Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 84
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SundayRiverRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    153

    Small 65mm rim vs Medium 80mm rim vs 100mm rim and tire sizes/profiles.

    What are you running and why? It's probably the most confusing thing about fat bikes aside from hub standards and q factors, lol.

    The wheelset on my bike is rather heavy compared to something like a Sun Ringle Mule. I am thinking I might like to build up a second lighter set of wheels with the Sun Ringle rims. I'm just not sure if it's worth it and what tires I'd run on them.

    I'd like to discuss the ramifications of tire sizes and profiles when they are mounted on the different rims. Is it better to have a wider area of contact or is better to have a rounder tire profile with more cushioning?

    I've seen some of you recommend 65mm and big 4" plus tires. I've seen some you recommend two 100mm rims and the biggest tires 4.8". I've seen some recommend 80mm rims and 4" inch tires.

    I'd like to discuss things like would you get less rim strikes and pinch flats running 65mm and big tires vs 100mm and big tires. Or do the tires behave differently depending on the rim size you choose? Does 100mm front and rear and big tires "definitively" provide the best float in snow? Should you run a bigger rim up front and maybe run a smaller rim in the back to save weight and hopefully not lose any float?
    Should you run different tire sizes in the front and back? Are smaller 65" inch rims definitely better for dirt riding? Or is the 80mm rim size a true happy medium and best for most fat bike riders?

    I'd like to hear what people have chosen for their bikes and why. Would you have 2 sets of wheels if you could with different tires for winter riding and summer riding?

    I'll start. I will mostly (90% of time) ride my fatty in the winter on packed/semi packed trials so I set up a 100mm front and an 80mm rear both using On One Floaters and Specialized 3" tubes, I don't feel like dealing with tubeless. I thought the front wheel at 100mm might help push through the snow and I'm hoping the rear wheel can provide enough float on 4" tires. I don't think my bike could handle a 100mm wheel in the back, and I could probably only fit a max of 4.6" tire in back anyways. I was also thinking the medium 4" tires would be lighter than the 4.8 size so it might be easier to pedal in the snow. I could be totally wrong with my theory and I may have to increase the tire size on both rims for better float in the snow. We'll see. I won't be able to really test my theory until December probably.

    Thanks for your thoughts regarding this post.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,420
    i have 90mm rims and plan on using as big of a tires as i could fit. just for riding during winter. i plan on getting 50mm 29" rims with 3" or so tires for summer when i will be using the bike for bikepacking. i have full for rest of my riding needs.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Maine year round. 65 mm marge lites with knards for non snow. Nates for snow. One nice light set of wheels.

    No fuss.

    rog

  4. #4
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,848
    90mm rims and 4.6 tires year round in WI. Might build up a set of carbon 65's with Jumbo Jims for next summer but I doubt it.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    543
    My bike is setup with 100mm CS front, 80mm HRD rear. I run 4.8" Bud and Lou in the soft snow, 3.8" Dillinger when its packed and icey, 3.8" Knards in the dirt. I like as much float as possible in the snow for exploring and bike packing. 3.8" tires work on the 100mm front but the profile flattens out some.

  6. #6
    wjh
    wjh is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    152
    I built my 907 with clownshoes, hudu rear tire, and a big fat larry on the front. I didnt know any better, and clownshoes were all that i could get at the time. I rode it with this setup for winter, spring, summer and fall, before coming to the conclusion that it was too heavy and slow. 95% of my winter riding is packed snow so flotation isnt much of an issue.

    I lost my shirt selling the clownshoes, the bfl, and getting marge lites and laced up. I bought another 120 tpi hudu for the front, and 2.5 bontrager tubes in place of the heavy surly tubes. The decrease in rolling resistance with the lighter tire/wheel combo was huge.

    Shortly after i wanted more traction so i added a bud front and a nate rear. This is a great combo for wet fall, winter, and spring mud traction. When things dry up, i go back to the hudu tires.
    I have recently added the bluto and i now declare this bike perfect for my needs. I sold my fs trek and never miss it

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SundayRiverRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    Maine year round. 65 mm marge lites with knards for non snow. Nates for snow. One nice light set of wheels.

    No fuss.

    rog
    I do like your one wheelset does it all approach. 65mm year round and your OK in Maine eh? i hadn't really considered going smaller than 80mm. But if you can run 4.5" tires on the 65mm then that might work for me too. Interesting.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12
    I run bud/lous on 65mm's with no issues in deep snow - however I am considering going to an 80mm front with the 65mm rear

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SundayRiverRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh View Post
    I lost my shirt selling the clownshoes, the bfl, and getting marge lites and laced up. I bought another 120 tpi hudu for the front, and 2.5 bontrager tubes in place of the heavy surly tubes. The decrease in rolling resistance with the lighter tire/wheel combo was huge.

    .
    I have recently added the bluto and i now declare this bike perfect for my needs. I sold my fs trek and never miss it
    Interesting, another vote for Marge Lite's. I will use my fat bike on packed trails most of the time, I doubt I will go anywhere deep in the woods and untracked. Also, it is fascinating that you ditched your FS bike. I'm going to have try the fatty on my local trail networks before I even think of selling the FS bike. I love FS. I could see getting a FS fatty in a few seasons.

  10. #10
    wjh
    wjh is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    152
    My rear suspension now consists of a squishy rear tire, canecreek thudbuster, and a brooks saddle.

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by SundayRiverRider View Post
    I do like your one wheelset does it all approach. 65mm year round and your OK in Maine eh? i hadn't really considered going smaller than 80mm. But if you can run 4.5" tires on the 65mm then that might work for me too. Interesting.
    You can run 4.8" tires on 65mm. Thats the beauty of it. With either 3.8 or 4.8 you get a nice round tire profile which makes for much better cornering/handling than 80mm and less chance of pinch flatting with 65 vs 80 at same air pressure. Better bb crank/ bb clearance from a taller tire height as well. Wins everywhere you look.

    Ok in maine

    Rog

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    100
    I think to help your analysis of what does and does not work you need one more variable, rider/bike weight.

    A smaller combo on a 145# rider like me will behave much different on a 200# rider.
    On the road I use 100 psi front and rear and my tire has a small amount of squish, my brother uses the same tire but to get that same amount of squish he needs around 130# in his tires, he has 60# on me.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    17
    Nates on HRDs. I'm going to try to showhorn a Bud on the front this winter, when things get sloppy.
    2012 Surly Black-Ops

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    132
    I thought the point of a fatter rim was to spread the carcass wider so that air pressure had less to do with the width of the tire? That and doesn't the most rigid sidewall support come from approaching a 90 degree angle from the rim?

    I somehow see the tread going concave at low pressures, where the rubber meets the trail, when the sidewall(s) profile is too trapezoidal. I derive this from tire wear patterns on autos when they see a lifetime of under inflation.

    I would have expected the fat tire on the skinny rim to perform like a flacid you know what. Turns me on my head it does.

    With all that said I do not know....

  15. #15
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,077
    I've told this story before, but you're askin'...
    When I built my fatbike last winter, I had to have the biggest, fattest wheels... after all, I'm the wheel guy.
    The guy I work for has vast fatbike experience and tried to talk me into Darryls but I wasn't having it. Clownshoes or nothing. So I laced up Clownshoes and installed Bud and Lou. I almost gave myself a heart attack riding this monster on the beach.
    I've since ridden bikes with Marge-HuskerDu combos and Darryl-Bud/Lou. Even a Moonlander with BFlarrys.
    Now, the plan is building Darryls for my Bud Lou combo and BF Larrys on my Clownshoes for the beach.
    I couldn't believe how fast and fun a Marge HuskerDu bike can be.
    Last edited by NYrr496; 10-09-2014 at 05:08 AM.
    I like turtles

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    I couldn't believe how fast and fun a Marge HuskerDu bike can me.
    with marge lites and 3.8 120tpi knards i have no trouble keeping up with fit, technically strong riders on the latest greatest 120-140mm carbon full sussy 650/29er bikes thru the rough and techy with climbs and descents of a mile or more on my fully rigid steel charge cooker maxi.

    the wheel/tire combo makes such a difference.

    rog

  17. #17
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,953
    Marge lites and Vee snowshoes. I have no trouble keeping up with xc racers; I'm taking it cx racing this weekend.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SundayRiverRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    153
    So, if the marge lites work so well ( especially with big tires) what is the reasoning behind the popularity of 100mm rims? Does the 100mm rim provide a much larger contact area with a big tire vs the Marge' s contact area with the same tire? You guys running the 65's really notice that big of a difference in rolling resistance and overall bike quickness?

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    100mm spreads the tire wider but also decreases the height. the increased width obviously provides more float in soft sand and snow. yes i notice a huge difference in rolling resistance, handling precision, and quickness/flickability with the 65's vs the 80's they replaced.

    rog

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,089
    OP, you have to remember that the conditions ridden, and rider weight play a hugh part in what wheel/tire combo would be best. I live in Wisconsin, am 230lbs w/o gear, and if I only wanted to ride groomed/packed trails in the winter, I wouldn't be doing much riding. I ride RD w/ Hudu/Knard in the summer, and RD w/ Bud/Nate in the winter.

    It's not a matter of WANTING a fatter setup, its a matter of NEEDING a fatter setup. Airing down Bud and Lou on Marge Lites for float with be VERY different than Clownshoes, with respects to tire profile and squirm. There are numerous times when I am airing down to 3-4psi (tubeless), to get the float and traction I need in SNOW!.

    Be carefull when a rider claims he can keep up with REALLY GOOD riders on FS bikes bombing down hill, as either he is full of it, or his buddies aren't as great as HE thinks they are. Fat bikes will not offer the control or performance of a FS bike (unless you are referring to a XC race FS bike, which might be a different story) when the going gets rough.

  21. #21
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by SundayRiverRider View Post
    So, if the marge lites work so well ( especially with big tires) what is the reasoning behind the popularity of 100mm rims? Does the 100mm rim provide a much larger contact area with a big tire vs the Marge' s contact area with the same tire? You guys running the 65's really notice that big of a difference in rolling resistance and overall bike quickness?
    You understand the correlation between lifted 4x4 trucks and male genital insecurity?

    Seriously, the 65mm rims are noticeably faster & lighter. In the winter, there is a tradeoff in floatation in the snow. I'm a very large rider, I would probably benefit from the wider contact patch of hundos and bud/lou, but in all honesty the smaller rims work just fine in the winter and the difference they make in speed and handling for the other 8 months of the year makes the compromise more than worthwhile to me. Ymmv.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SundayRiverRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    153
    I'm weigh 175 lbs and I'm probably not going to be packing all sorts of gear on my bike.
    I'm probably just going to ride from my house down the street 1/2 mile to this huge network of snowmobile trails and just ride around for an hour or 2. Just using the bike to get some winter exercise and have something to do when the conditions at the mountain are cruddy and I don't feel like snowboarding. I am not going to be bike packing with the thing and probably won't race it either. I may use it in the summer a little bit, we'll see.

    I just find it interesting to hear everyone's thoughts and what their experiences have been using different rim options. I appreciate all the feedback.

    I can see where people really like to Monster Truck their fat bikes, it's interesting to see people that have Speed Racer their's out , and to see the people that have their fatty's set up to travel across the Sahara desert or the frozen tundras of Alaska.

    It seems like I may benefit from the 65mm rims as it might not affect the ride negatively too much in the winter, and in the summer the bike might have a quicker feel to it which would be a positive.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,662
    Thanks for starting this thread, the replies really have put things into perspective. I read a comment earlier today by someone that recently purchased a fat bike, has not ridden it in snow yet and is looking at upgrading to wider rims and tires. The reason to go fatter for some people is just because.

  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    I left out that i'm 165/170 and use bottles and repair items/snacks in jersey pockets. No camelback for this guy. So i keep things light.

    We ride about the same length rides in winter 1-2 hours and i only ride if the surfs not good. So if the surfs good for 2-3 weeks straight, i don't touch my bike at all. When there's no surf i ride pretty much every day.

    My fatty is my only mtb, so having it quick for trail is paramount.

    Do you live up by sunday river?

    rog

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Welnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by SundayRiverRider View Post
    So, if the marge lites work so well ( especially with big tires) what is the reasoning behind the popularity of 100mm rims? Does the 100mm rim provide a much larger contact area with a big tire vs the Marge' s contact area with the same tire? You guys running the 65's really notice that big of a difference in rolling resistance and overall bike quickness?
    The main advantage of wider rims with any bike tire and rim combination isn't that the contact patch gets bigger with the wider rim at the same pressure, it is that you can run a lower pressure with the wider rim and it will work. Depending on the tire carcass you might get a bigger contact patch at the same pressure with a wider rim, but usually you have to run a lower pressure to get a bigger contact patch. The wider rim will allow you run a lower pressure without the tire feeling squirrelly.

    The advantages of 65s in the summer are lighter weight, better tire shape for most tires, and the rim is protected better from rim strikes.

  26. #26
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Welnic View Post
    and the rim is protected better from rim strikes.
    Ya, and thats vs running the same pressure as with wider rims. So what say you again?

    I was getting a pinch flat a week running the same pressure in my 80's as i am my 65's and have had ZERO pinch flats with my 65's in two months.

    rog

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SundayRiverRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    153
    I like the concept of less pinch flats the most. I generally don't flat much on my bike right now, but I run burlier bigger and heavier tires. I find they deal with the rocks betters. Lighter weight with the 65's would be an added bonus, but I'm not a weight weenie.

    Rog, I own a house right in the Village of Bethel, I spend a lot of time there.

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Right on. I lived in bethel from 93-2000 winters and 95-96 year round. Great area. Did a super fun ride up around there on the fatty this summer.

    rog

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    252
    907 offset: marge lites w/ vee h-billie front / snow shoe rear
    907 190mm: clown shoes w/ bud and lou

    The lighter wheeled bike see's a lot more use that the 4.8" bike. 4.8" bike is mostly for tough conditions like after a fresh snow fall or after a flood when the trail is super soft and sandy for miles and miles. 4.8's are slow, but they go through much more than the 3.8's can.

  30. #30
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,949
    If we are talking snow, rim width, tire width, and tire pressure can often make the difference between walking and riding if not riding on groomed trails. Jay P told a bunch of bikers a night ago that he didn't feel the need for 100mm rims and 4.8" tires. But what he didn't mention is that he lives in an area that has a HUGE amount of nearly always perfectly groomed trails that go for hundred's of miles and a ski area that has one of the most pristine nordic tracks where fat bikes can be ridden. If those are your conditions, I would agree. If you live where you have to keep your own trails groomed by riding them and you get much snow, or even if there is a lot of new snow on those groomed tracks, or if the temps are above freezing much, the wider tires and rims will help tremendously.

  31. #31
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by SundayRiverRider View Post
    What are you running and why? It's probably the most confusing thing about fat bikes aside from hub standards and q factors,

    snip..........

    Should you run different tire sizes in the front and back?

    I'd like to hear what people have chosen for their bikes and why. Would you have 2 sets of wheels if you could with different tires for winter riding and summer riding?



    Thanks for your thoughts regarding this post.
    Girdwood Alaska, mix of tarmac, dirt and snow year round use. 2013 Fatback 170 non-rocker. Started with Uma 70s on Larry's. (summer and winter) Then Velocity Dually's 44mm (Summer with 4.0 HuDu) Uma 90's (Winter soon to be Dillinger 5) all tubeless with the inner city method.

    Why two sets of wheels? b/c it is my only bike, and I'm thinking of adding a 3rd set of 29+ for longer summer tours.
    Last edited by Co-opski; 10-10-2014 at 04:49 PM.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,419
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    Maine year round. 65 mm marge lites with knards for non snow. Nates for snow. One nice light set of wheels.

    No fuss.

    rog
    Alaska, year round daily rider. Had 65 standard Marge for 2.5 years. Rolled Nates in winter, Knard/Larry/Endo combo of some sort or another in summer. I'm now on 80 with the Hodag tires (new Farley) and we'll see how it goes. I opted for the Farley over something like the Fatboy specifically because I didn't want to be dragging a 5 inch tire on my commutes every day. I've also found that 99% of the riding I do wouldn't need that big of a tire. Yes, I ride off-piste, but found that, for me and my mass (280 range last winter) that a 5 inch tire doesn't provide that much more float than a 4 on powder and heavy wet snow just sucks regardless.

    I do plan on building a 29 wheelset for the summers for the Farley.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    Alaska, year round daily rider. Had 65 standard Marge for 2.5 years. Rolled Nates in winter, Knard/Larry/Endo combo of some sort or another in summer. I'm now on 80 with the Hodag tires (new Farley) and we'll see how it goes. I opted for the Farley over something like the Fatboy specifically because I didn't want to be dragging a 5 inch tire on my commutes every day. I've also found that 99% of the riding I do wouldn't need that big of a tire. Yes, I ride off-piste, but found that, for me and my mass (280 range last winter) that a 5 inch tire doesn't provide that much more float than a 4 on powder and heavy wet snow just sucks regardless.

    I do plan on building a 29 wheelset for the summers for the Farley.
    Huh, we're the same weight class and you're making me think.

    I'm getting a 9:ZERO:7, the new one with 190mm clearance. I could totally go with clown shoes / 5" tires, and I was thinking due to my size I might want to go there, but I'm thinking again.

    I'm going to be mostly riding winters in southern Sweden. Stockholm is so well-maintained during snow that I could get away with studded tires on my road bike and be fine for all my city riding. I'll mostly be riding gravel bike trails and some local MTB paths on Hellas, and that is pretty tree-covered in most places so it won't ever be deep snow.

    I might want to go 65mm/4" or 80mm/5" instead.

    Yes, I'm probably over-thinking this, but fat bike stuff is HARD to get in Sweden so the penalties for choosing wrong are much bigger than in the 'states.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: letitsnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    196
    I'm not sure if this adds anything to this thread, but my wife and I bought fatbikes at the same time. Me a Mukluk, her a Pugsley. They both came with the same tires, but her bike had Marge lites, mine Daryls. Her Pugsley seemed to handle much better than my Mukluk, even though the Mukluk was lighter. I found a used set of Marge Lites and put them on the Mukluk-much better!

    After talking to some of the fast fat bike racers - they also told me that rims wider than 65mm's isn't ideal unless running Bud/Lou's...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by letitsnow View Post
    I'm not sure if this adds anything to this thread, but my wife and I bought fatbikes at the same time. Me a Mukluk, her a Pugsley. They both came with the same tires, but her bike had Marge lites, mine Daryls. Her Pugsley seemed to handle much better than my Mukluk, even though the Mukluk was lighter. I found a used set of Marge Lites and put them on the Mukluk-much better!

    After talking to some of the fast fat bike racers - they also told me that rims wider than 65mm's isn't ideal unless running Bud/Lou's...
    As some of my past posts would indicate, I'm not a fan of 100's and Bud Lou for everyday riding but the above generalization is just as bad. At least in Anchorage, by far the majority of winter riding is done on 80mm rims and nominal 4" tires. To pick one width or tire size and say it is best for everyone is just not correct. They all have their place and they all have places where they are less appropriate. People need to look at what type of surface they are riding most often and what type of riding they do and pick for that. And for what it's worth snow is not a single surface type. OK rant over
    Latitude 61

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: letitsnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    As some of my past posts would indicate, I'm not a fan of 100's and Bud Lou for everyday riding but the above generalization is just as bad. At least in Anchorage, by far the majority of winter riding is done on 80mm rims and nominal 4" tires. To pick one width or tire size and say it is best for everyone is just not correct. They all have their place and they all have places where they are less appropriate. People need to look at what type of surface they are riding most often and what type of riding they do and pick for that. And for what it's worth snow is not a single surface type. OK rant over
    Generalization? I was telling about an actual experience.

  37. #37
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,077
    I actually like riding hundreds and Bud and Lou for regular trail riding.
    I like turtles

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by letitsnow View Post
    Generalization? I was telling about an actual experience.
    I guess I was responding to the statement that rims wider than 65mm are not ideal for anything but Bud and Lou. In my experience backed up by riding with many other people that is not true as a general statement. It can be true for a specific set of conditions, but not for everything. As to your specific experience with your two bikes, I don't doubt that is what you found for the conditions you were using them in but it is still a generalization to say Marge Lites are better without telling people what those conditions were. If we are talking about hardpacked and narrow twisty trails I completely agree with you that the 65mm rims, and even narrower, do handle better. However as the surface gets softer, for me at least, wider is better. Obviously what works for me doesn't work for everybody but I would hope that when people say what works best for them they also say in what conditions they ride.
    Latitude 61

  39. #39
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,077
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    I guess I was responding to the statement that rims wider than 65mm are not ideal for anything but Bud and Lou. In my experience backed up by riding with many other people that is not true as a general statement. It can be true for a specific set of conditions, but not for everything. As to your specific experience with your two bikes, I don't doubt that is what you found for the conditions you were using them in but it is still a generalization to say Marge Lites are better without telling people what those conditions were. If we are talking about hardpacked and narrow twisty trails I completely agree with you that the 65mm rims, and even narrower, do handle better. However as the surface gets softer, for me at least, wider is better. Obviously what works for me doesn't work for everybody but I would hope that when people say what works best for them they also say in what conditions they ride.
    One of my friends rides Darryls with 4" HuskerDus. It seems to work on all conditions for him. He weighs about 170.
    I like turtles

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smthgfshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    187
    To keep my cost down I run 1 wheelset year round changing the tires only.
    summer: 70mm UmaII's w/ HuskerDu's front and rear
    winter: 70mm UmaII's w/ Dillenger 4 & 5's

    from what I've seen/heard in Anchorage, wider is better the softer it gets. Also, wider is better the heavier you get. If I had more money I'd build up 2 wheelsets, 1 for summer w/ Rabbit Holes/Knards, and 1 for winter w/90mm carbon and Dillengers. My only bike is a fatbike and I ride it year round in AK. Most if not all rim & tire combo's are possible. Just find what you like as it fits with your size, the conditions you ride, and how you ride your bike. There is no right answer.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,779
    OK, since this thread seems to have died, I'm gonna hijack it a bit.

    I'm 275.

    For my riding, I'll mostly crunch through shallow snow, and possibly bike pack or ride techie rocky single track. I have a RIP9 and EMD9 for other riding.

    I'm thinking 80mm is the best compromise that will get me the same tire behavior as you lighter folks do with 65mm. (I usually have to go one spec up, so wider tires, tougher components, stuff like that.)

    Start with Nates for winter, maybe Husker Du for summer, Bud/Lou if I go crazy and explore lapland or Iceland. The one rim should handle all of those OK.

    Thoughts?

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    whether yer 10lbs or 275lbs, tire profile is tire profile. nothing wrong with 80mm and 3.8, just not as fun as 65mm and 3.8, imo.

    i rode 80mm and 4.0 all winter/spring and i smiled the whole time.

    go 4.8 on 80 if you want a nice combo of good floatation/handling.

    rog

  43. #43
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,077
    82mm rims are great all around rims.
    I like turtles

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,779
    Thanks! It helps a lot.

  45. #45
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    I'm 250# I've never run a rim wider than 65s and 70s, I do swap from 3.8's to 4.7" tires for winter and have had to air down under 5 psi where I can see a wider rim being better but the times that I ride something that unpacked are few and far between

    city streets and sidewalks rarely get a ton of snow buildup here in WI, we groom our local MTB trails for winter riding (the snowshoers love us) and the lake michigan beach snow fluctuates so much day to day it's crazy

    only twice in the last 3 years have I turned around because we couldn't ride, then we snowshoed ourselves so the trail was good to go for the next ride
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    30
    So I have 80mm rims with 4.0 vanhelgas and the rear tire sits about an 1/8 of an inch from the chain and when I lean non drive side over it will actually lightly rub. I didn't have this problem when I had the 4.0 fee mission tires would going to a 65mm wide rim in the rear fix this issue as I would like to keep the aggressive tread.

  47. #47
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    25,778
    Yes. that would most likely fix it. Tightening your spoke tension might be worth it too.
    "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.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    767
    Don't know your bike specs but maybe you can shim your driving crank.
    Quote Originally Posted by Upinflames7 View Post
    So I have 80mm rims with 4.0 vanhelgas and the rear tire sits about an 1/8 of an inch from the chain and when I lean non drive side over it will actually lightly rub. I didn't have this problem when I had the 4.0 fee mission tires would going to a 65mm wide rim in the rear fix this issue as I would like to keep the aggressive tread.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    30
    the cranks are square taper so not sure tgat i can shim them

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    30
    not sure what spoke tension has to do with the chain hitting as it is just gravity working not wheel flex as I can just stand and lean the bike over and the chain touches the tire

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-16-2014, 08:30 PM
  2. 80mm or 100mm on my NS Suburban?
    By bicyclemech1 in forum Urban/DJ/Park
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 10:35 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-04-2011, 11:42 AM
  4. 80mm or 100mm on Pro 29?
    By MavAndy in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 04:15 AM
  5. Going from 100mm to 80mm......
    By MiWolverine in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-19-2011, 04:29 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
  •