Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    64

    QR Vs TA? 190mm Vs 170mm - Hate to ask...

    Hi there. I was looking at buying a fat bike from BikesDirect, and my choices are the Boris and Sturgis. I will say that I do like the way the Sturgis looks more so than the Boris, but that's not enough to make a decision on (or maybe it is...) Anyway, the glaring differences to me are the thru axles vs the quick release. And the rear hub spacing, 190mm for the Sturgis, and 170mm for the Boris. From what I've read, thru axles are stronger than quick release, but is there any other benefit? As for the rear spacing, I am concerned about a "standard" size for the future. I wouldn't want to get the 170mm, just to find that down the road, it's obsolete, and impossible to find replacements. Of course, same could be said for the 190mm. I don't mind spending more for the Sturgis, if it makes a difference, but I also don't mind saving money and buying the Boris if the differences are negligible. So what do you all think? Choices between the two? pros and cons? Anything to be concerned about? Oh, one more thing? Is the Boris a symmetrical rear end?
    I live in So Cal, and don't plan on riding on any snow. Trails, and maybe the beach's are what I'll ride mostly. And I am a Clyde. Not sure if it matters, but I am. And wider tires are not really a concern for me. So if the 190mm is beneficial to run super wide tires, that really doesn't matter much to me.
    Sorry for the long winded post, just hoping to get some answers.
    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OnThaCouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    321
    Here's what I got when I asked the questioj earlier this year in the BD Fat Bike thread. Was helpful to me.

    ---Quote (Originally by OnThaCouch)---
    Can someone give an "in a nutshell" summary of the pros/cons of the 135/170/190 axle widths? Thanks.
    ---End Quote---
    135: can use inexpensive (or very expensive) 135 hubs- they're cheap and easy to find, can also use common IGH hubs, can swap wheels front to bak if you want. Asymetrical wheel build supposedly makes building summer wheels/29er wheels difficult.

    170: wider than 135, hubs fairly common, symmetrical wheel build makes building summer wheels/29er wheels a lot easier, supposedly fits wider tires. the middle child size, will probably be abandoned in favor of 190. Because bigger is always better?

    190: Really wide, allows for bigger tires on bigger rims. Hubs less common, symetrical wheel build makes building summer wheels/29er wheels a lot easier.

  3. #3
    addicted to chunk
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,913
    I think with the wide rear ends and fat tire extra grip, a rear thru axle is a great choice....
    Riding.....

  4. #4
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,606
    The 170 vs 190 is very subjective and most will say qr's are OK but most will not deny they would rather have a thru axle. There my political correct answer.
    And I love beer!!

  5. #5
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    The 170 vs 190 is very subjective and most will say qr's are OK but most will not deny they would rather have a thru axle. There my political correct answer.
    I hit my chain-stays periodically with my heals on my 190. I don't like that. But, my guess is both the 190 and 170 standards are here to stay. The narrower one is for trails and the wider is for expeditions.

    ...and I agree QR's are fine (even on 190s), but if I don't remember to lube the qr pivot point periodically--which allows higher tightening force--they can loosen up on rough trails.
    --Peace

  6. #6
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,901
    I think we're going to find standardization in hubs to go this way

    135mm - "regular" mtb tires <4" and asymmetrical fat bikes that are less expensive
    170mm - symmetrical 4" tire fat bikes that tend to be more all-rounders
    190mm - symmetrical 5" tire fat bikes that are more optimized for ~100mm rims and maximum flotation.

    Maybe we will see something go even fatter in the future. Maybe it will use one of the existing wider hubs in an asymmetrical frame to accomplish this.

  7. #7
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,405
    I think 170 is here to stay, Salsa seems to be supporting it along with several other smaller manufacturers. You *can* fit bigger tires in 170 if the bike is designed for it and you are ok with 1x-whatever, but 190 is the go-to size for the fattest fat with the most gears still.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    64
    Thanks for the replies so far. I think I may be leaning back towards the boris. I really don't want the fastest tires, and I haven't had a problem with quick releases so far. So does any one know if the boris is symmetrical? Or is it off set?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,405
    170 bikes are symmetrical.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-10-2014, 06:06 PM
  2. 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
    By JYB in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 10:09 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-03-2013, 11:26 AM
  4. 170mm v 190mm
    By Lars_D in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 10-06-2013, 02:40 AM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-20-2013, 06:16 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
  •