Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 91
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    I realize the numbers of fat bikers riding lots of sand is a small percentage of the fat biker population... still, I'd love to see something like a Big Fat Endo.

  2. #52
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,522
    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.
    No one is going to make new fatbikes with 135 hubs, or at least they are going to be very rare. It makes no sense to do so. Symmetrical is a better structure, hands down. This means the bike's tubes can be made thinner, save weight, the hub can be the same way, doesn't have to be beefed up more on one side or creating asymmetric stress, wonky spoke angles, etc. Look at DH bikes for gods sake, same thing. 135 hubs are rare to nonexistant, although DH bikes most definitely started with and flirted with 135 hubs for a while. DH bikes need to be able to take a 2.7" rear tire, the linkage stuff that might go near the BB, gears, etc. 83 and 100mm BB shells. No one is making the same argument for DH bikes, that they need to have the same standards as XC bikes, for good reason.

    All of this and you can use 29er rims and tires in the summer. It's a win all around. Fatbikes took a while to get established and get buy-in from the rest of the industry, but now that more are involved, they are "doing it right", rather than tip-toeing and not really committing by using previous standards that are not very optimal.
    "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.

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by BATRG3 View Post
    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.
    We'll call it 3 then, since 3 actually exist at the moment.

    There are 3 versions of the Maxxis Minion alone. That's 3 versions of one tire, in a line up of 22 tires from one manufacturer. There is no shame in admitting that when it comes to tires, there's jack for fatbikes. and even less than jack for 5" tires.

    Yes, there's more than there were. But it's still not much.

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    749
    If you did a ratio of fatbikes (in wild) to fat tires and say 29ers (in world) to 29er tires.

    I would think we are doing pretty well.

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    No one is going to make new fatbikes with 135 hubs....Look at DH bikes for gods sake, same thing...

    All of this and you can use 29er rims and tires in the summer.....
    Offset in a Downhill bike is of limited use because they use narrow rims so they don't have the options in wheel lacing that we have with fatbikes, so the wheel "problem" doesn't exist to the same extent.

    I don't regard the use of 29er rims as a real advantage, it's more of a belt and braces policy, and 29er wheels mean you can't take your bike a lot of the places you can ride on a fatbike. I suppose it's ok if you are just sticking to established trails though, but really for that purpose a 29er is better anyway.

    I've found that I have only used my 29er once this summer, and then I wished I was on the fatbike. I use a set of narrower 26" rims (40mm) for summer and put higher pressure in the fat tyres for dry conditions, and I prefer that to a 29er.

    Symmetry is tidier, but it comes at a cost of eliminating the choices of a hubgear system and extra weight, and the disadvantage of having to use vulnerable derailleurs if you don't ride single speed.

    (I do have a symmetrical fatbike frame that I was going to build up with SS 29er wheels, but after looking at my real riding patterns I figured it wasn't worth the effort or expense. I'm still going to build it, but with the 170mm S-A 3 speed hub so I can try that out)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    763

    Re: Will Surly Ever Build A Symmetrical Fat Bike?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    No one is going to make new fatbikes with 135 hubs, or at least they are going to be very rare. It makes no sense to do so. Symmetrical is a better structure, hands down. This means the bike's tubes can be made thinner, save weight, the hub can be the same way, doesn't have to be beefed up more on one side or creating asymmetric stress, wonky spoke angles, etc. Look at DH bikes for gods sake, same thing. 135 hubs are rare to nonexistant, although DH bikes most definitely started with and flirted with 135 hubs for a while. DH bikes need to be able to take a 2.7" rear tire, the linkage stuff that might go near the BB, gears, etc. 83 and 100mm BB shells. No one is making the same argument for DH bikes, that they need to have the same standards as XC bikes, for good reason.

    All of this and you can use 29er rims and tires in the summer. It's a win all around. Fatbikes took a while to get established and get buy-in from the rest of the industry, but now that more are involved, they are "doing it right", rather than tip-toeing and not really committing by using previous standards that are not very optimal.
    I don't buy it.

    Whatever would be gained from "thinner tubes" or "superior structure" would be outweighed by the inability to use hub gears. Fatbikes practically beg for hub gears. My pugs is so much better with one. Not everyone likes them, but it's nice to have the option, rather than not.

    I can't imagine anyone crawling through muck on their 135mm offset fatbike thinking "man, what would really help me out right now is if they took away the possibility of using a hub gear on my bike and narrowed my hub options for something about superior structure".

    I'll take versatility over perceived spandex BS any day.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I use a set of narrower 26" rims (40mm) for summer and put higher pressure in the fat tyres for dry conditions, and I prefer that to a 29er.
    What 40mm rims did you use?

    As for the OP, I don't think Surly would change the Moonie to 190mm, but you never know.

    I think the majority of responses here from moonie owners were in favor of retaining the 135,

    but I don't see why they couldn't do both, and of course offer their own 190 hub,
    or,
    use a Salsa 170mm hub with 10mm offset, which is my preferred rear axle choice if going wider than 4".

    The 170mm hubs are readily available, compared to limited choice in 190, and most of them would end up having symmetrical spoke angles with a 10mm offset and a non-offset rim.

  8. #58
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    776
    ^^^^^Good one!
    Two IGH on two bikes. Not going back to DE-rail-yurs.....
    Versatility over spandex....Gotta be the best line ever.

  9. #59
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    776
    Wait a minute.
    I have read through this and just realized......you guys change your tires/wheels to something narrower!!!!! EEK!!

    Why? Why? I say! The madness! Make it stop!

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,701
    Quote Originally Posted by 1spd1way View Post
    Wait a minute.
    I have read through this and just realized......you guys change your tires/wheels to something narrower!!!!! EEK!!

    Why? Why? I say! The madness! Make it stop!
    I don't think many actually do it though.

    I may be wrong, but none of the people I know with fatbikes bother to change their wheels. They've usually got a 29er lying around gathering dust too.

    It's probably only seen as an advantage by mainly people new to fatbikes because it gives them a fallback option.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    First of all, and to repeat myself, I never said Offset shouldn't exist or doesn't have a place in fat biking. It's got the features that some seek- mainly stemming from the fact that it sticks with the old mt. bike standard of 135mm allowing you to run IGH or cheap hubs.

    Velobike mentioned early on "lighter, cheaper,stiffer"... well the hub may be slightly stiffer but the fact is, especially with 100mm rim and 4.8 tire, the wheel/tire combo is NOT stiffer, or stronger. Cheaper and lighter? Maybe a little, but not enough to change the overall weight or price a whole lot.

    As far as IGH goes... more power to ya! If it works for you where your riding... but it's rarely seen here in the PNW. I've only ridden with two IGH riders and both were at a disadvantage (and one has switched back now). And derailleurs are not as "flimsy" as they used to be... and offer way more gear ratio options- at the high and low ends and are cheaper to put together and service. With a fat bike especially, I personally prefer pedaling verses walking, even if I could walk as fast as I'm pedaling.

    And, yes, Jayem is right, symmetrical is stronger and more structurally sound build in every way... that's just basic physics. In fact, lot's of us believe reg. mt. bikes should have upped the standard to 150 when we switched to disc brakes (don't kill me for that, it's just an opinion).

    In the beginning, on group rides & meet-ups, we had more pugsley's than anything else. Naturally since the Pug's was the first affordable, mass produced FB. On our last group meet here in the PNW, it was completely the opposite, one Pugs and one Moonie, the rest were all sym bikes.

    JAG1410 said it early on, "I think Ward wants a steel symmetrical frame at a Surly price"... BINGO!

    I think there's room now for the option of a steel sym bike for the mass's. and it DOES NOT have to replace offset! (Doesn't have to be Surly either).

  12. #62
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,522
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    I don't buy it.

    Whatever would be gained from "thinner tubes" or "superior structure" would be outweighed by the inability to use hub gears. Fatbikes practically beg for hub gears. My pugs is so much better with one. Not everyone likes them, but it's nice to have the option, rather than not.

    I can't imagine anyone crawling through muck on their 135mm offset fatbike thinking "man, what would really help me out right now is if they took away the possibility of using a hub gear on my bike and narrowed my hub options for something about superior structure".

    I'll take versatility over perceived spandex BS any day.
    And if you were using a sealed driveshaft, that might make sense, but you are still using a chain and cogs on both ends. Very few people are interested in an internally geared hub, for a "mud-bike". Adding more drag and weight on these bikes is not popular. A good 1x10 or 1x11 is pretty foolproof, not perfect, but not going to be too far removed from a internally geared system that still uses cables, cogs and chains.

    If anything, you should be mounting your internally geared hub IN THE FRAME. No question. Check out the various DH bikes throughout the years that have done this. Then you could better protect the cable interface, make it approach from above so any mud "falls off", remove it from the more exposed area, protect it, etc...

    Lastly, symmetry is lighter. Those bends that are necessary to do asym, the strength of the material that is necessary to deal with those bends, the strength of the rim to be able to deal with asym forces, it's going to more than offset that 35mm or so more of aluminum hub-shell. Even if you make the bike out of carbon fiber, you still have the same issues (curved shape must be stronger, uses more distance, etc).

    IMO, no one is going to design new fat-bikes with 135, if you need a "mud-bike", then start a new genre with frame-mounted internally geared hubs?
    "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.

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by 1spd1way View Post
    ^^^^^Good one!
    Two IGH on two bikes. Not going back to DE-rail-yurs.....
    Versatility over spandex....Gotta be the best line ever.
    May be true for you where you ride, but not for me. A truck w/ less gear options is less usefull, especially in the mountains. Rohlof even has a limit to how small of chainring they recomend you use... if you go to small the "inards" can't take the tourqe. And yeah, "external" gears might be vulnerable to clogging, but easy and accessable to clean. I run a 20/36 low on my fatty's... things can just about climb a tree. Have yet to come across an IGH that compares. And if something does malfunction, on a derailleur system I can fix it myself or even "McGuiver" it in the field... with IGH, you've got to find a specialist to repiar the thing. If I lived in the "flatlands", I might consider IGH... but they certainly are not less expensive or simpler or more "versitile" in any way.

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,198
    I run my Krampus' Rohloff at 34T x 16T. The gearing is so low there is no point going lower as I might as well walk at that point.

    I use derailleurs and IGHs - successfully.

    I find both groups talk BS about the other frequently.

    I don't want or need IGHs on every bike I own, but for low maintenance and robustness in challenging environments IGHs win hands down. Hence the reason my fatbikes and bikepacking rigs are IGH equipped.

    My FS MTB runs on a derailleur. It works just fine. I do spend more time maintaining that bike than all my other IGH bikes combined, but it's a pretty complex bike so that's just part of the equation for the performance it provides me. I can live with the extra wrenching. My main concern is ripping the derailleur off and damaging my rear wheel in the process from trail debris or a crash. It's not a huge risk and I wear walkable shoes if it does happen!

    Personally I don't spend a lot of time trying to convince people they should run an IGH. I really don't care what other folks use. I just know what I prefer...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #65
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    IMO, no one is going to design new fat-bikes with 135, if you need a "mud-bike", then start a new genre with frame-mounted internally geared hubs?
    Get out of my head!

    EDIT - also, vikb, well said.
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I run my Krampus' Rohloff at 34T x 16T. The gearing is so low there is no point going lower as I might as well walk at that point.

    I use derailleurs and IGHs - successfully.

    I find both groups talk BS about the other frequently.

    I don't want or need IGHs on every bike I own, but for low maintenance and robustness in challenging environments IGHs win hands down. Hence the reason my fatbikes and bikepacking rigs are IGH equipped.

    My FS MTB runs on a derailleur. It works just fine. I do spend more time maintaining that bike than all my other IGH bikes combined, but it's a pretty complex bike so that's just part of the equation for the performance it provides me. I can live with the extra wrenching. My main concern is ripping the derailleur off and damaging my rear wheel in the process from trail debris or a crash. It's not a huge risk and I wear walkable shoes if it does happen!

    Personally I don't spend a lot of time trying to convince people they should run an IGH. I really don't care what other folks use. I just know what I prefer...
    Giving reasons for why you use what YOU like is not neccessarilly trying to "convince" people to use what you use. In this case, actually reaction to the "BS".

    "I might as well walk at that point"... that's everyone's personal preferance, but at "that point", possibly being a long steep slope I personally would rather sit in the saddle and crawl along in a "crawler gear" than push a heavy bike, if possible (especially if it's got gear on it), especially if it's a long drawn out climb. But yeah, to each his own.

  17. #67
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,707
    Are we arguing "there can be only one option and it has to be mine! All the rest are stupid!" again?

    The whole thing should be about options and possibilities - where else can we go?

    Are ya'll the kind what move in next to the airport, then complain about the noise?

    On topic:

    I doubt that Surly will ever make a symmetrical fatbike. Their stated mission has always been a bit retro, a bit weird - their hubs offer such options as fixed gear, bolt-on, freewheel. Stuff that is not everywhere.

    I could see them dropping the Pugs (as too mainstream) but not until sales drop off. Didn't they drop the 1x1 for a while? Then bring it back (as a frameset) due to demand?

    They have given up on cantilever brake studs on most of their dirt oriented frames, so they do drop features that aren't in demand.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,701
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Are we arguing "there can be only one option and it has to be mine! All the rest are stupid!" again?

    The whole thing should be about options and possibilities - where else can we go?....
    Yeah, I realised we were arguing in circles here, so I put up a thread to explain pictorially why I prefer hub gears (when I'm not single speed)

    Gear systems on fatbikes.

    Everyone's terrain is different.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,198
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    They have given up on cantilever brake studs on most of their dirt oriented frames, so they do drop features that aren't in demand.
    They dropped the offset forks on their fatbikes due to lack of demand.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #70
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Yeah, I realised we were arguing in circles here, so I put up a thread to explain pictorially why I prefer hub gears (when I'm not single speed)

    Gear systems on fatbikes.

    Everyone's terrain is different.
    Thank you.

    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    They dropped the offset forks on their fatbikes due to lack of demand.
    And sales of offset FB's are down, in my area anyway.

    And again, Wadester buddy, never said there shouldn't be offset bikes... and that "arguing" (also known as debating) is just gonna happen sometimes on forums. Say one thing and folks assume you must mean a bunch of other stuff too. The only reason I used Surly's name was that they've got the means to bring sturdy steel to us at more affordable prices than some of the smaller builders. Was born out of conversations w/ other fat bikers while actually out riding, not here in cyberspace.

  22. #72
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,707
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    They dropped the offset forks on their fatbikes due to lack of demand.
    I think that was due to the failure/recall issue. They still list the offset forks, and I recall they will be back in stock soon.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  23. #73
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,707
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    And sales of offset FB's are down, in my area anyway.

    And again, Wadester buddy, never said there shouldn't be offset bikes... and that "arguing" (also known as debating) is just gonna happen sometimes on forums. Say one thing and folks assume you must mean a bunch of other stuff too. The only reason I used Surly's name was that they've got the means to bring sturdy steel to us at more affordable prices than some of the smaller builders. Was born out of conversations w/ other fat bikers while actually out riding, not here in cyberspace.
    Ha! I aimed at the folks who were saying offset frames should go away - I think that a Symmetrical Surly (Surmetrical?) would be a fine idea, I just don't think Surly will go there, as stated.

    Besides, I could be arguing in my spare time:



    No it isn't!
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    I guess what the OP, and I'm sure others are looking for is a steel frame that fits the fattest tires using a wider rear hub. The reasons for wanting this have been debated quite thoroughly, but the solution has not really been offered, other than get Fatback to make you one. I'm sure that is possible, but probably quite expensive.

    If anyone can make a steel frame fatbike with a wider hub for cheap, OnOne would be perfect for it. They already have most of the parts needed to offer a fatter Fatty. To do it in steel would be questionable, as it would obviously be the "snow" Fatty, since the current one is trail oriented, and a snow fatbike has to deal with salt spray if used on or near roads that are salted.

    How much more does it cost to make a stainless steel frame?

    I know 616 Fabrications offers one. Certainly the small amount of tubing a bicycle is made from, the cost difference between a good low alloy steel(4130, etc.) and something corrosion resistant shouldn't be that much different. I know the SS tubing from the big name brands is pretty expensive, but I don't think OnOne uses their tubing anyways. I'm quite confident some of the air hardening stainless steels used in aerospace, and furniture, industrial applications, etc. would build a nice, light bicycle frame, since a lot of them have higher yield strength than even the best 4130 alloys.

    I guess I am just now changing it to an argument of "why steel?" now rather than why symmetrical?

    or "why not Stainless Steel?".

    How much cheaper is it to make an aluminum frame, than a steel one anyways, and why are most mass produced steel frames heavier than ones made from 6061, and 7005 aluminum? Are they using cheap, not so strong 4130 steel? there are lots of high strength and ultra high strength steels now that can provide a better strength to weight ratio than those aluminum alloys, especially when designing for fatigue characteristics. some of which are also more corrosion resistant than aluminum alloys.

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    763

    Re: Will Surly Ever Build A Symmetrical Fat Bike?

    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    May be true for you where you ride, but not for me. A truck w/ less gear options is less usefull, especially in the mountains. Rohlof even has a limit to how small of chainring they recomend you use... if you go to small the "inards" can't take the tourqe. And yeah, "external" gears might be vulnerable to clogging, but easy and accessable to clean. I run a 20/36 low on my fatty's... things can just about climb a tree. Have yet to come across an IGH that compares. And if something does malfunction, on a derailleur system I can fix it myself or even "McGuiver" it in the field... with IGH, you've got to find a specialist to repiar the thing. If I lived in the "flatlands", I might consider IGH... but they certainly are not less expensive or simpler or more "versitile" in any way.

    I live in Denver and ride front range trails that are all up and down using my Alfine 8 equipped Pugsley. I never feel claustrophobic about my gear range, even on long, lung busting, steep climbs. Before switching over last spring, I ran the stock 3x9 drivetrain. I was breaking chains left and right on climbs. On one occasion, the rear derailleur got sucked into the spokes, had to replace the entire unit, bent the hanger, etc. Since switching, a grand total of 0 problems. It will prove even more useful come winter time. I've had plenty of iced up derailleur experiences that have left me walking.

    So yes, its more versatile in every way, in fact. The option of running igh for those that want to, the option of running an easy single speed setup without eccentric hubs or BBs, and always the traditional derailleur setup waiting if you so choose. Versatility is about OPTIONS.

    I find it humorous that people want to talk about chainstay stiffness on bikes that are rolling huge, heavy, slow, knobby tires.

Page 3 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
  •