444
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AdamJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    I upgraded the tires to On-One Floaters and I'm very happy with the upgrade.

    I've only got 7.5 miles on them but here's a quick comparison to the stock Missions.

    I was running 7.5psi front and rear and I didn't notice any additional rolling resistance compared to the Missions which is good.

    They are quite a bit noisier on pavement but I'm glad to report, NO MORE SELF STEER on hard surfaces!!!!
    Have you had a chance to run these at higher pressure and compare rolling resistance with the Missions? I'm looking to move away from the Missions to a 4" tire that will do a bit of everything (including commuting) that can roll fast on pavement with less self steer.

  45. #445
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamJay View Post
    Have you had a chance to run these at higher pressure and compare rolling resistance with the Missions? I'm looking to move away from the Missions to a 4" tire that will do a bit of everything (including commuting) that can roll fast on pavement with less self steer.
    I've run them at 10psi which is the same pressure that I ran the Mission while commuting and I haven't noticed any additional rolling resistance.

    Me and the GF went out this past weekend and I was on the Minnesota with Floaters and she was on the Bigfoot with the stock Mission. After a bit, we switched and she liked the Floaters much better. We were ridding on hard packed snowmobile trails and she commented that she liked the Floaters much better since they seem to roll over the frozen trail much better. I jumped on the Bigfoot and I'd have to agree with her. The Floater's seem to roll a lot better.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_0278.jpg

    The hijacker wearing a pink jacket hijacking my Minnesota.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-img_0283.jpg

    Once she got on my Minnesota, she never gave it back and I ended up having to ride the Bigfoot for the rest of the ride LOL
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  46. #446
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Anyone know if the the front hub is front or rear spaced?
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  47. #447
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    257
    Looks like the jig used to locate the front calliper brake mount was a bit off, anyone else have this machined cut into the aluminum? Not a big deal, just curious.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-image.jpg

  48. #448
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by 2LO4U2C View Post
    Looks like the jig used to locate the front calliper brake mount was a bit off, anyone else have this machined cut into the aluminum? Not a big deal, just curious.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	289 
Size:	136.7 KB 
ID:	874162
    I just checked mine and it's the same way.
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  49. #449
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    What is the seat post diameter? I have some really nice parts from when I was a weight weenie that may make it to this bike.

    I also have a Moonlander fork - worth installing? That would make reusing my Big O Mfg fenders easier.

  50. #450
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    67
    I had absolutely no problems mounting my Big O fenders. The hardest part was locating the proper drill bit! If you look back in this post, you can see where I took plenty of pictures of the install. If you need different hardware, give John at Big O a call, he is extremely helpful.

    Galen

  51. #451
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    The seatpost is 30.9 and the Seatpost Clamp is 35.
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  52. #452
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Of course. I have a 31.6mm Eaton carbon fiber and 28.6mm Thomson layback.

  53. #453
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    I just checked mine and it's the same way.
    I think that answers my question about the disk spacing on the front hub. Looks like it is a standard front spaced hub, but the fork was rear spaced (Surly style) so they had to machine the mounting tabs. That means I'll have to get creative with the On-One carbon, since that's rear spaced too. Probably grind down the Avid adaptor plate if there's not enough lateral play.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  54. #454
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131
    Well, took the 2.0 for the very first ride this afternoon. Gotta be honest...not that impressed. I was riding my local trails here in Maryland on about 4-5" of fresh snow. Climbing of any sort was basically impossible due the rear wheel spinning out, no matter how much weight I shifted back. The bike did seem to be pretty stable on level ground and downhill but not a lot more than my old Fuji 26er.

    I bought the bike primarily to ride when the trails are mucky, so I will stick with it for now, but as a snow bike..eh. I could actually climb better on my regular MTB.

  55. #455
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    109
    What pressure were you running in the tires? Also, the tires that come on the bike are known for not being great in snow. You may want to look into an upgrade. The on-one floaters seem to be a pretty safe choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidrhorn View Post
    Well, took the 2.0 for the very first ride this afternoon. Gotta be honest...not that impressed. I was riding my local trails here in Maryland on about 4-5" of fresh snow. Climbing of any sort was basically impossible due the rear wheel spinning out, no matter how much weight I shifted back. The bike did seem to be pretty stable on level ground and downhill but not a lot more than my old Fuji 26er.

    I bought the bike primarily to ride when the trails are mucky, so I will stick with it for now, but as a snow bike..eh. I could actually climb better on my regular MTB.

  56. #456
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131
    I lowered them to about 10 pounds (hard to tell exactly with my pump but they were pretty soft). I was actually surprised at how they spun out on even a slight uphill grade. Same stuff I cleaned on my regular MTB after the last storm.

    Would an upgrade to just the rear do the trick? Hate to spend $300+ on new tires already.

  57. #457
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    68

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by davidrhorn View Post
    as a snow bike..eh. I could actually climb better on my regular MTB.
    Did you read any of the prior pages in this thread?? Bike ships with spring / summer tires.

    Also, few fat bikes / tires can handle 4-5 inches of fresh powder so I'm not surprised you had a struggle.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  58. #458
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    47
    Davidrhorn. There's plenty of talk about the tires not only earlier in this thread but in Mission tire threads. Take a read.

  59. #459
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    The stock Missions are not an ideal tire for fresh/loose snow. Even in 4-5 inches of snow, it's going to be a struggle no matter what tire you ride.

    If you are looking for an inexpensive tire that offers better traction, take a look at the On-One Floater. They are $64 each and are much better than the stock Missions.

    I've put Floater's Front and Back on my Minnesota and it's made world of difference.

    On-One Floater Fat Tyre | On - One

    Floater's Front and Back on the Minnesota

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-1743505_10153853910910416_680419692_n.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  60. #460
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    The stock Missions are not an ideal tire for fresh/loose snow. Even in 4-5 inches of snow, it's going to be a struggle no matter what tire you ride.

    If you are looking for an inexpensive tire that offers better traction, take a look at the On-One Floater. They are $64 each and are much better than the stock Missions.

    I've put Floater's Front and Back on my Minnesota and it's made world of difference.

    On-One Floater Fat Tyre | On - One

    Floater's Front and Back on the Minnesota

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1743505_10153853910910416_680419692_n.jpg 
Views:	224 
Size:	198.2 KB 
ID:	874410

    Can you climb with these tires? I am willing to drop $64 each if it means I will be able to actually ride uphill in the snow. Wondering how they do in muddy/mucky sections? Have you ridden in muck? Thanks for the help!

  61. #461
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by davidrhorn View Post
    Can you climb with these tires? I am willing to drop $64 each if it means I will be able to actually ride uphill in the snow. Wondering how they do in muddy/mucky sections? Have you ridden in muck? Thanks for the help!
    I can climb way better than with the stock Missions. With the Missions, on any climb I'd have to stay seated to try and put maximum weight on the rear tire to get traction. With the Floater, I can actually stand up and put down some power to get up climbs.

    Now keep in mind that we haven't had any big snowfall since I've gotten them but in the current conditions, they are way better.

    I haven't had a chance to try them in muddy/mucky sections since we have several feet of snow up here in Canada but if you look in here, you will see that the Floater gets great reviews as a great all around tire.

    On One Floater Tire Review
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  62. #462
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    I can climb way better than with the stock Missions. With the Missions, on any climb I'd have to stay seated to try and put maximum weight on the rear tire to get traction. With the Floater, I can actually stand up and put down some power to get up climbs.
    Did you try running the rear Mission backwards before switching to the Floaters?

    Finally got my MN 2.0 on snow today... Denver got a surprise 2-4" overnight, so I took the dog for a ride this AM. Did about 6.5 miles on quite a range of conditions (4" fresh over dirt/grass, hard packed over concrete, ice on concrete, and wet concrete). Definitely had fun and got lots of smiles from the other pedestrians out enjoying the snow.

    No hills to speak of, but definitely had fun! The dog loved running in the snow! With her hiking harness on, she actually towed me for a little while... (Which is impressive considering I'm 190# out of the shower and was on a 35# fat bike)

  63. #463
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Greenfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by davidrhorn View Post
    Well, took the 2.0 for the very first ride this afternoon. Gotta be honest...not that impressed. I was riding my local trails here in Maryland on about 4-5" of fresh snow. Climbing of any sort was basically impossible due the rear wheel spinning out, no matter how much weight I shifted back. The bike did seem to be pretty stable on level ground and downhill but not a lot more than my old Fuji 26er.

    I bought the bike primarily to ride when the trails are mucky, so I will stick with it for now, but as a snow bike..eh. I could actually climb better on my regular MTB.h
    Get a NATE or Dillinger turned around for traction and you will delete this post.
    Still cleaning my Fatback.
    It's a life style.

  64. #464
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    Did you try running the rear Mission backwards before switching to the Floaters?

    Finally got my MN 2.0 on snow today... Denver got a surprise 2-4" overnight, so I took the dog for a ride this AM. Did about 6.5 miles on quite a range of conditions (4" fresh over dirt/grass, hard packed over concrete, ice on concrete, and wet concrete). Definitely had fun and got lots of smiles from the other pedestrians out enjoying the snow.

    No hills to speak of, but definitely had fun! The dog loved running in the snow! With her hiking harness on, she actually towed me for a little while... (Which is impressive considering I'm 190# out of the shower and was on a 35# fat bike)
    Didn't even occur to me to try that. I will give it a go this weekend (my knee is still healing up from the attempted climbing two days ago!). Thanks!

    Also looking into switching out the 28 tooth chainring to a 22 or 24. Gearing is not set up for any sort of real climbing, especially for someone with arthritic knees!

  65. #465
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by davidrhorn View Post
    Didn't even occur to me to try that. I will give it a go this weekend (my knee is still healing up from the attempted climbing two days ago!). Thanks!

    Also looking into switching out the 28 tooth chainring to a 22 or 24. Gearing is not set up for any sort of real climbing, especially for someone with arthritic knees!
    A couple of guys on the Facebook Owner's Group have gone to this 32/22 setup and have been very pleased with the gearing.

    Race Face 9 Speed Ring and Bash Set > Components > Drivetrain > Chainrings | Jenson USA Online Bike Shop
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  66. #466
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    A couple of guys on the Facebook Owner's Group have gone to this 32/22 setup and have been very pleased with the gearing.

    Race Face 9 Speed Ring and Bash Set > Components > Drivetrain > Chainrings | Jenson USA Online Bike Shop

    Thanks for the link! If my LBS doesn't have something similar I will order it ASAP. Kind of surprised a 28-38 would come stock on such a heavy bike. I would think any steep climbing even in dry conditions would be a beast of a challenge with that set up!

  67. #467
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    I run a 38/26 on my Trek Superfly 100 XC bike in the summer time, so I'm thinking they probably went with a higher gearing since some people will probably want to use their slim wheelset in the summer time and make it a commuter. In that case the 38/28 would probably make more sense.
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  68. #468
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Kawidan View Post
    I run a 38/26 on my Trek Superfly 100 XC bike in the summer time, so I'm thinking they probably went with a higher gearing since some people will probably want to use their slim wheelset in the summer time and make it a commuter. In that case the 38/28 would probably make more sense.
    Makes sense. It would be really cool if they gave you a choice. Along with maybe a choice of cassette gearing too. Of course, at this price I am sure they are locked into just one set-up.

  69. #469
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by davidrhorn View Post
    Can you climb with these tires? I am willing to drop $64 each if it means I will be able to actually ride uphill in the snow. Wondering how they do in muddy/mucky sections? Have you ridden in muck? Thanks for the help!
    Where are y'all finding them for $64? On One lists them for 49.99 GBP, which Google says is over $80 USD... (and I thought the USD was strong right now?)

  70. #470
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by davidrhorn View Post
    Of course, at this price I am sure they are locked into just one set-up.
    I'm now wondering if I really came ahead buying this bike...

    I'm about to buy new tires and looking at my MN 2.0, not much is stock. Thing's I've changed:

    1) Saddle, seatpost, seat post clamp
    2) Handlebar, stem & grips
    3) Drivetrain (Now running XT/Race Face chain rings, cassette, chain, shifters... may change again to 2x10 instead of 2x9. Even changed the bashguard)
    4) Brakes (now running Hayes Stroker Trail brakes, with 185 avid rotors up front)

    Lol. Maybe i should've just built up a fatty frame?

  71. #471
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    I'm now wondering if I really came ahead buying this bike...

    Maybe i should've just built up a fatty frame?
    Keep swapping out parts, once you have a complete bike in the parts bin, then swap the parts onto a new frame and sell the original.

  72. #472
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,856
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebrett View Post
    Where are y'all finding them for $64? On One lists them for 49.99 GBP, which Google says is over $80 USD... (and I thought the USD was strong right now?)
    Change the currency on the top of the On One website to USD...they're $77.23 each right now.

    But put them in your cart and change shipping to the US and the price drops to $64.36 each (because they subtract the VAT).

    If you order two of them, shipping to the US is free. Two Floaters shipped to the US from the UK for $128.72.

  73. #473
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    33
    Looks like China/Taiwan are already trying to make their version of the Minnesota. Don't get me wrong...I know 90% of bikes come from Asia but the knock offs that you see being sold by non-brands look like shit. It looks like they bought one and painted over it. They have an older Vee Rubber Mission on the rear but one of those spider treads on the front. To be honest I'm sort supervised they didn't add any suspension.

    On another note, I'm excited to see what Vee Rubber has just launched at the Taipei show...I want a set of the snowshoe XL's!

    Knock Off-
    Taipei International Cycle Show-Products-BICYCLE FAT BIKE SNOW BIKE BEACH BIKE - BIKEIDEATION-IDEATION INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

    Vee Rubber-
    VA gets a (tiny) new trail

  74. #474
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by mncyclist View Post
    Looks like China/Taiwan are already trying to make their version of the Minnesota. Don't get me wrong...I know 90% of bikes come from Asia but the knock offs that you see being sold by non-brands look like shit. It looks like they bought one and painted over it. They have an older Vee Rubber Mission on the rear but one of those spider treads on the front. To be honest I'm sort supervised they didn't add any suspension.

    On another note, I'm excited to see what Vee Rubber has just launched at the Taipei show...I want a set of the snowshoe XL's!

    Knock Off-
    Taipei International Cycle Show-Products-BICYCLE FAT BIKE SNOW BIKE BEACH BIKE - BIKEIDEATION-IDEATION INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

    Vee Rubber-
    VA gets a (tiny) new trail

    Sorry...wrong link for the Vee Tire info
    Taipei Cycle Show: Vee Tire Co. Fatbike Tires ? Bigger, Studded, 29+, and 27.5? Fatbikes?

  75. #475
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Anyone install a Chris King headset yet?

    Stock fork or Moonlander fork?


    Bike arrived today and I'm already digging through my parts bin...

  76. #476
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Finally got some seat time on the 2.0. Overall I'm happy with it, but I really don't like some of the components. Already have it torn down to parade rest and am rebuilding it and answered most of my own questions. Drivetrain is bloody awful - what is SRAM X5/X7 compare to in the Shimano line? I'm sure everyone else knows, but the headset is 44mm.

    I'd like to hear brake upgrade suggestions. Hydraulic are tempting, but 180mm or 200mm BB7s seems like a much more economical upgrade.
    Last edited by CurtP; 03-09-2014 at 08:36 AM.

  77. #477
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    I replaced the BB5s on my Minnesota 2.0 with Avid DB1s that I got on ebay. The DB1s feel great but spokes and front caliper are really close. I used the bolts from the bb5 which gave me slightly more clearance. I'm going to swap the front rotor to 185mm to get more clearance. Its probably fine but I don't want to risk spokes flexing and get caught up in the caliper.

  78. #478
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7
    thanks to all of your posts ive scored a minn. 2.0-might be a few places to explore here in mecca...will have lbs assemble and look for headset race issues and brake cable line up--thanks for heads up...will have to see if chain rings are too big for hills, sand and slickrock...prolly good for road slick though-will default to whats best for off road--am wondering how pumping air on giant tires will work out w/ frame pump while on trail (after i get a low air guage) and will the tires be thick enough to fool goat heads? otherwise i stay on trail--those things lie dormant for 1000s of years.

  79. #479
    Roadie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    20
    A high volume frame pump will work, but it will be a good upper body workout, and goatheads? They will win every time, just stay away.

  80. #480
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by 2LO4U2C View Post
    Looks like the jig used to locate the front calliper brake mount was a bit off, anyone else have this machined cut into the aluminum? Not a big deal, just curious.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	289 
Size:	136.7 KB 
ID:	874162
    It gets worse. I'm in process of a brake upgrade and ran into another snag - not only is the fork bracket machined, but so is the caliper adapter. And it has a taper too - 7.94mm at the bottom, 9.16mm at the top. They used a few washers on the top bolt to keep it out of the rotor. They hit the machined surface with black spray paint.

    I may be using the Moonlander fork after all. I'll check clearances tonight to see if it's any better.

  81. #481
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtP View Post
    It gets worse. I'm in process of a brake upgrade and ran into another snag - not only is the fork bracket machined, but so is the caliper adapter. And it has a taper too - 7.94mm at the bottom, 9.16mm at the top. They used a few washers on the top bolt to keep it out of the rotor. They hit the machined surface with black spray paint.

    I may be using the Moonlander fork after all. I'll check clearances tonight to see if it's any better.
    I don't have that problem on my Minnesota 2.0 fork. I replaced the BB5s with Avid hydraulic disc brakes and it aligned fine. Have you contacted their warranty department? Sounds like a manufacturing defect.

  82. #482
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by linklight View Post
    I don't have that problem on my Minnesota 2.0 fork. I replaced the BB5s with Avid hydraulic disc brakes and it aligned fine. Have you contacted their warranty department? Sounds like a manufacturing defect.
    I'm guessing you reused the adapter and stuck with 160mm discs. If I wasn't going to a bigger rotor, I could just reuse what's on there, but I need the 40mm IS mount. I could take it over to my buddy's house and mill it down, but I prefer to be able to use OTS parts.

    It's not a manufacturing defect - it's been done on purpose. Anyone else want to pop off their adapter to see if they have the same thing?

  83. #483
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by CurtP View Post
    It's not a manufacturing defect - it's been done on purpose. Anyone else want to pop off their adapter to see if they have the same thing?
    I'll check mine in a bit

  84. #484
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtP View Post
    I'm guessing you reused the adapter and stuck with 160mm discs. If I wasn't going to a bigger rotor, I could just reuse what's on there, but I need the 40mm IS mount. I could take it over to my buddy's house and mill it down, but I prefer to be able to use OTS parts.
    You are correct. I reused the 160mm rotor and adaptor. I took my adaptor off and it wasn't milled. I was thinking the rotor would align better if it was milled though. Maybe I have a fork that is out of spec and they fixed it by milling the adaptor and bracket on subsequent forks hence you have the "improved" one.

    The rotor is aligned well now where the brake pads don't drag but I think the alignment setting is maxed out so no more room for adjustment. If it was milled, I would have a little room to adjust.

    The only way I was able to center the rotor where it doesnt drag was to push the pistons in and use a business card wedged between the outer pad and rotor before tightening the alignment screws and setting the pads.

  85. #485
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Are you sure yours isn't milled? I didn't notice that mine was until I installed the new one, saw it rubbing on the rotor and started to investigate. Nothing prompted me to even look at the old one. Maybe the kids that put together the bike in China make adjustments as needed. I just looked real close at mine - it was definitely done by a mill - I can see circular cuts across the face. My fork doesn't look as deeply milled as 2LO's. Maybe that's why my adapter has so much off of it.

    I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do now. I checked clearances with the Moonlander, and it's the exact same way. The hub pushes the rotor too far towards the fork. I could mill the hub if I wanted to take the wheel apart, but if I'm going through that trouble, I'm getting better hubs. If I get better hubs, are the rims worth good hubs? And then what do I do with the 29ers - re-hub those too? I guess I could stick with 160mm rotors up front, but I'd like both the front and rear to match.

    Looks like I'm making two calls tomorrow - one to The House and one to my buddy with the mill.


    So far, the rest of the build is going ok. Still waiting for the front derailleur and some misc parts to come in - hopefully tomorrow. Had to order a new stem when I discovered the new EC70 bars were 31.8mm where my Bontranger stem is a 25.4mm. And for whatever reason, Shimano brake cables only come with two ferrules and I need four. Rear derailleur, crankset, seat post and seat post clamp came in today. Liked the seat post clamp so much, I ordered a set of matching skewers - I'll move my modified Bontranger skewers over to the 29ers.

  86. #486
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtP View Post
    Are you sure yours isn't milled? I didn't notice that mine was until I installed the new one, saw it rubbing on the rotor and started to investigate. Nothing prompted me to even look at the old one. Maybe the kids that put together the bike in China make adjustments as needed. I just looked real close at mine - it was definitely done by a mill - I can see circular cuts across the face. My fork doesn't look as deeply milled as 2LO's. Maybe that's why my adapter has so much off of it.

    I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do now. I checked clearances with the Moonlander, and it's the exact same way. The hub pushes the rotor too far towards the fork. I could mill the hub if I wanted to take the wheel apart, but if I'm going through that trouble, I'm getting better hubs. If I get better hubs, are the rims worth good hubs? And then what do I do with the 29ers - re-hub those too? I guess I could stick with 160mm rotors up front, but I'd like both the front and rear to match.

    Looks like I'm making two calls tomorrow - one to The House and one to my buddy with the mill.


    So far, the rest of the build is going ok. Still waiting for the front derailleur and some misc parts to come in - hopefully tomorrow. Had to order a new stem when I discovered the new EC70 bars were 31.8mm where my Bontranger stem is a 25.4mm. And for whatever reason, Shimano brake cables only come with two ferrules and I need four. Rear derailleur, crankset, seat post and seat post clamp came in today. Liked the seat post clamp so much, I ordered a set of matching skewers - I'll move my modified Bontranger skewers over to the 29ers.
    I'm at the beach with my bike to see how it performs on the sand. I will check when I get home Saturday evening.

    Wow... you are upgrading a lot of stuff. I was thinking the bike had decent components and didn't need much. X7 front derailleur, x5 rear derailleur and shifters work well. I have X7s on my Trek full suspension 29er and never had any issues.

    I changed to hydraulic disc brakes because I had to cut off the Avid FR5 levers because I couldn't adjust the angle of the brake levers - the screw was on too tight.

  87. #487
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    I've been riding mine on the beach. Second ride out and the chain snapped. Fixed it, and it broke again at a different location on the next ride. I never could get the front derailleur dialed in either, so I decided to do a few upgrades. FWIW, the front derailleur is made for a 2x10 setup.

    I'm debating if I should install my Vee8 or stay with the Missions. The Vee8 I have are 60tpi though. I'm not overly impressed with the missions in the sand.

  88. #488
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44
    Took my Minnesota 2.0 to the beach for the first time. Had so much fun riding on the sand. Covered about 13 miles on the beach.

    The bike performed surprisingly well with stock gears and stock tires. I was even able to climb some dune crossings with soft sand. The key was to the keep the momentum up and keep pedaling. Some parts of the sand was as slippery as snow.

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-dscn0204.jpg

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-dscn0216.jpg

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-dscn0220.jpg

  89. #489
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by linklight View Post
    Took my Minnesota 2.0 to the beach for the first time. Had so much fun riding on the sand. Covered about 13 miles on the beach.

    The bike performed surprisingly well with stock gears and stock tires. I was even able to climb some dune crossings with soft sand. The key was to the keep the momentum up and keep pedaling. Some parts of the sand was as slippery as snow.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN0204.jpg 
Views:	203 
Size:	164.0 KB 
ID:	876910

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN0216.jpg 
Views:	179 
Size:	81.2 KB 
ID:	876909

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN0220.jpg 
Views:	221 
Size:	108.0 KB 
ID:	876911
    Great pics to contrast with the snow of Minnesota.

  90. #490
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44

    Re: The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtP View Post
    I'm guessing you reused the adapter and stuck with 160mm discs. If I wasn't going to a bigger rotor, I could just reuse what's on there, but I need the 40mm IS mount. I could take it over to my buddy's house and mill it down, but I prefer to be able to use OTS parts.

    It's not a manufacturing defect - it's been done on purpose. Anyone else want to pop off their adapter to see if they have the same thing?
    You are correct. The front adaptor is milled on my Minnesota 2.0. It's milled almost to the bolt hole. That's a great catch and you are also correct this makes it harder to go to a bigger rotor without milling the adaptor.

    I actually used the 160mm adaptor that came with my Avid hyraulics hence that is why i said my adaptor wasn't milled - I forgot I switched it because I thought it was the same. I was able to align it without disk rub but no more room for adjustment using the new adaptor. I installed the original adaptor back which gave me a little more to clearance to align.

  91. #491
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    I called The House on Friday, but didn't get very far. The guy in the shop that allegedly knows about these things was gone for the day. Guess I'll call back on Monday.

    I milled the adapter yesterday, but I still have rubbing. I'll mill more off of it tomorrow. If I can't get the clearance I need, I guess I'll be running a 160mm up front.

    My original adapter is just outside of the threaded bosses, and has a noticeable taper. I'm taking material off both sides on the new one, but it looks like I'll be pretty close to the threaded bosses on this one too.

  92. #492
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    According to the digital bathroom scale that always reminds me how fat I am, the bike is currently at 33.60 lbs. I'll have a more accurate weight in a few days.

    Build is almost complete. I had a strand on a shifter cable break and wad up when I tried to adjust it. No idea why - brand new Shimano PTFE cable. Ordered a new inner last night. I don't think the 3x9 XT derailleur is going to work. It sits too high on the mount. I have it adjusted to hit the middle and lower chain ring grooves, but the chain has a tendency to jump the big gear when banging through the gears. Looks like I'm going to have to go with a 2x10 front derailleur. I've changed the cables around somewhat. I'm no longer using the cable stop on the seat tube.

    Front caliper adapter was milled and everything is dialed in. I don't like how close I had to get to the threaded boss to get the clearance, so I'll be making another adapter sometime this week. I still need to trim down the handlebars.

  93. #493
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AdamJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    234
    How are these Quando hubs on the 80mm rims working out for you guys on the Minnesota 2.0?
    I'm looking at buying just the front wheel from the-house.com for my fat bike as it's affordably priced, and I could use it for a slicker 3.5" commuter tire in the summer.

    My experience with Quando hubs in the past was that they weren't all that serviceable and didn't spin that fast.

  94. #494
    Is dang happy!
    Reputation: Mr. Doom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,252
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamJay View Post
    How are these Quando hubs on the 80mm rims working out for you guys on the Minnesota 2.0?
    I'm looking at buying just the front wheel from the-house.com for my fat bike as it's affordably priced, and I could use it for a slicker 3.5" commuter tire in the summer.

    My experience with Quando hubs in the past was that they weren't all that serviceable and didn't spin that fast.
    Replacement freehub bodies may be more difficult to replace, (not shimano), heavy but they spin as fast as any hub. (Shimano 8-9 speed hubs are more reliable IMO).
    The wheel is a extension of the foot

  95. #495
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AdamJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Doom View Post
    Replacement freehub bodies may be more difficult to replace, (not shimano), heavy but they spin as fast as any hub. (Shimano 8-9 speed hubs are more reliable IMO).
    Sure, I just wonder on a scale of 1-10, how reliable these Quando 135mm front hubs are.

    Are they sealed cartridge bearings? Cup and cone?

  96. #496
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6

    first ride on beach

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-fat-bike-beach.jpg

    Finally got out for some nice riding this weekend along Lake Michigan here in eastern Wisconsin. My first real fat bike experience and no complaints except for all the solid ice that is still out there. I'm digging the ride! Where the sand was exposed the bike rode awesome. Where the ice wasn't too 'glare' it rode well there too. It was very flat, so I didn't notice any gearing issues. I thought the tires worked great in the cold hard sand, but I would guess that most any tire would...

  97. #497
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44
    Prior to buying the Minnesota 2.0 - I was considering buying a Surly Krampus. I'm very pleased with my Minnesota thus far and still surprised that this bike is under $1000.

    My Minnesota came with a second set of fatty slim wheels. I did 8 miles on pavement with the fatty slims. It felt good and felt just like my hybrid bike. I have 5 other bikes so I don't see myself swapping the wheels to ride the Minnesota on the street often. I actually prefer it as a fat bike.

    Now I'm wondering if I can mount the Surly Knards 29x3 tires on this fatty slim rim and if it will have enough clearance on the Minnesota 2.0. Anybody have a Surly Knards mounted on the fatty slim rims on their Minnesota 2.0?

  98. #498
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Cup and cone. There's a rubber seal to keep crud out, but they're not sealed. Fairly easy to service though.

  99. #499
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131
    I've got about 12 hours total on the 2.0, mostly in mud and soft trail conditions. Honest assessment..wish I had saved up some more money and bought a better quality bike. I should've taken my hint while doing research when I read about all of the upgrades you guys have been putting into it. I would rate it a C+ at this point. Prior to replacing the rear tire with a Surly Nate I would've rated it a D-. Poor component group, sketchy shifting (probably due to cheap chain and cassette vs. derailleur). 18" is not really suitable for someone 5'10.5" like the shop recommended. Should've bought the 20". Frame geometry is strange...too short of a top tube. Front hub worked loose after third ride. Horrible gear set up with 28-38, no good if you have any sort of climbing and impossible if climbing in mud or snow. Had to switch the 28 to a 22. With the steep sections of my local trail I will probably switch out the cassette too. So, now I am over $200 into upgrades/changes. Should've saved for 6 more months and bought a Surly or Fatback or anything other than the Framed.

    Just my 2 cents. I guess if I were riding groomed snow or sand it would be great. For real trail riding...booo!

  100. #500
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    131

    cheap fix to moving fender...

    The Minnesota 1.0 and 2.0 Fatbikes-dsc_0058.jpg


    After each downhill I noticed the Mud Shovel rear fender would move and I would have to stop and center it. No matter how hard I pulled that strap tight it would move. I came up with an ugly but functional solution. Cost me less that $5.

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, 08:54 AM
  3. Minnesota River Bottoms
    By AC/BC in forum Photography for mountain bikers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-19-2011, 10:35 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, 07:34 PM

Members who have read this thread: 24

Posting Permissions

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