Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 811
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767

    Surly ICT thread

    Picked it up last week. Road it by my house for a couple of miles, need to adjust the derailleur a little bit and figure out why the headset feels loose. Thinking about going to a bluto. Anyone have one on theirs yet? What size? Thinking about getting the 80mm in white and change the lines to white....



    Surly ICT thread-ict.jpg
    Front Range, Colorado

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BigVaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    591
    That's one good looking bike! Saw a guy on the local trail tearing it up on one of those w/ a Bluto.
    2014 TREK FUEL EX8 29er
    2015 TREK FARLEY 6

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tundratrader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    565

    Surly ICT thread

    Looks awesome. What size is it?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OCDKV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    74
    White Bluto's an OE product, might be hard to find one. I agree though it would look sweet. Congrats.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    Mine is a large. Passed quite a few people out riding today. Verdict- ladies love it, guys hate it. Lots of dirty looks passing full suspension carbon Specialized's
    Front Range, Colorado

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by OCDKV View Post
    White Bluto's an OE product, might be hard to find one. I agree though it would look sweet. Congrats.
    Yeah, I think white would be very nice. Keep an eye out on Ebay

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BigVaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    591
    The one I saw with a bluto was white. It did look good.
    2014 TREK FUEL EX8 29er
    2015 TREK FARLEY 6

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    Re: Surly ICT thread

    It's a nice bike. I love that color, and those custom drawn steel tubes.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    Thanks guys, I have a question about the Bluto. If the A2C on the stock Surly fork is 483mm. The bluto is as follows:

    80mm- 491mm
    100mm-511mm
    120mm- 531mm

    So with sag which will most closely keep the stock geometry? I'm not concerned with making the HA slightly steeper (within 1° or so) but I'd like to not really go any more slack.
    Front Range, Colorado

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: scr74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    19
    Did you change the rims ?
    they look like the golden Clown Shoes

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by scr74 View Post
    Did you change the rims ?
    they look like the golden Clown Shoes
    They are

    It was built from a frame set.

    Gold Clown shoes with Bud/Lou
    RF Next SL cranks 26t
    Sram X01 1x11 with grip shift
    Thompson stem with gold face
    Loaded gold spacers
    Race face bars
    XT brakes with Magura 180mm rotors

    Not sure yet if I Want to add another color. Thinking either white cable housings and white bluto, or black bluto with gold cables and possibly a gold seat post. Thinking about throwing on a gold chain as well.
    Front Range, Colorado

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OCDKV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    74

    Re: Surly ICT thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Thanks guys, I have a question about the Bluto. If the A2C on the stock Surly fork is 483mm. The bluto is as follows:

    80mm- 491mm
    100mm-511mm
    120mm- 531mm

    So with sag which will most closely keep the stock geometry? I'm not concerned with making the HA slightly steeper (within 1° or so) but I'd like to not really go any more slack.
    This is rudimentary at best but factoring in a 20% sag and using your #'s then:
    80mm = 475mm
    100mm = 491mm
    120mm = 507mm
    I'm sure someone much more knowledgeable will chime in but it looks like your wanting the 80 but should be fine with the 100 allowing for a bit more sag.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    876

    Surly ICT thread

    That SS version the Surly boys have been flaunting in their blog sports an 80


    Pedaling

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Thanks guys, I have a question about the Bluto. If the A2C on the stock Surly fork is 483mm. The bluto is as follows:

    80mm- 491mm
    100mm-511mm
    120mm- 531mm

    So with sag which will most closely keep the stock geometry? I'm not concerned with making the HA slightly steeper (within 1° or so) but I'd like to not really go any more slack.
    The rigid ICT a-c is listed as 487mm. So like most Bluto compatible frames right now, it looks to be "designed" for the 100mm Bluto. If you factor in 25% sag, the 100mm is at 486mm.

    I had originally wanted a 120mm Bluto for my ICT but ended up going with a 100mm. Riding the rigid bike around, I just really liked the geometry and so I didn't want to mess with it too much.

    Suspension is another personal preference thing. From what you said, if you don't want a slacker head angle, you're pretty much looking at the 80 or 100mm Bluto. If you want to go a bit steeper on head angle, then the 80mm is the best bet. The 100mm will keep the geometry about the same depending on how much air you like to run.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by rkzhao View Post
    The rigid ICT a-c is listed as 487mm. So like most Bluto compatible frames right now, it looks to be "designed" for the 100mm Bluto. If you factor in 25% sag, the 100mm is at 486mm.

    I had originally wanted a 120mm Bluto for my ICT but ended up going with a 100mm. Riding the rigid bike around, I just really liked the geometry and so I didn't want to mess with it too much.

    Suspension is another personal preference thing. From what you said, if you don't want a slacker head angle, you're pretty much looking at the 80 or 100mm Bluto. If you want to go a bit steeper on head angle, then the 80mm is the best bet. The 100mm will keep the geometry about the same depending on how much air you like to run.
    Perfect thank you.


    Got my first real ride in today and set 3 new overall PR's on Strava lol. The joys of a new bike and chasing/passing the XC types I just wish I didn't have an $8,000 carbon FS bike sitting in my garage that I'm slower on lol... Got top 15 in one segment.
    Front Range, Colorado

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr.Snakebite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Perfect thank you.


    Got my first real ride in today and set 3 new overall PR's on Strava lol. The joys of a new bike and chasing/passing the XC types I just wish I didn't have an $8,000 carbon FS bike sitting in my garage that I'm slower on lol... Got top 15 in one segment.
    So the ICT is a real Strava-(PR)hunting bike? Hahaha! cool! (and in the meanwhile 'Racing Sucks' )

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: asollie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Snakebite View Post
    So the ICT is a real Strava-(PR)hunting bike? Hahaha! cool! (and in the meanwhile 'Racing Sucks' )
    I set a ton of PRs on mine yesterday without even trying. It was also one of the longest rides I've ever done. I bet if I was trying for speed I'd blow my previous times out of the water. And this is coming from a XC 29er that should by all accounts be faster.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by asollie View Post
    I set a ton of PRs on mine yesterday without even trying. It was also one of the longest rides I've ever done. I bet if I was trying for speed I'd blow my previous times out of the water. And this is coming from a XC 29er that should by all accounts be faster.
    Hahah yep, you can see the other bikes I have in my signature. My arc is slightly over 20lbs. The way I had my ICT setup yesterday it was a good 18lbs heavier and I beat the climb that I've probably ridden 100 times by a solid 5 minutes.

    There's something to be said about chasing down carbon hard tails on a steel fat bike though. It makes my heart feel warm and fuzzy hahahaha
    Front Range, Colorado

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    417
    Krampus DNA = go fasterer...

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    96
    On descents on loose gravely stuff or dirt, the ICT traction and slacker geo gives me more confidence to go faster than my XC 29er. Putting the Bluto on makes the rocky descents faster too.

    On climbs, it's not even close. My 29er wins out by far. Being 15+lb lighter is still a big deal.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    209
    how is the real world sizing of the ICT? I am roughly 510-11 and from the numbers torn between a med and large. I pedaled around a med but felt a hair small, but its got a pretty long TT for a med.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: asollie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    269
    If I were you I'd get a large and swap out the stem for a slightly shorter one.

  23. #23
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Hahah yep, you can see the other bikes I have in my signature. My arc is slightly over 20lbs. The way I had my ICT setup yesterday it was a good 18lbs heavier and I beat the climb that I've probably ridden 100 times by a solid 5 minutes.

    There's something to be said about chasing down carbon hard tails on a steel fat bike though. It makes my heart feel warm and fuzzy hahahaha


    rog

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    209
    thanks, that's what i was thinking as well. The large comes with an 80mm stem. Maybe swaping for like an 60mm i would feel good on the large

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    I'm 6' 1/2", 33" inseam. I have a large with a 90mm stem. I'm swapping to a 70mm as soon as I get the funds to match the rest of my bikes. To be honest though it doesn't feel bad with a 90mm. Gets your weight forward a little bit for the climbs.

    I would try to ride both. I normally like a smaller feeling bike... Maybe try a large with a 50/60mm stem, and a medium with a 90mm. It also depends on the area you live and how much climbing there is. Here in the front range everything is at least 1000' climb so I like being able to keep the front wheel down.

    I like having a smaller bike in the snow as well.
    Front Range, Colorado

  26. #26
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,804
    My buddy just built one up for a shop demo.



    More photos here: clicky
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379
    man that is great, the photo of the guy riding it is a great pic !!!

  28. #28
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,804

    Surly ICT thread

    Yeah, that's him. Owns the shop, puts together some sick custom builds, and is one of the real pillars of our cycling community.

    I haven't gotten a chance to take the ICT out yet, but hopefully I will before long. Looks like a lot of fun.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Welnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    867
    I would go with a 100mm Bluto. As far as I can tell there is one part that is different between the sizes and it costs about $40. And you can get 90mm and 110mm.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    100mm it is. I'm loving the dropper post on that demo bike too. As soon as I finish my wife's 907 I'm going to change some more things on mine- 100mm bluto for sure. Swapping out the 90mm stem to a 70mm, and some wider carbon bars. I'd like to make this thing a little more comfortable for some endurance 30+ mile rides. Just put a syntace hi flex carbon seat post to see if that takes a little edge off.

    I'd also like to build a 29+ wheel set but I have all winter for that.
    Front Range, Colorado

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bone Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by sb1616ne View Post
    how is the real world sizing of the ICT? I am roughly 510-11 and from the numbers torn between a med and large. I pedaled around a med but felt a hair small, but its got a pretty long TT for a med.
    I'm 5'11" and got the large. Perfect fit. I felt the same as you on a medium.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    417
    ^^^^Ditto.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    227
    My shop had a guy buy a blue ICT and put a 100mm Bluto on it. I set him up tubeless the other day and today when I went in the shop, there was this big discussion on returning the Bluto.

    Why?

    When he would pump the tires up over 12psi, the Bud would rub enough on the crown that it would stop the wheel. Didn't fit. The guys at the shop called RockShox and they said this fork wasn't designed for the Bud/Clownshoe setup. After back and forth with QBP, they finally agreed to refund him.

    Sorry, but I did not see it in person, but I obviously trust my shop was telling the truth.

    Sounds like kind of a big deal! Anyone having issues?

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    the stock rigid fork looks better anyway.

    rog

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    the stock rigid fork looks better anyway.

    rog
    I agree, IF i were to go hardtail fatbike, I'd go with 80mm rims max anyways.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    145
    The Bud on 80s is close enough for the new tire nubbies to hit the crown. But it would seem to me that a wider rim would actually decrease the circumference, no?

  37. #37
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    decrease height, increase width.

    rog

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    decrease height, increase width.

    rog

    You sure?

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: asollie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    269
    I've had my front tire between 8-10 psi, tubeless, with the bluto and have encountered no issues. That includes a lot of riding on bumpy technical trails, and I weigh ~225 with gear.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by asollie View Post
    I've had my front tire between 8-10 psi, tubeless, with the bluto and have encountered no issues. That includes a lot of riding on bumpy technical trails, and I weigh ~225 with gear.
    what front tire/rim? Photos/Video?
    Front Range, Colorado

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: asollie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    what front tire/rim? Photos/Video?
    Bud with a Clownshoe.






  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Quote Originally Posted by matto6 View Post
    quite

    rog

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964

    Re: Surly ICT thread

    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    quite

    rog
    Serious question: have you measured the height of the same bud on two different width rims? Did you click my link?

    Lots of people assume the general rule that wider rims = shorter tire. It's often not true. Narrower rims pull the tire in more, leaving less for height. Rounder, yes. Taller, no.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    68
    If you look at the surly tire geometry chart, (http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downl...Geometries.pdf)
    you will find that fat tire diameters don't change with changes in rim width. (65mm/80mm/100mm).

    The 29+ and 26+ tires do get taller as rim width increases from 29mm to 50mm.

    Is the data 100% accurate? I don't know.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by brebla View Post
    If you look at the surly tire geometry chart, (http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downl...Geometries.pdf)
    you will find that fat tire diameters don't change with changes in rim width. (65mm/80mm/100mm).

    The 29+ and 26+ tires do get taller as rim width increases from 29mm to 50mm.

    Is the data 100% accurate? I don't know.
    Actual data. Nice.

  46. #46
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    my 3.8 on 65 is taller than on 80. end of story.

    rog

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    This thread is about a bud on a 100.

  48. #48
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    same difference. a bud on 80 would be taller.

    rog

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964

    Re: Surly ICT thread

    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    same difference. a bud on 80 would be taller.

    rog
    Did you not see brebla's post to Surley's measurements that say you're wrong?

    And my link that with more data confirming your generalization is false?

    Wider rim does not always producer a smaller diameter tire. Lots of evidence of this.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,088
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    My buddy just built one up for a shop demo.

    Man....that is a pretty sweet build! Very original. Me likey.

Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SURLY KramPug thread...
    By coastkid71 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 310
    Last Post: 02-05-2017, 12:12 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 08:03 PM
  3. My Surly Necromancer Experience Thread
    By Keski in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 07:24 PM
  4. 24" Surly Ogre Build Thread
    By fatpig in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-15-2012, 09:34 AM
  5. Surly Bikes Film Thread
    By coastkid71 in forum Surly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-24-2011, 07:09 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
  •