Results 1 to 76 of 76
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fat_tires_are_fun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    517

    When does wider become...too wide?

    I am curious about peoples thoughts around this. It seems to me that the current fat bike was built around tires under 4 inches. As with most things that begin to gain popularity, the limits are being pushed...now it seems that tires up to 5 inches and wheels like the clownshoe are becoming more commonplace. At what point do you guys/ladies think wider becomes too wide? In other words, big fat tires have a tradeoff....mainly nimbleness and speed. What is the realistic maximum width that you think can be achieved before this tradeoff becomes to great? I am sure that 10 years ago, most would have thought that 4 inches would be too far......
    - MOOTS Mooto X
    - Salsa Fargo
    - Niner RLT9

  2. #2
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,670
    Depends on what you're using it for.

    Summer? Already plenty wide. Hence 29+ tires this year which really are not fat and are named appropriately.

    Snow? They barely work in a variety of conditions. I'd like to pack fresh powder up to the pedals and not have to walk. I'm a little sour on the subject of fat bikes right now because they aren't fat enough.

    Search for "jackshaft" on this subforum and you'll find that this has been discussed already, you'll find a variety of thoughts in those threads. Theoretical limits have to do with chainstay length, the existince of chainstay yoke / tire / cranks / human legs all existing in one place at the same time. If you throw chainstay length out the window you can do crazy jackshaft stuff.

    I'm working on those drawings right now actually!

    Michael Keaton as Batman "You wanna get nuts?!" - YouTube
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  3. #3
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    diminishing returns rings a bell on said subject just as it does with others, that said me believes 5 is plenty for those in fresh powder or sugar sand with 3-4psi.
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    They're already too wide.

    They're too wide for suspension forks.
    They're too wide for your frame.
    They're too wide for your rack.
    They're too wide for your pump.
    They're too wide to shred singletrack.

    I know these things are true because I read them here.

    They're too damn wide!

  5. #5
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    They're already too wide.

    They're too wide for suspension forks.
    They're too wide for your frame.
    They're too wide for your rack.
    They're too wide for your pump.
    They're too wide to shred singletrack.

    I know these things are true because I read them here.

    They're too damn wide!
    did you stay @ a holiday inn express lastnight??
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    did you stay @ a holiday inn express lastnight??
    Yes. Out back behind the Dumpster, as usual.

  7. #7
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Yes. Out back behind the Dumpster, as usual.
    thats my spot ya fuggah so get out!!
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  8. #8
    Titanium junkie
    Reputation: Loudviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,429
    Bunch of guys discussing width, ask any woman and 3.8 is wide enough.
    Climb into the sky, never wonder why - Tailgunner
    You're a Tailgunner

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Oh no! Here we go again. I didn't pay this guy to start this thread!
    Just go with what you like and forget it. There are too many opinions here that will not agree with yours.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtuck1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    418
    Every man knows all that matters is having the right (size) tool for the job...

  11. #11
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712

    Re: When does wider become...too wide?

    And how you wiggle it...
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  12. #12
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    Name:  fat ass.jpeg
Views: 75983
Size:  11.1 KB


    yup
    I am slow therefore I am

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,091
    Its kinda funny, when I was buying my 9zero the salesman was totally against the moonlander tire width. "That's overkill" he said!! What a liar. I would have loved to be able to fit bud and Lou on some clownies last winter. The wider the footprint (in snow) the better. Knard and hudu on rd in the summer is just about right IMHO.

  14. #14
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    This ...

    The soft surfaces will direct growth. More options in the current sizes for sure but wider should be a choice for those that need it
    the question becomes how does one(or two) ascertain / quantify if a 6" on 120mm rim is superior to a 5" on 100mm in 4" of fresh powder??
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Going wider than current offerings is an interesting topic. Obviously we don't know for sure if we have reached the limits of diminishing returns. The things holding us back from going wider are practical (Q-factor, chainstays etc.) instead of any proof that a 4.8" tire is the largest size that works well. Some say even a Moonlander is a bit too wide, but I beg to differ.

    The front has much more room for going wider easily. Shifting the weight forward would allow to make use of extra float in the front, and with a Lou in the rear you'd still go forward instead of slipping due to reduced weight in the back.

    The chainstays could be elevated outside of the crank radius to get more room in the rear without increasing Q-factor. I've been told this frame design is easily quite flexy, but we're not talking about a mountainbike you ride hard, but a floating snow bike that requires some finesse. Having cruised on untouched snow over some local bays, I can tell if there's one thing that kills the float, it's mashing the pedals.

    I'm happy with my Moonlander, but I'm eagerly waiting to see future offerings as well.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    I like to ride over boggy ground so I have an opinion or two on this...

    I've been saying for ages that 6" would do the trick. It's probably the max we could get out of current bike design without excessively wide Q-factors. The volume increase of a 6" over a 4" tyre can be roughly estimated by the ratio of the square of the tyre cross-section radii (the circumference of the centrelines would differ), so a 4" tyre would have a cross-section radius of 2", which squared is 4sqin, and a 6" tyre similarly would be 9 sqin.

    In other words the 6" tyre would roughly (very roughly ) have over 2 times the volume of the 4".


    If we look at alternative pedal systems such as the Alenax, then 8" or more would be possible.

    Float also depends on so many different factors other than the tyre width, eg inflation pressure, width of rim, etc.

    The other factor is that once you're able to ride on ultrasoft surfaces, you need to be able to do so without stopping, because you are likely to sink up to your neck once you put a foot down.

    Maybe we won't reach the width limit until we can ride on water.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  17. #17
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    boggy ground being??
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    boggy ground being??






    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: E6roller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    154
    Yep, that is boggy ground!

  20. #20
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    swamp comes to mind but yes.
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    394
    the wider the tires the crazier places we will find to ride I think there is no such limit as too fat, well only if you want to talk yourself into not needing to go bigger which is fine, but then you also wont be able to venture out on the most extreme terrain.

  22. #22
    Hooligan
    Reputation: dirtdawg21892's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    937
    i think wide tires are going to do the same thing that suspension did. just get bigger and bigger until it's overcome by limmitations, then it will downsize to wherever worked best. for suspension that was about 8" or 200mm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    Hell of a jump, dawg. Even though they're baggy shorts, I'm surprised that you can fit your balls into them.

  23. #23
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,133
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    They're already too wide.

    I know these things are true because I read them here.

    They're too damn wide!
    The sad truth is that *most* bean-counting manufacturers agree. Why build them fatter when 99% of people who've bought them in the last ~2 years are riding them on hardpacked singletrack, gravel roads, or pavement?

    Or not riding them at all?

    5" ain't wide enough, but it's a damn good start.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Since manufacturers of tires and rims will stop building them when they can't sell enough to justify the costs it's unlikely we'll get much larger than where we are now.

    The photos of older AK fatbikes had multiple rims/tires hacked together to get more float out of existing products.

    Dual 5" tires on dual 100mm rims gives you a lot more float than a Moonie if you can get a custom frame built to handle the uber wide wheels.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    ...
    Dual 5" tires on dual 100mm rims gives you a lot more float than a Moonie if you can get a custom frame built to handle the uber wide wheels.
    Who's going to be first?

    It actually has some advantages. The drive can be centralised which obviates the Q-factor so long as the chainstays are long enough to keep your heels clear off the tyres.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Does the bike have to float solely on the tires? I'm thinking of short and wide skis on the sides of the tires, supported by suspension swing-arms. They could be folded for regular riding and extended when you encounter snow that's over the flotation capability of your tires.

    Sorry, off-topic.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290

    That was...

    ...kind of the concept behind the "Six-Pack"...The center tire was taller and wider than the outer tires so that on hard-pack the
    rolling resistance was approximately the same as a standard wheel...when things got soft and the center tire settled into the snow, the outboard
    tires would contact and add to the contact-patch.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails When does wider become...too wide?-billy-rodger.jpeg  

    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    As long as it's pedal powered I'm in.

    One of the things I like about FB's is that there's no "rules" or "tradition" to adhere too like in some areas of cycling... If 5" works better for you than 4" on the surface your trying to navigate... groovy! And if 6" proves even better... Awesome! Knowing what I know about high floatation though, I would like to see rim options keep up w/ tires. For maximum float of any given tire (even road bike tires), the rim needs to be as wide as or nearly as wide as the tread. Unfortunatly the trade off is poor handling on anything but soft sand/snow/etc. and that turns the folks that aren't pushing the limits Surface wise off... I have a feeling that, like the folks that put giant tires/wheels/lift kit on they're truck and then drive it 95% of the time on pavement, that some folks are buying FB's just because the look "monster" and "bad a$$". And bike company's are probably counting on that... and hence the push to make them handle better on "all around" surfaces. I believe rim width is as important as tire size! In fact on soft sand, I think endo's on 100's will beat BFL's on 80's just because of the "profile" shape or "cross section". How those sidewall's "stand" does matter. Long story short... I'd like to see a 120mm rim next...

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    ...or maybe this would "float your fatty" Saul...Jwheelz - a new bolt-on attachment for ATVs and UTVs
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    ...or maybe this would "float your fatty" Saul...Jwheelz - a new bolt-on attachment for ATVs and UTVs
    Now that's floatation!!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Haha! Great stuff!

    How about a three-pack front: Rabbit Hole and Knard in the center with a regular Krampus fork, Clown Shoes and BFLs on both sides. The side wheels could have Lefty hubs so the conversion shouldn't all that hard. I think you'd only need a custom machined axle. Fork legs would be in between the wheels. Shift weight forward and enjoy the insane float, only lean back enough to get traction without sinking the rear.

  32. #32
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    ...or maybe this would "float your fatty" Saul...Jwheelz - a new bolt-on attachment for ATVs and UTVs
    Works for lefty forks, when do we get a single sided rear swingarm fatbike so we can have one on the back too? wait, then we'll need a "righty" fork instead of a lefty
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    61
    There is the Hanebrink with 8" tires that has been around for many years. However it never seemed to cause too much excitement.

    UR

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    919
    4.8" apparently

  35. #35
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,670
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleRobin View Post
    There is the Hanebrink with 8" tires that has been around for many years. However it never seemed to cause too much excitement.

    UR
    I suggest that is because the tire diameter was too small.

    Keep the 29 - 30 inch ish diameter. Add several inches of tire width. That'd be exciting to some.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    No point having a fatbike with uber wide float that is hard to pedal. Human power only goes so far. If your fatbike isn't efficient it is just a toy for showing off or stunt riding.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    The situation at the moment is that for certain surfaces I need more float - and pedaling is still quite light where I do move forward. To me it means that there's room to make things wider.

  38. #38
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,949
    If a wider tire was made I'd buy it. We don't know what is too wide, not yet.

  39. #39
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,540
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    No point having a fatbike with uber wide float that is hard to pedal. Human power only goes so far. If your fatbike isn't efficient it is just a toy for showing off or stunt riding.
    exactly, all this talk of wanting wider rims/tires but easy to forget the fitness level to spin them.
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    No point having a fatbike with uber wide float that is hard to pedal. Human power only goes so far. If your fatbike isn't efficient it is just a toy for showing off or stunt riding.
    That's true up to a point.

    That point being where the surface is so soft that your 4" tyre is sinking in. At that point a fatter tyre is much easier to pedal.

    BTW was not that same argument used a few years ago about why 4" tyres weren't as good as 2"?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    That's true up to a point.

    That point being where the surface is so soft that your 4" tyre is sinking in. At that point a fatter tyre is much easier to pedal.

    BTW was not that same argument used a few years ago about why 4" tyres weren't as good as 2"?
    Given that people are covering expedition distances on the existing 4" and 5" fatbikes we are not at a point yet where fatbikes are too inefficient relative to human power to be useful tools for covering ground.

    My point is that we cannot simply assume that wider and wider tires will continue to be useful.

    I don't know where that limit is precisely, but I do know that human power is finite and we can easily reach that limit. The reason that the Hannebrink isn't popular is that its not efficient enough to be useful.

    From a practical point of view the cost of designing, building and selling fatbikes and their parts is likely to mean we'll never see a production fatbike that approaches these human limits. There just wouldn't be the market for it so companies would kill the idea at the feasibility study stage.

    That's why I brought up the idea of using multiple wheels on each end of a custom fatbike to get more floatation using existing parts.

    If you are someone that really wants/needs more floatation that's probably the approach you'll need to take to get to your objective.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  42. #42
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,670
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    From a practical point of view the cost of designing, building and selling fatbikes and their parts is likely to mean we'll never see a production fatbike that approaches these human limits. There just wouldn't be the market for it so companies would kill the idea at the feasibility study stage.

    That's why I brought up the idea of using multiple wheels on each end of a custom fatbike to get more floatation using existing parts.

    If you are someone that really wants/needs more floatation that's probably the approach you'll need to take to get to your objective.
    Agreed
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    919
    Imagine replacing 4 tyres at a time, my bank balance is winching just thinking about it!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    858
    I think fatbikes are only viable while they share a big percentage of parts with normal bikes.
    We are already witnessing tires/rims becoming too wide for most std drivetrain components.

    IMO one of the greatest things about the Pugsley is how it uses so many std mtb parts

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Ze_Zaskar View Post
    I think fatbikes are only viable while they share a big percentage of parts with normal bikes.
    We are already witnessing tires/rims becoming too wide for most std drivetrain components.

    IMO one of the greatest things about the Pugsley is how it so many std mtb parts
    The evolution of mountain bikes did the same.

    But I agree about the Pugsley.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Ze_Zaskar: We are? My Moonlander has a long spindle in the BB, no other proprietary parts in the drivetrain. Rear hub, cassette, derailleur, chain, BB and cranks are all bog standard stuff compatible with regular bikes. With symmetric rears you need a wide hub but everything else is as above. If there are standards that boggle my mind it's the 1.5" steerers that may or may not taper down, 142 mm hubs and 15 and 20 mm axles you see in 'conventional' mountainbikes.

    Good practical viewpoints from vikb. I don't expect manufacturers to go significantly wider anytime soon and even the 4.7"-range will remain small compared to 4", which seems to become the norm.

    My longing for more float is what you could call stunt driving in the sense that I'm not looking to get from A to B (well I do that as well, but current offerings are more than enough for that), but just to ride around for the hell of riding on stuff that would sink even a fatbike. I want to roll and float over snow that covers me up to the chest if I get off the bike. Not because I need to be there but because it would be fun.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Lumikko View Post
    Ze_Zaskar: We are? My Moonlander has a long spindle in the BB, no other proprietary parts in the drivetrain. Rear hub, cassette, derailleur, chain, BB and cranks are all bog standard stuff compatible with regular bikes. With symmetric rears you need a wide hub but everything else is as above. If there are standards that boggle my mind it's the 1.5" steerers that may or may not taper down, 142 mm hubs and 15 and 20 mm axles you see in 'conventional' mountainbikes.

    100mm BBs, 170mm hubs, 190mm hubs, OD cranks...
    A hub is "just a hub" but try to get a 170mm hub fast in europe...

    I'm with you on the circus that mtb standardization is becoming

  48. #48
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,352
    Ya'll still talking? It does look like I agree with the general concensus -

    1) For softer surfaces you need wider tires
    2) The current max 5" tires are not wide enough for some of the surfaces that I and other wild eyed types want to ride
    3) Mfg's are approaching the limits of the standard bicycle layout and components.


    Going up another 1" in tire width will require another 1" in BB width, which means at least a longer spindle and more spacers or a new BB width. And a wider rear hub or more rear frame offset. Moonlanders got more offset, a longer BB spindle and spacers. I think a MaxieMoonie (6") is within reason, but look at the time gap between Pugs and Moonlanders. Even the Pugsley followed a lot of grassroots experimentation.

    I'm hoping that the 5" width gets more support from existing mfg's in terms of tires, hubs, and cranksets - oh and framesets.

    If I get the time&money, I will experiment with wider - but that means hacking tires, at the least. Buy 2 BFL's or Lou's(ouch). Cut one bead off each (while gritting teeth). Baseball stitch them together and get something in the 7-8" range. Mount them on a 100mm rim? Or hack two rims together (more $ouch$). WhooHoo! Now go build a frame to support this. Gonna be a while.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Given that people are covering expedition distances on the existing 4" and 5" fatbikes we are not at a point yet where fatbikes are too inefficient relative to human power to be useful tools for covering ground.

    My point is that we cannot simply assume that wider and wider tires will continue to be useful.

    I don't know where that limit is precisely, but I do know that human power is finite and we can easily reach that limit. The reason that the Hannebrink isn't popular is that its not efficient enough to be useful.

    From a practical point of view the cost of designing, building and selling fatbikes and their parts is likely to mean we'll never see a production fatbike that approaches these human limits. There just wouldn't be the market for it so companies would kill the idea at the feasibility study stage.

    That's why I brought up the idea of using multiple wheels on each end of a custom fatbike to get more floatation using existing parts.

    If you are someone that really wants/needs more floatation that's probably the approach you'll need to take to get to your objective.
    Nice response. I agree with you.

    I think the Ultrasport was won on a 100mm rim with a 3.8" tire...

  50. #50
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,949
    wadester, I like your thinking. As I was riding down a shallow river yesterday my mind wondered to a place with wider tires.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    This pic may illustrate why I have a use/desire for wider tyres.




    If you venture off the tracks in this sort of terrain it's pretty hard to pedal, but often there's a skinny deer or sheep track about 2" wide that makes it possible. On the slopes there's not a huge problem, but when you get to the flat bits, they're usually boggy - in fact anywhere water can gather = bog. The ability to keep pedalling to get across the flats would be a great help because often a dismount can get pretty messy with bog.


    Edit: just to make it clear, when riding on that sort of terrain it's usually ride about 20 yards, hop off, bike on shoulder and jump a boghole, back on and ride another bit, off again and push bike for a bit on soft stuff, repeat ad nausem.
    Last edited by Velobike; 09-02-2013 at 12:46 AM.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Since personal preference, fitness levels, and even "gumption" drive personal opinions on this subject, I'd never say someone was wrong about they're ideas on this. And, for sure, pedaling a bike w/ 6" tires is gonna take some energy and work. However, many cyclists still can't fathom fat biking at all, let alone wider. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've tried to explain "but you don't understand high floatation... it get's easier to pedal when it gets into it's element." And, once it's in it's element, often we let air OUT to go faster and pedal easier. For many cyclists, that's pretty hard to grasp. The Hanebrink didn't work so well for pedal power for a list of reason's, and that's been covered many times on this forum. Small tire diameter, long chain stays, and a rim that's only half as wide as it's tread to name a few. I'm super happy about how things have evolved with FB's as well. In fact I can't afford to keep up with all the developements as fast as they're coming around. The FB I currently pedal on soft sand/snow works so dang much better than what we rode in the Sno-Cat days it's not even comparable... and we thought we had it figured out then. Personally, if we're talking about one of my favorite surfaces- soft sand- which in a dry spell can get soft really deep, I'd be excited to try a 6" bike. I have "sunk" my 100's many times in really soft sand and at that point it's REALLY hard to pedal. If a wider system kept you on top, at that point it would be easier to pedal than a narrower, lighter bike. We talked about this in a thread a while back... I think a 5.5"- 24" rim w/ a 6" tire that's 29ish tall and thin/supple would be wicked cool for dune riding. Whether or not there's a market that would support manufacturing it (and the frame/components required to run 'em) is another question. "till then, lovin' the fatty that's rollin' along under me right now!!

  53. #53
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,670
    Exactly ward. A given person may not agree or, say, may not be interested in packing fresh snow by themselves, or whatever, but don't tell me I'm wrong. If I'm wrong then the person criticizing is just as wrong as being a fat bike in the first place from the perspective of weight weenie 29er guy, who is just as wrong to 26er guy for being on a 29er.

    80/20, we're getting into the mechanical / manufacturing parts of it rather than just the social.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    4.7" tyres on 100mm rims ala Moonlander is all you need with a 2x9 or 2x10 drive chain, you will ride where you want on that size be it Big Fat Larrys or Bud and Lou,

    Any more will be useless and a drag a soon as you hit firm ground as you will do on Moor land rides, and probably awefull on high speed descents
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post
    4.7" tyres on 100mm rims ala Moonlander is all you need with a 2x9 or 2x10 drive chain, you will ride where you want on that size be it Big Fat Larrys or Bud and Lou,

    Any more will be useless and a drag a soon as you hit firm ground as you will do on Moor land rides, and probably awefull on high speed descents
    To each his own brother... and cheers to you CK for sure! But don't be tellin' me what I "need" or "want". I don't give a darn what the tires look like (as long as there round)... if it's got pedals, I want to pedal it!!

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    [QUOTE=ward;10648147]Personally, if we're talking about one of my favorite surfaces- soft sand- which in a dry spell can get soft really deep, I'd be excited to try a 6" bike. I have "sunk" my 100's many times in really soft sand and at that point it's REALLY hard to pedal. If a wider system kept you on top, at that point it would be easier to pedal than a narrower, lighter bike. We talked about this in a thread a while back... I think a 5.5"- 24" rim w/ a 6" tire that's 29ish tall and thin/supple would be wicked cool for dune riding. QUOTE]

    Ward; as I recall, you are the only one that has recorded this on video, one of your Oregon Dunes trips, I believe. I remember a picture of the front wheel sinking well over the top of the rim.

    Another thing of note, from watching the beach videos from the UK, have you noticed that the beach/sand is somewhat different that what we might generally expect here in the Pacific Northwest? Seems to have a higher silt content? Perhaps due to the fact that here we have an 'open' ocean, while the UK does not?

    I remember many years ago, being across from McNeil Island in the sound, and was reminded of it from some of the UK stuff.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    [QUOTE=Sand Rat;10648276]
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Personally, if we're talking about one of my favorite surfaces- soft sand- which in a dry spell can get soft really deep, I'd be excited to try a 6" bike. I have "sunk" my 100's many times in really soft sand and at that point it's REALLY hard to pedal. If a wider system kept you on top, at that point it would be easier to pedal than a narrower, lighter bike. We talked about this in a thread a while back... I think a 5.5"- 24" rim w/ a 6" tire that's 29ish tall and thin/supple would be wicked cool for dune riding. QUOTE]

    Ward; as I recall, you are the only one that has recorded this on video, one of your Oregon Dunes trips, I believe. I remember a picture of the front wheel sinking well over the top of the rim.

    Another thing of note, from watching the beach videos from the UK, have you noticed that the beach/sand is somewhat different that what we might generally expect here in the Pacific Northwest? Seems to have a higher silt content? Perhaps due to the fact that here we have an 'open' ocean, while the UK does not?

    I remember many years ago, being across from McNeil Island in the sound, and was reminded of it from some of the UK stuff.

    Good point to remember when talking about fat bikes... sand, snow, pea gravel, bog, and whatever else your trying to traverse vary's ALLOT around the "Big Blue Marble"!! Often times we're not all on the "same page" surface wise.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Lumikko View Post
    I want to roll and float over snow that covers me up to the chest if I get off the bike. Not because I need to be there but because it would be fun.
    Saul, I don't think any width of tire is going to let you do that. Think how deep a guy sinks even on big old fashioned snow shoes. Even if you had enough power in your legs to overcome compressing all that snow I don't think the traction would be there. We still may not have reached the width limit and it may be wider for soft sand than snow but waist deep, well you can dream, sometimes just that is good.
    Latitude 61

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Let us not forget this contraption... still no accurate info on it. Who built it? How did it work? Two hubs per wheel? Auto inner tubes for tires w/ some grip paddles glued on? Cloth "hammock" rim "bed" between the two rims? Jack shaft via double BB's (guess you'd have to call the one on top a "TB". Still want to know more about this build. I first saw this pic in the early days of fat bikes.
    http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uplo.../01/bike04.jpg

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Here it is again, this time in the original blog post from 2006 by the guy that took the pic. He's also posted a pic of the early Hanebrink... which was much different than the "production" hanebrinks. This early model had rims twice as wide as later production models, and WAY bigger tires! The early versions reportedly worked quite well on sand (compared to anything available at the time). Unfortunately, Hanebrink settled for a much cheaper, smaller tire and narrower rim for most production bikes. Kind of killed the "buzz". Check Out This Odd Custom Beach Bicycle - Peter's Reviews

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Let us not forget this contraption... still no accurate info on it. Who built it? How did it work? Two hubs per wheel? Auto inner tubes for tires w/ some grip paddles glued on? Cloth "hammock" rim "bed" between the two rims? Jack shaft via double BB's (guess you'd have to call the one on top a "TB". Still want to know more about this build. I first saw this pic in the early days of fat bikes.
    http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uplo.../01/bike04.jpg
    I suspect that's probably the future for those of use who like to use their bikes as 4x4s.

    For real soft going the tyre need not be too heavy - I suspect using a car inner tube covered with a dense kevlar fabric to get what would be an ultra large tubular tyre may work.

    The question of balance and means of driving the wheels becomes the issue then. There are alternatives to chain drive that would work.

    We bog hoppers may end up on really fat quads almost able to ride over water.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,595
    A Quad seems like the best idea for floatation. Four 4" tires would be awesome to see.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,595
    Contes Engineering has a line of quads, including the Athos. It looks like it could be easily modded to take some moderate fat tires.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fat_tires_are_fun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    517
    Really some interesting responses here. It seems, as I thought, nobody knows. Its fun tonsee people continue to innovate and push..
    - MOOTS Mooto X
    - Salsa Fargo
    - Niner RLT9

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,521
    Quote Originally Posted by fat_tires_are_fun View Post
    Really some interesting responses here. It seems, as I thought, nobody knows. Its fun tonsee people continue to innovate and push..
    What we do know is that although what we can take us further than an ordinary mtb, we can still see stuff we can't ride over.

    Any improvement in one component usually leads to changes elsewhere, so there's still a long way to go with fatbikes IMO.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    Having also played with the concept of using tubes as tires...can't get past the thought that it would be like riding on JELLO...

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    Contes Engineering has a line of quads, including the Athos. It looks like it could be easily modded to take some moderate fat tires.
    There's a thread on here about that from a couple months ago... MiniTrail posted a vid that looks like it was shot at Cannon Beach Oregon...

    Fat bike quad!

  68. #68
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,173
    5.6 is where the madness will end....

  69. #69
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    5.6 is where the madness will end....
    People keep picking a max size


    I don't think that means what you think it means
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    Re: When does wider become...too wide?

    3.8" tires are too wide for most riders.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    So many posts I'd like to follow up on...but I'll throw in a couple pennies. If I make a run to the market down the street, and park my bike without a kickstand...well, that's wide enough, at least for me. The future of fatties may well go away from a chain drive and rear derailleur. Or maybe it will evolve into a split chain drive - we'll have to either wait and see or lead the trend. FB's are so versatile, but only show their strength where smaller footprints fail. I think you can get heavy enough...but wide enough? We're not there yet.

    Posted from my Canadian bacon and cheddar sandwich on flatbread.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,091
    I also think the total weight of the rider and bike wkll make a huge difference on float. Just like the 26/27.5/29 diameter debate based on height of rider.

    A less heavy rider can float on marge and little Larry, while heavy rider needs clowns and NFL to achieve an equal amount of float.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    So there seems to be interest in wider than the 5" tire on a 100mm rim. It doesn't look like any manufacturer is rushing to make a 6"+ tire fatbike. So is anyone going to do something custom with dual rims tires on each end or is the interest in bigger only if it's a low cost low hassle production item you can order our of a catologue?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

Similar Threads

  1. Handlebar Width! 660mm/26 inches! How wide is too wide?
    By TritonBill in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 12-13-2015, 01:33 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-15-2013, 03:59 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-11-2013, 12:37 PM
  4. I need new Wide Shoes, Opinions of Giro HV or Bontrager Wide?
    By paulrb02 in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-18-2012, 10:28 AM
  5. How wide is too wide of a handlebar for SS?
    By Kaizer in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 10:46 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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