Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Shameless Plug!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    71

    Morbidly O'Beast Rear Spacing: 190mm Symmetrical or 170mm Offset? Opinions needed

    Hi all,

    We've been working on a new fat bike frame to accommodate excessively large tires. Time for some feedback. Fat bike people: would you prefer a wider 190mm (or 197mm thru axle) rear end that is zero-offset, or a 17.5mm offset rear end ala Pugsley but with a 170mm hub?

    Please offer your opinion and explain your choice!

    -Carver Bikes

  2. #2
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    761

    Re: Morbidly O'Beast Rear Spacing: 190mm Symmetrical or 170mm Offset? Opinions needed

    10 mm offset.

    --Lars
    --Peace

  3. #3
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    761

    Re: Morbidly O'Beast Rear Spacing: 190mm Symmetrical or 170mm Offset? Opinions needed

    And no thru axle.

    --Lars
    --Peace

  4. #4
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    761

    Re: Morbidly O'Beast Rear Spacing: 190mm Symmetrical or 170mm Offset? Opinions needed

    I'd rather not buy new hubs for my three wheel sets.

    --Lars
    --Peace

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    933
    I vote for 190 although not in the market since I already pre-ordered a 190mm 907.
    The LPG

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9
    I think a lot of folk would opt for 190mm as a standard.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    709
    Agreed, I'd go with 190. Whenever I am able to afford a fat bike, I'll be going with whatever the biggest standard is.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,581
    190 zero offset please and make it rear suspension (100 - 120 mm). It must handle Lou on a Shoe and have room to go tubeless. The first company to get this right has already sold two frames, to me.

  9. #9
    MaverickMotoMedia.com
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,503
    190mm.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    350
    My first choice would be the Moonlander spacing - 28mm offset - so I can still run a 135mm hub.

    My absolute last choice would be yet another new standard.

  11. #11
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,751
    I would vote 190 sym - if you're going offset, might as well go 28 so you can run cheap/easy 135mm hubs - or IGH. I see about as many 190mm hubs as 170's now with no real price savings for the 170.

    And yes, you should do rear suspension. That way you could offer different rear sections or modular with spacers to allow 135/17.5, 135/28, 170, 190 and make everybody happy. I would prefer twin-link type such as DW, Niner, Giant. I'll find (already have) a FatLefty for the front.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    709
    I disagree with the rear suspension comments. But then again, I still ride a hardtail for my regular MTB too...

  13. #13
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,202
    Plenty of 190mm hub options now no reason for offset 170mm. 190 all the way!!
    And I love beer!!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,299
    I would say bypass the 190 thing and go right to a 210 with 17.5 offset thru-axle design that will handle 6" wide, 29+ tires which are bound to happen sooner or later.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blown240's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    587
    190mm for sure. Thats what I put on my beast. Right before I gave it 7" rear travel!

    Lets see some pics of what your working on!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: frankzetank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    66
    190mm symetric all the way! QR is fine by me. I don't get the craze for thru axles on rigid hardtails frames and non suspended forks with 5psi tires! And please offer a set of Carver hubs to go along with it. Your stuff is always top quality at a fraction of the price of others.
    Last edited by frankzetank; 11-15-2013 at 10:13 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
    By JYB in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 11:09 AM
  2. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 10:44 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 08:18 PM
  4. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-20-2013, 07:16 PM
  5. Offset vs. Symmetrical- Riders Perspective
    By edsterra in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 11-01-2011, 11:30 AM

Posting Permissions

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