Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    30

    Rolling Darryl/Nate vs. Marge Lite/Nate

    I'm ordering a set of wheels for a Mukluk and am trying to decide between the Surly Rolling Darryl/Surly Nate and Surly Large Marge/Surly Nate for a rim/tire combo. I'm set on using the Nate for the tire(and prob won't ever use a bigger tire), and was wondering about some folks experience with, or opinion on these two combinations.

    The Rolling Darryl will provide more floatation, and is obviously better suited to running a bigger tire, but weighs significantly more. I like the idea of more float but I don't foresee running a wider tire than the Nate for quite some time. Any other advantage/pros to running this combo?

    From my calculations, it seems like the Marge Lites will be about 3/4 of a pound lighter, which I really like. With that weight savings obviously comes a sacrifice in floatation. Would I lose "too" much floatation to lose the effectiveness of the tire in the snow, or would I even notice?

    I will mainly be riding this in the winter for snow riding, but will use it during the muddy shoulder seasons as well when it's too soupy for my 29er.

    Recommendations or experiences?? Thanks in advance!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,247
    The undrilled Darryls are 330 grams heavier than the Marge lites. If you are willing to spend the money on Marge Lites why not buy Holy Rolling Darryls which are only 170 grams heavier or better yet buy undrilled and drill them yourself then they will only be 60 grams heavier (You can drill bigger holes than stock so they come out lighter). If float is what you want that would be the way to go. If weight is the overriding concern go with some 47mm trials rims which can be had at about 100 grams lighter than a Marge lite.
    Latitude 61

  3. #3
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,497
    If it helps, the 4.8 Buds are 111mm wide on Marge lites, cant remember exactly what they are on clownshoes but its just over 120mm, RD's will be somewhere in between.

    I dont ride on snow so can comment but i reckon you'll notice the weigh difference more than the extra float of a wider rim.
    Ti O'Beast
    Indy Fab
    One9
    Dirty Disco CX

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    668
    I use drilled RDs with Nates of HuDus and I've never felt the weight to be an issue. For me the fatbike is all about floatation - why compromise?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    40
    Salsa could have spec'd the Beargrease with Marge Lites to make the bike even lighter, but there is a reason it came with RDs. For a bike that is primarily ridden in snow the RD is a better choice IMO. The decrease in rolling resistance on soft surfaces with wider rims more than makes up for the minor weight penalty. As mentioned above drilling out unholy RDs with 1.5" holes brings the weight very close to MLs.

  6. #6
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by druidh View Post
    For me the fatbike is all about floatation - why compromise?
    Those should be words to live by in the FATbike forum. A couple hundred grams here or there in rotational weight might seem like a lot on a computer screen, but on the trail you will be hard pressed to notice. It will certainly never prevent you from getting over or through an obstacle. On the other hand, the size of your contact patch and how much traction it provides can and will determine what you can monster truck over with this thing. So, IMO, get the biggest rims and the biggest tires your budget/frame/drivetrain can fit. Don't neglect rotational weight but certainly don't make any compromises with regards to the function of your bike on account of it. You may find it isn't an entirely bad thing anyways. GASP!
    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    The undrilled Darryls are 330 grams heavier than the Marge lites. If you are willing to spend the money on Marge Lites why not buy Holy Rolling Darryls which are only 170 grams heavier or better yet buy undrilled and drill them yourself then they will only be 60 grams heavier (You can drill bigger holes than stock so they come out lighter). If float is what you want that would be the way to go. If weight is the overriding concern go with some 47mm trials rims which can be had at about 100 grams lighter than a Marge lite.
    I apologize, I should have mentioned that I am looking at the drilled Holy Rolling Darryls. Unfortunately my LBS doesn't have any undrilled, so drilling them myself isn't an option. So, yes, the difference would be 170g per rim, which imo is significant total at 3/4 of a pound. I will be riding these all winter, but will also be doing plenty of wet trail riding, so I am not going to go any smaller than Marge Lites. Thanks for the trials rim rec, though!

    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    If it helps, the 4.8 Buds are 111mm wide on Marge lites, cant remember exactly what they are on clownshoes but its just over 120mm, RD's will be somewhere in between.

    I dont ride on snow so can comment but i reckon you'll notice the weigh difference more than the extra float of a wider rim.
    Thank you, that gives me an idea that I may not even lose anywhere near the float I thought I might. I agree with your opinion that the weight savings would outweigh the float loss. Thanks for posting!

    Quote Originally Posted by druidh View Post
    I use drilled RDs with Nates of HuDus and I've never felt the weight to be an issue. For me the fatbike is all about floatation - why compromise?
    Thanks for your opinion on the weight being no issue. .Flotation is obviously important to me, but I highly doubt I will ever run a bigger tire than the Nate, so I think the Marge Lite would be adequate. How much (mm) float do you think I would lose running the Marge Lites? Thanks again!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly H2O View Post
    How much (mm) float do you think I would lose running the Marge Lites? Thanks again!
    I think I was the first in my area to get the 80mm rims and one of the first comments was how much bigger the tyres looked compared to the LM/ML.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    9
    I had two sets a of wheels a self drilled out set of RD's and a set of 90's with bigger tires for more float. Sold the Rd set as I really didn't use them as much and for myself anyways big=fun. I do find myself wanting to go further off of the beaten path where I appreciate the float.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    30
    Thanks to those all who posted!! I ended up buying the Marge Lites and Nates. Thanks for all your recommendations!!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly H2O View Post
    Thanks to those all who posted!! I ended up buying the Marge Lites and Nates. Thanks for all your recommendations!!
    That is the setup I have on my pug and love them. The wheels really spin up fast and still have more than enough width/float in the snow. I also have a holly RD wheel and it is too wide in the rear of the pug w/ a nate on. Getting frame rub in hard corners and not enough chainline.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    52
    I'm placing an order for a wheelset today and am struggling on choosing Marge Lites vs Holy Rolling Darryl's. Bike is for my wife at 125lbs and will be running Husker Du ultralights.

    Cost of wheelset with Marge Lites is a bit higher ($50) as it's a substitution on a std offering.

    The lighter weight is the attraction and with plan to never run a fatter tire than 4.0, I don't think the wider rim is needed?

    Any other thoughts/opinions?

    TIA

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    355
    Sounds reasonable logic to me

    I've got marge lights and live them, even got a bud sitting well on the front one

    Sill get plenty of flotation with them, never needed wider rims

    I bet a bud on a marge light gives the same float as a Nate on a rd.?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    155
    my better half is 110lbs w a 27lb 9zero7 and is on Marge Lites and 120tpi huskers (just freshly on Dillingers now). She has MUCH better float than i do on my necro w plain rolling darryls and nates. i'm at 170lbs and a 35lb bike.

    full winter right now i'm just hunting floatation and can't find it compared to her. dammit.
    Either i find a way to lose 40lbs or get some decent 7" wide tires :-)


    Quote Originally Posted by slabber View Post
    I'm placing an order for a wheelset today and am struggling on choosing Marge Lites vs Holy Rolling Darryl's. Bike is for my wife at 125lbs and will be running Husker Du ultralights.

    Cost of wheelset with Marge Lites is a bit higher ($50) as it's a substitution on a std offering.

    The lighter weight is the attraction and with plan to never run a fatter tire than 4.0, I don't think the wider rim is needed?

    Any other thoughts/opinions?

    TIA

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    410
    Hmm I wonder which route is more cost effective..

    1) Sell existing white pug complete to get a 2013+ pug complete which comes with the marge lite rims.

    2) Buy new wheelset for existing white pug, and then selling the LM wheelset that came with it.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    387
    We just had a 42 mike bike race in anchorage with about three to four miles of sugar snow. A skinny tired bike with studs held about a four to five minute lead until the last four miles.

    He lost five positions and about 10 minutes there.

    A couple of weeks ago we had a race with a lot of unconsolidated dry snow. I'm on RD's with Husker Du's and was having to push through many areas. A fella on a moonlander with Bud/Lou combo rode right by me like I was standing still.

    I think having two sets of wheels next year is not out of the realm of possibility. But if I had to choose I would go with the hundreds (or the largest you can fit.)

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by easterntide View Post
    my better half is 110lbs w a 27lb 9zero7 and is on Marge Lites and 120tpi huskers (just freshly on Dillingers now). She has MUCH better float than i do on my necro w plain rolling darryls and nates. i'm at 170lbs and a 35lb bike.

    full winter right now i'm just hunting floatation and can't find it compared to her. dammit.
    Either i find a way to lose 40lbs or get some decent 7" wide tires :-)
    I'll be building a very similar bike. Were you able to drop more weight from the 27.88 in your build thread?



    Quote Originally Posted by wrcRS View Post
    We just had a 42 mike bike race in anchorage with about three to four miles of sugar snow. A skinny tired bike with studs held about a four to five minute lead until the last four miles.

    He lost five positions and about 10 minutes there.

    A couple of weeks ago we had a race with a lot of unconsolidated dry snow. I'm on RD's with Husker Du's and was having to push through many areas. A fella on a moonlander with Bud/Lou combo rode right by me like I was standing still.

    I think having two sets of wheels next year is not out of the realm of possibility. But if I had to choose I would go with the hundreds (or the largest you can fit.)
    Any references to bike/rider weight applicable here or is simply the wider contact patch?


    The thought here is whether or not to get the holy RD wheelset and do a bit more drilling to bring the weight down further, while retaining the wider patch.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by slabber View Post
    Any references to bike/rider weight applicable here or is simply the wider contact patch?


    The thought here is whether or not to get the holy RD wheelset and do a bit more drilling to bring the weight down further, while retaining the wider patch.
    They are all smaller riders. Good fitness and skill level as well.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    30
    Given my experience (under a dozen rides) with the Marge Lites and Nates, I would highly recommend the Marge Lites over the Rolling Darryls. If the rider is that light and you wont be running tires bigger than 4", there is no reason for the RDs. Just my .02

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly H2O View Post
    Given my experience (under a dozen rides) with the Marge Lites and Nates, I would highly recommend the Marge Lites over the Rolling Darryls. If the rider is that light and you wont be running tires bigger than 4", there is no reason for the RDs. Just my .02
    correct you are.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3
    I just purchased a Salsa Mukluk 3 and would like to drill out my Surly Rolling Darryl's. Any suggestions on how much you can drill out or any patterns? I am leaning towards more smaller holes instead of one large hole per section so I don't have to get special rim tape. Thoughts?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    24
    I would love input on this to I also have the unholy rolling darryls and want to put some holes in them and would love to hear from others that have already. I don't mind bigger holes but I am a bigger guy and don't wanna take to much away Thanks in advance for the help.
    Quote Originally Posted by billingsbob View Post
    I just purchased a Salsa Mukluk 3 and would like to drill out my Surly Rolling Darryl's. Any suggestions on how much you can drill out or any patterns? I am leaning towards more smaller holes instead of one large hole per section so I don't have to get special rim tape. Thoughts?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3
    I have drilled 9 holes in each section between the spokes. I am using the Surly rim tape which barely covers all the holes. I use a spray adhesive to keep the rim tape in place, and some stretchy electrical tape to seal the edges. I am running tubeless, and it all seems to be working fine. I have not noticed any structural changes in the strength of the rims.

Posting Permissions

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