Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 91
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by JAGI410 View Post
    I think ward wants symmetrical steel at a Surly price.
    Krampus frame is a good option for symetrical SS or IGH if you are OK with 29+ (3.0" wide) tire. Would have been nice if krampus rear had been built to also accomidate a 26x4" singlespeed wheel/tire too but I doubt the width will fit.

  2. #27
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Got to "meet" a Fatback steel couple weeks ago..
    I would like to meet a steel Fatback as well.

    edit: make that a 190mm steel Fatback
    And I love beer!!

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,606
    My steel fatback does in fact shred singletrack.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  4. #29
    be1
    be1 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    20
    I like 135 offset. I started out with a pugs and then a 907 offset. I hope to get a Ti 135 offset at some point. I have never ridden a symmetrical fatbike. I have never noticed that 135 offset handles differently from how a mtb handles, but it did take me awhile to understand the concept at first. I hope 135 offset never goes away.

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    784

    Re: Will Surly Ever Build A Symmetrical Fat Bike?

    The ONLY advantage to a symmetrical design is the prospect of running 29er rims. Everything else is just a negative. Fewer hubs to select from, heavier, more expensive, and no possibility of running internal gear hubs. Don't understand why people view this as a good thing.

    Not only am I trying to fix what isn't broken, I'm paying more to reduce versatility.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,813
    Quote Originally Posted by be1 View Post
    I like 135 offset. I started out with a pugs and then a 907 offset. I hope to get a Ti 135 offset at some point. I have never ridden a symmetrical fatbike. I have never noticed that 135 offset handles differently from how a mtb handles, but it did take me awhile to understand the concept at first. I hope 135 offset never goes away.
    +1 happy with 135mm, still using 5 year old Hope hubs from previous MTBs, on my pugs and Moonie, now that Rabbit Holes have come along i can have one bike with two wheelsets to choose from, also ideal for a day trip or holiday away with the car,
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post
    +1 happy with 135mm, still using 5 year old Hope hubs from previous MTBs, on my pugs and Moonie, now that Rabbit Holes have come along i can have one bike with two wheelsets to choose from, also ideal for a day trip or holiday away with the car,
    Same can be true w/ many 170's or the new 190...

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    The ONLY advantage to a symmetrical design is the prospect of running 29er rims. Everything else is just a negative. Fewer hubs to select from, heavier, more expensive, and no possibility of running internal gear hubs. Don't understand why people view this as a good thing.

    Not only am I trying to fix what isn't broken, I'm paying more to reduce versatility.
    Ease up ultrasportane! I never trashed offset! even supported it as viable! some of us like symmetrical... GET OVER IT! nothing here was meant to be "negative"...

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Ease up ultrasportane! I never trashed offset! even supported it as viable! some of us like symmetrical... GET OVER IT! nothing here was meant to be "negative"...
    But, but, he's right!

    (I didn't see that as a negative or inflammatory post)

    It really comes down to whether you wish to compromise the advantages of a 135 offset for the ability to use 29er wheels in the off season, and that's a perfectly valid thing to do if you wish to run just one frame set.

    Wider tyres are changing the bikes, so I suspect we'll be seeing separate classes of fatbikes soon, rather than one size fits all.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,813
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Same can be true w/ many 170's or the new 190...
    True indeed Ward!, but what would i do with all the stuff i have bought already?, 3 frames (4 soon!) and rear 135mm hubs and 4 Large Marge offset rims -
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by GrayJay View Post
    Krampus frame is a good option for symetrical SS or IGH if you are OK with 29+ (3.0" wide) tire. Would have been nice if krampus rear had been built to also accomidate a 26x4" singlespeed wheel/tire too but I doubt the width will fit.
    One of the benefits of the Krampus IMO is the fact you can swap over existing 29er parts and get one rolling so easily.

    I did just that to see how I liked it before I built any special wheels for my Krampus.

    To keep that cross-compatibility Surly had to really push the limits of the frame and frankly 29+ rubber barely fits in a Krampus.

    If they had made the frame so it had more clearance they would at the very least have to have spec'd a wider than normal crank.

    It's not a matter of better or worse, but a question of what the priority was for the frame design. Surly went with 29er compatibility which makes sense to me.

    You can go 29+ with a fatbike frame and get mega clearance at the cost of needing lots of non-standard parts.

    My plan with the Krampus was try it with my existing 29er parts and if I like it keep it and build 29+ specific wheels. If I didn't like it sell the frame/fork/tires to somebody else who wanted to try it out and I check out a different 29er frame at a minimal loss.

    That made the Krampus experiment low risk - ideal if you are trying to get a new platform standard off the ground.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    738
    I would have listed myself into the symmetrical group until this point in time. My response was...why do offset if symmetrical is available? Truth be told, it is all well...a concept just in my head.

    While I have always understood the reasons for offset, I had a cringe when Surly came out with the ML and the 28mm offset. But time has proven the amount as stable.

    If building a custom it would be a 170 with offset due to unproven new hubs and all that goes with any other distracting considerations one may bring up. Just another 'concept' in my head?

    Surly doesn't need a different hub size to accommodate the widest existing tires; but if they or someone else should go beyond 4.8, then the question should be answered. I would place my money on keeping with tradition for the sake of tradition alone.

    So would Surly go with a wider hub and less offset or just an increase in offset to accommodate a new tire width?

    In defense of Ward, it is a question I have asked myself in the past, nice/fun to see it brought out into the open. Any other 'takers' on that point?

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post
    True indeed Ward!, but what would i do with all the stuff i have bought already?, 3 frames (4 soon!) and rear 135mm hubs and 4 Large Marge offset rims -
    Good point CK, Same is true for those of us that started with sym. To switch means wheel sets won't swap. That's the one problem I have w/ 190, have to start from scratch. Of course Moonies are different offset than pugs too aren't they?

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,208
    Let's be honest we live in a culture where more/newer = better. So on that basis alone 170mm, 190mm, 225mm rear ends are going to valued even if 95% of riders would be just as well off on a 135mm offset rear end fatbike.

    The same holds true for tires and rims.

    The discussion is so frequently about going as big as possible. Not about matching actual performance against a specific rider's needs.

    Not to suggest I am immune to this mindset. I increased my Pug's rim size this year and if I could do it all over again I would stick with the narrower rims and have better performance.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    But, but, he's right!

    (I didn't see that as a negative or inflammatory post)

    It really comes down to whether you wish to compromise the advantages of a 135 offset for the ability to use 29er wheels in the off season, and that's a perfectly valid thing to do if you wish to run just one frame set.

    Wider tyres are changing the bikes, so I suspect we'll be seeing separate classes of fatbikes soon, rather than one size fits all.
    Don't think there's a right or wrong here, just differences. And the tires don't know which type they're mounted on... neither does the ground they're rollin' on. And once your in the saddle, there's virtually no difference to the rider either (maybe a few ounces but that hasn't been a huge issue to anyone I've ridden with). Truly didn't mean to start a debate between sym and offset... obviously hard for those who started with sym to break away from it and vise/versa for offset.

    What started it was that I recently finished a KM w/ midge bars for commuting & ramblin' around and fell back in love w/ steel...

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,768
    The biggest compromises are because of the limitations of derailleur gear systems. To get a wide range a considerable portion of the width of the hub has to be devoted to the the cassette, and if you want fat tyres then it's all got to be arranged so there's no tyre rub.

    Hubgears on the other hand only need one chainline. It's just a shame that none of them yet recognise the existence of fat wheels and give us a suitably spaced cog. (Rohloff, please listen )

    However, if we had to deal only with hub gears or single speed then the amount of offset required is minimal with even the fattest tyre.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    The biggest compromises are because of the limitations of derailleur gear systems. To get a wide range a considerable portion of the width of the hub has to be devoted to the the cassette, and if you want fat tyres then it's all got to be arranged so there's no tyre rub.

    Hubgears on the other hand only need one chainline. It's just a shame that none of them yet recognise the existence of fat wheels and give us a suitably spaced cog. (Rohloff, please listen )

    However, if we had to deal only with hub gears or single speed then the amount of offset required is minimal with even the fattest tyre.
    Yes Rohloff please listen...a wider hub and a gear range to favor the lower end as opposed to an unused upper end as now exists. (fat bike)

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Let's be honest we live in a culture where more/newer = better. So on that basis alone 170mm, 190mm, 225mm rear ends are going to valued even if 95% of riders would be just as well off on a 135mm offset rear end fatbike.

    The same holds true for tires and rims.

    The discussion is so frequently about going as big as possible. Not about matching actual performance against a specific rider's needs.

    Not to suggest I am immune to this mindset. I increased my Pug's rim size this year and if I could do it all over again I would stick with the narrower rims and had better performance.
    +1 We all would do well to remember this advice.

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    77
    "Hubgears on the other hand only need one chainline. It's just a shame that none of them yet recognise the existence of fat wheels and give us a suitably spaced cog. (Rohloff, please listen )

    However, if we had to deal only with hub gears or single speed then the amount of offset required is minimal with even the fattest tyre."

    ^^This^^

    I dunno much, but it seemed to me the whole thing hangs here. The Q factor on a Moonie starts to feel pretty wide to me, versus my Pug as is, so I dunno if i for one would ever be looking seriously at the rear end of a bike built for 190mm. I think the fat segment will divide into extreme float and mid-float like others have mentioned. Anyway, the interest seems to be growing exponentially and I don't know how much interest it would take for Shimano or Rohloff to take the fat bike seriously, but if the smiles we all get from riding these things is any indicator it seems pretty likely something will budge eventually in the IGH department for the better. I'm pretty sure there's an Alfine on my horizon soon anyway. My winter commute includes lots of shite on the road that's gonna cost me half a drivetrain per season.

    "The discussion is so frequently about going as big as possible. Not about matching actual performance against a specific rider's needs.

    Not to suggest I am immune to this mindset. I increased my Pug's rim size this year and if I could do it all over again I would stick with the narrower rims and had better performance."

    As ever, sage comments from the Vik. I was prodding you earlier Vik in your redux thread about your take on the move to the RDs, mostly because I opted for the Necro build when I couldn't quite shake the notion that a bit fatter might be better. I know now the Marges woulda served me better for 75% of the riding I do. That said, I have that Moonie fork sitting there begging for some 5" Bud lovin' and I doubt I'll be able to resist once I come across one cheap. I'm always building on a budget and the more fat bikes take off, the more take-offs I can scoop up to stay fat! Yeah!!

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Yes Rohloff please listen...a wider hub and a gear range to favor the lower end as opposed to an unused upper end as now exists. (fat bike)
    Rohloff are not interested in doing a wider hub at this stage (I'm sure that's been mentioned on another thread, but I've forgotten)

    The only hope may be Sturmey-Archer. If we could persuade them to stick 5 gears into their 170mm hub instead of 3, that would be a start, and surely technically feasible because they use interchangeable hub shells for the 3 and 5 speeds in other sizes. And for the icing on the cake get them to use the rotary change mechanism they have introduced on some 3spds for cleaner cable runs.

    I'd simply run 2 chainrings on the front so I could get a wider range. That would involve dropping the wheel and moving the chain over by hand. I already do this on my singlespeed Pugsley depending on whether it's a bog day or a trail day.

    The beauty of a single chainline is we can run fat tyres without increasing our Q-factors with tyres up to about 5 1/2".
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    875
    One thing I keep sing is "if someone makes a fatter tire..."

    Given how few tires there actually are at the moment, who exactly is going to be making a fatter tire?

    Given that QBP controls like 99% of the fatbike tire market, And that they do not currently have a bike that needs a tire fatter than 5", who is going to make this tire?

    There's some seriously magical thinking around fatbikes.

    Given that surly ain't gonna make a symetrical bike because they're surly, and Salsa seems to be heading further down the lighter is better trail, I don't see tires wider than 5" being an industry prerogative any time soon.

  22. #47
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378

    Re: Will Surly Ever Build A Symmetrical Fat Bike?

    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Given how few tires there actually are at the moment, who exactly is going to be making a fatter tire?
    I really can't figure out why you continue to stick to this delusion... there are more fat bike tires than there ever has been in the history of fat bikes. FACT.

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    I really can't figure out why you continue to stick to this delusion... there are more fat bike tires than there ever has been in the history of fat bikes. FACT.
    And there are more blue whales now than there were 50 years ago but they're still endangered as hell.

    More isn't a lot, it's just more.

    How many 5 inch tires are there, 2? Sooooooooo, 2 tires means a lot?

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    160
    I still maintain that once you've gotten so fat that you're too big for technical MTB trails, you might as well go all the way to amphibious.

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    160
    I count 3 5" tires from Surly alone (though that's cheating because Bud and Lou are a pair). Then there's Specialized ground control, and something coming from Vee rubber. So this is 4-5, depending on how you count them, and the first bike to take them has been out for only 2 years.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Surly Straggler Ordered. Help me with the Build!
    By matmattmatthew in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 02:49 PM
  2. surly 1x1 - new build
    By teleguy03 in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-20-2012, 07:14 AM
  3. Surly LHT Build
    By Hartmame in forum Surly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-09-2012, 07:52 AM
  4. Symmetrical lacing an asymmetrical rim?
    By ctxcrossx in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-07-2011, 12:20 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2011, 07:17 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
  •