Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    62

    Similar bike to the Otso Voytek???

    I'm looking to get a lighter carbon with carbon fork. Looking at the Voytek but wondering if there is other models out there similar to it. Or any of the china carbon with a lower Q factor, I don't need to fit 5" tires but would like to fit 4.5" if possible. I will possibly be changing out to a front suspension and 27.5 plus in the summer on this bike, so I'd rather have a lower Q factor. Thanks.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,048
    Rocky Mountain Suzi Q maybe? B Fat and wider BB I think too though. Not much out there for a 83mm BB that can fit tires like the Voytek chip dropout. There are custom frames, but those are steel or Ti.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by triathloner View Post
    I'm looking to get a lighter carbon with carbon fork. Looking at the Voytek but wondering if there is other models out there similar to it. Or any of the china carbon with a lower Q factor, I don't need to fit 5" tires but would like to fit 4.5" if possible. I will possibly be changing out to a front suspension and 27.5 plus in the summer on this bike, so I'd rather have a lower Q factor. Thanks.
    I love my Voytek. It is a very well thought out frame. I just added a Mastodon fork and have no clearance issues with fork knobs even coming close to the down tube. I have 3 sets of wheels, 2 fat (one summer, one winter) and 29+. Set up fat with the carbon fork it is 25# +/- and about 23# with the 29+ tires/wheels.

    I tried a Dillinger 5 on the back and it was just a touch too wide on a 65mm rim. A little shimming of the crankset and perhaps a little offset dish would get it to clear if I really needed it.

    The Suzi Q is the only other fat frame that I know if with a similar narrow BB.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    30
    I heard here that the Canyon Dude might fit the bill, but not verified or shown on their website.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by us338386 View Post
    I heard here that the Canyon Dude might fit the bill, but not verified or shown on their website.
    The Dude BBD is 60, so like the Otso. The Suzi is 70, but is Bfat. The Dude has the wider BB, where the Voytek and Suzi have the 83mm BB shell though cranks may have some difference to the q-factor. I don't know of any other carbon offerings with the more narrow BB.

    BlueCheese, I think you need more wheelsets!
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    33
    https://salsacycles.com/bikes/beargr...arbon_nx_eagle Salsa Beargrease have a similar Q factor

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by JLMBiker View Post
    https://salsacycles.com/bikes/beargr...arbon_nx_eagle Salsa Beargrease have a similar Q factor
    BBD 65, 100mm bb shell.

    Cool lookin' ride...
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    BlueCheese, I think you need more wheelsets!
    Hey, that's what my wife says...NOT. Fortunately she is very tolerant. I can justify damn near anything.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    Hey, that's what my wife says...NOT. Fortunately she is very tolerant. I can justify damn near anything.
    You chose the wife wisely...
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    732
    Beargrease, does it have the same q at the crank than the otso and Suzi q? I bought an aluminum suzi q because it was quite a bit cheaper than the otso.

    Now Iím curious if the beargrease is exactly the same.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    39
    No, the Beargrease is wider. The Otso runs a shorter spindle with what is essentially a flipped chain ring to keep the chainline in check.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    732
    My suzi q has a flipped ring too, and from my research capable of the same Q factor as otso.

    So your saying the beargrease is capable of the same q?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    39
    No, you can't go more narrow with the Beargrease. The shell is too wide to run the same crank spindle as the Otso.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    39
    As an FYI, my comments above are for the 2018 & older Beargrease with the 177 rear end. The 2019s now have a 197 rear and run the same crank spindle - with a flipped chain ring to move the chainline outboard due to the wider rear end.

  15. #15
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,106
    There are a ton of bikes that let you do a 177 spaced crank on a 197 frame. The Beargrease isn't special, it just finally caught up to 3 years ago.

    They're still like 2 cm wider than a Voytek.
    You change your own flats? Support your LBS and pay them to instead.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    62
    Thanks for all the info. I'm going to look at the canyon and beargrease but may just get the otso.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ferrstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    359
    Not carbon but I faced the BB shells on my Wednesday and my Pugsley to take an 83mm bottom bracket. I run a Sram X0 Downhill crankset with them. 183mm Q factor.

    I also had Waltworks build me up a custom frame using the same crankset.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by ferrstein View Post
    Not carbon but I faced the BB shells on my Wednesday and my Pugsley to take an 83mm bottom bracket. I run a Sram X0 Downhill crankset with them. 183mm Q factor.

    I also had Waltworks build me up a custom frame using the same crankset.
    That's a fair amount of facing... what ring size are you limited to on the Wednesday? Flipped ring? Did you detail this in a previous thread? I remember your Waltworks and I'd love to go the custom route, but cost is prohibitive atm.

    *found the Pugs thread
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ferrstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    That's a fair amount of facing... what ring size are you limited to on the Wednesday?
    I run a 32t on the Wednesday. That frame is a bit tighter on clearance though, so I mis-stated the crankset. I actually ended up putting a Raceface Atlas on there. It has a 187mm Q factor.

    I used a Park facing tool, lots of cutting fluid, and patience. Took maybe 1.5 hours total. With careful measurement you don't need to remove as much. Remember most cranks use at least one 2.5mm spacer per side and depending on the design of the crank and BB you can probably get away with taking much less off than you think.

    I had Walt cut down my Pugsley, so you can check there as well.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by ferrstein View Post
    I run a 32t on the Wednesday. That frame is a bit tighter on clearance though, so I mis-stated the crankset. I actually ended up putting a Raceface Atlas on there. It has a 187mm Q factor.

    I used a Park facing tool, lots of cutting fluid, and patience. Took maybe 1.5 hours total. With careful measurement you don't need to remove as much. Remember most cranks use at least one 2.5mm spacer per side and depending on the design of the crank and BB you can probably get away with taking much less off than you think.

    I had Walt cut down my Pugsley, so you can check there as well.
    If you can fit a 32 on the Wednesday that's great as it leaves room for an oval. I'm assuming you are using a RF cinch style crank? Are you using any spacers on either side of the BB, 1 on the drive side maybe? That last question can also be phrased thusly, did you take the same amount off both sides of the BB shell? Thanks
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ferrstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    If you can fit a 32 on the Wednesday that's great as it leaves room for an oval. I'm assuming you are using a RF cinch style crank? Are you using any spacers on either side of the BB, 1 on the drive side maybe? That last question can also be phrased thusly, did you take the same amount off both sides of the BB shell? Thanks
    Funny, I'm looking through my cell phone for more photos because my memory is failing me on this. I can take some pictures of it tonight. I did use a cinch crank, and in fact I assembled the BB and crank together off the frame, screwed the cinch ring out to the widest position (closest to the crank arm), then back in one full turn. From there I was able to decide how narrow the BB shell had to be. I don't remember if it was a symmetrical amount of removal or not. I was rather obsessed with centering the crank on the frame though... so I did a lot of measuring to make sure that happened.

    Also, I sent you a PM on a frame I have available.

  22. #22
    tg
    tg is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,470
    Love my Q
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Similar bike to the Otso Voytek???-fullsizerender.jpg  


Similar Threads

  1. Otso Voytek
    By tedsti in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 03-31-2018, 09:47 PM
  2. Otso Voytek vs Rocky Mountain Suzi Q -70 RSL
    By phsycle in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-26-2017, 08:59 PM
  3. Otso Voytek review
    By Bacon Fat in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-15-2017, 07:31 PM
  4. Otso Voytek at the Dunes!
    By dustyduke22 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-17-2017, 09:17 PM
  5. Otso Cycles Voytek
    By bigpeddler in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-20-2016, 10:10 PM

Members who have read this thread: 110

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.