Results 1 to 91 of 91
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631

    Will Surly Ever Build A Symmetrical Fat Bike?

    Now that Surly has done away w/ the rear hub up front and gone with the standard 135 (front), is there any reason besides the IGH option that keeps them from making at least one of they're fat models symmetrical. They've got the means to do they're own 190.... and probably in an affordable manner. Why not a symmetrical, and venerable, steel Moon Lander? I guess SS benefits from offset too, but most (actually all) of the Moonies I've seen had gears (although one was IGH). Why not keep the pugs offset and give us a big fat 190mm steel offering?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,212
    Why? There is nothing wrong with offset, and hey, it was designed to fit the fattest tires on the fattest rims. The best part is, you can use cheap hubs! More money in the beer fund!

    Redesigned Surly offset forks will be back by winter. I'm purely speculating that the Pugsley move to the Moonlander fork was a quick fix to address the fork recall issue.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Because not everyone wants to drop $250+ on a rear hub.

    The only real problem with offset build is the asymmetrical wheel builds, and honestly that's not really a problem.

    I rag on surly a lot about things, but seriously, 135 is not a problem. Those stupid dropouts on the other hand...

  4. #4
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,860
    Why yes, yes they will in a evil plot to put Salsa out of business!

    Sorry it's the beer talking.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Not sayin' offset is a "problem", but, obviously some of us prefer sym or they'd all be offset. Just sayin' (IMO) it would be cool to have an affordable steel sym 190 option.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    775
    Can't they make a symmetrical 135 rear that caters to SS or IGHs? That would be the ultimate in swappability, and you could even use a SON 135 hub up front and swap it to the back if needed.

  7. #7
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,181
    Asymmetrical doesn't allow the use of thin summer rims.
    --Peace

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    Advantages of the offset 135mm OLD rear.

    1. Lighter, cheaper, stiffer hubs
    2. Hub gears fit, so no need for fragile derailleurs
    3. It messes with the heads of the internet pseudo experts
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    919
    And in carbon!!!!!!!!!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    331
    I think they might do it, but for a future model that will have something else special about it. Like a 29x4 or 29x5.

  11. #11
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Advantages of the offset 135mm OLD rear.

    1. Lighter, cheaper, stiffer hubs
    2. Hub gears fit, so no need for fragile derailleurs
    3. It messes with the heads of the internet pseudo experts
    You nailed it.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,662
    This is probably not the place to put this but quite frankly the 190mm hub is the reason I would not even consider bikes like the fatboy. If there is one thing that Specialized is truly a master at it's equipping their bikes with the shittiest wheels possible. Take a look at their current road bike line up. $5000 bikes with $200 wheelsets. It seems to me that this lastest generation of fat bikes are nothing more than mountain bikes with really fat tires. I live in Canada where winters can get effing cold, I would constantly be thinking in the back of my mind that my hub is going to fail me when I'm out in the middle of nowhere and it's -20C. The market seems to be moving faway rom fat bikes made to get you out in the wilderness and give you the best possible chance of getting you back to simply just a fat tire euipped bicycle made for your local California single track.

    Rant over, carry on.

  13. #13
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Not sayin' offset is a "problem", but, obviously some of us prefer sym or they'd all be offset. Just sayin' (IMO) it would be cool to have an affordable steel sym 190 option.
    Why Can't You Just Be Like Everybody Else?!? | Blog | Surly Bikes

    Why Can't You Just Be Like Everybody Else?!? (Part Two) | Blog | Surly Bikes


    I like the offset in the rear on my Moonlander... makes the rim easier to clean Must keep MY PRECIOUS clean. Clean clean.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Why yes, yes they will in a evil plot to put Salsa out of business!
    +1 - Surly already does make symmetrical fat bikes. They have a Salsa sticker on them.

    In all seriousness I think Surly should keep the Pugs as is and make the ML symmetrical. That gives almost everyone what they want.

    Pugs:

    - IGH friendly
    - cheap standard hubs
    - runs BFLs on 82mm rims
    - runs 29+ rubber on Rabbit Holes for summer use
    - Salsa makes symmetrical version for those who want it

    Moonlander [symmetrical]

    - runs everything currently available
    - steel fatbike
    - hubs will be mo' 'spensive
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Not sayin' offset is a "problem", but, obviously some of us prefer sym or they'd all be offset. Just sayin' (IMO) it would be cool to have an affordable steel sym 190 option.
    190 is a new "standard" that just popped up about 3 months ago. 4 months ago, it was all 170, all the time, 170 is the future of fatbikes. Now apparently, 170 is for losers and freds who don't understand the importance of being able to run tires on 100mm rims instead of tiny, insubstantial 80mm rims. Or something.

    What I'm trying to say is, 190 is utterly unproven, unstocked and as of yet, mostly unridden.

    So what you're asking is that surly completely revamp it's bikes, bikes based on surly's frankenbike whatcha got in the parts bin philosophy, and turn them into... Salsas.

    So just buy a salsa. Or a 907. Or a fatback- you can get those in steel. Or hell, buy an On One and suffer the catcalls of those in the know as you slog around on those super skinny, utterly insubstantial 80mm rims with that oh so dated and totally out of style 170 rear hub.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,212
    Please, go AFK and go ride your bikes. Don't lament on how 20-55mm of rear end spacing is preventing you from climbing that hill or clearing that section.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  17. #17
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,860
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    +1 - Surly already does make symmetrical fat bikes. They have a Salsa sticker on them.

    In all seriousness I think Surly should keep the Pugs as is and make the ML symmetrical. That gives almost everyone what they want.

    Pugs:

    - IGH friendly
    - cheap standard hubs
    - runs BFLs on 82mm rims
    - runs 29+ rubber on Rabbit Holes for summer use
    - Salsa makes symmetrical version for those who want it

    Moonlander [symmetrical]

    - runs everything currently available
    - steel fatbike
    - hubs will be mo' 'spensive


    +1 on everything else a 190 Moonie would be cool but I doubt they will ever cave. Maybe see a Steel 190 Muk hmmmm.

  18. #18
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,654
    ward, so your desire is for a steel symmetrical bike?

    I thought Fatback have steel options. Is that no longer the case?
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,212
    I think ward wants symmetrical steel at a Surly price.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Now that Surly has done away w/ the rear hub up front and gone with the standard 135 (front)
    Umm... They didn't? The Moonlander is coming with an offset fork standard starting with this model year.

    While the current pugs has a symmetric front fork, they have also stated that future pugs will be coming with the offset fork by default again...

    I suspect the only reason the Pugsleys are coming with non-offset forks is because they don't have quantity built up of the new design due to the recall last year.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by JAGI410 View Post
    I think ward wants symmetrical steel at a Surly price.
    THat would be the On-one. the rolling chassis deal is pretty sweet. Though it's only a pathetic 170.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,212
    On-One is aluminum. But yes, otherwise awesome.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Got to "meet" a Fatback steel couple weeks ago... loved it! But close to the cost of Ti. I have no prob with that, it's USA made and worth every penny. Surly makes some sturdy frames/forks though and , really guy's, no offense intended towards offset and I get it better when you can use a rear hub up front... lot's of capability and options there, but I like sym for my own use... and derailleurs. Love ALU too for it's "properties" but steel has it's plus' too. Maybe Salsa will put out a steel bike or maybe I should keep quiet and wait to see what pops up.

    As far as 190 goes, folks could have offset 170's and got the same results. 190 just keeps things more symmetrical and it's true, at least I have not ridden one yet.

    Actually, the conversation came up at our NW meet while folks were checking out each others bikes so I thought I'd put it out there. Truth is, on that day and conditions anyway, the bigger "meat" did not kick the smaller meat's a$$. Every set-up had it's attributes and there were no frowns. Sometimes I just get to thinkin'...

    Whatever you've got... "ride 'em cowboy's"!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    I like the offset in the rear on my Moonlander... makes the rim easier to clean Must keep MY PRECIOUS clean. Clean clean.
    Haha so true, my front wheel is a dirty sl*t, back wheel is all angelic all the time!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,092
    You can sit your can of `Irn Bru` in a Moonlander rear rim when you pull up for a bite to eat too, reason enough to leave what works.
    If you live outside of Scotland you may have to google `Irn Bru` softs drinks to know what i am on about
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,050
    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.

  27. #27
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,860
    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

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,212
    My steel fatback does in fact shred singletrack.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  29. #29
    be1
    be1 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    30
    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.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    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.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,092
    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/

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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...

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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"...

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,092
    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/

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    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

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    883
    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?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    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

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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...

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    883
    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)

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    883
    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.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    426
    "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!!

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    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.

  47. #47
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712

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

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    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?

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    331
    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.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    331
    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.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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.

  52. #52
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,013
    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.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    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.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    919
    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.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    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.

  57. #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.

  58. #58
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    972
    ^^^^^Good one!
    Two IGH on two bikes. Not going back to DE-rail-yurs.....
    Versatility over spandex....Gotta be the best line ever.

  59. #59
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    972
    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!

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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).

  62. #62
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,013
    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.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    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

  65. #65
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,654
    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.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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.

  67. #67
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,350
    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

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    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

  70. #70
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,350
    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

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    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.

  72. #72
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,350
    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

  73. #73
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,350
    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:

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  74. #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.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134

    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.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    I find it humorous that people want to talk about chainstay stiffness on bikes that are rolling huge, heavy, slow, knobby tires.
    Well, I think if chainstay stiffness were an issue(IDK if it is), it would be on the symmetrical 190mm QR in frames with a small angle between the chainstays and the seat stays. I would think the 190mm QR may have some pretty noticeable torsional flex in the chainstays unless they use a stiff oversized axle with a bigger flange to the dropouts and a very strong QR, or design the frame to have stiffer(heavier) seat and chain stays to start with.

    The wheel flex is probably more noticeable on a 135mm hub, in a centered wheel, where the spokes are pretty straight going to two rows of spoke holes at the rim without crossing over each other. Asymmetrical wheels shouldn't have this problem with the spokes all inline near the center of the hub flanges. Wider hub wheels are the stiffest.

    But, like you said, with big knobby tires at low pressures, who's going to notice the flex anywhere.

  77. #77
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    972
    I got sick of buying de-rail-yours after 5th wrap around.
    She-who-rides-with-me was a stick magnet. Bought an A8, mounted it to my Pugs as a test sled, and didn't want to swap it to her 907. So I bought an A11.
    Got me riding the Pugs again. Both 907's and Pugs are offset. Both run the size of tire/wheel we like.

    Best of all..both take us into the woods where the air is scented by pines and clean water.

  78. #78
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    972
    Hmmmm, while typing that^^, I was thinkering...my spare, offset pugs frame would look better with some rabbit holes and 29+ tires, and maybe a de-rail-your...

  79. #79
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,013
    Ice Cream Truck. Very interesting to go back and read the posts...
    "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.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Ice Cream Truck. Very interesting to go back and read the posts...
    Now let me ask if they'll ever make a Big Fat Endo?

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Ice Cream Truck. Very interesting to go back and read the posts...
    Yes. And it's very nice to ride too...

    I have one on order. It's going to be my singlespeed.

    Any singlespeeder taking a close look at the BB area and the stays on the Ice Cream Truck will want one. Nice solid design.

    Through axles solve all the squirm problems that using hubs with axles designed for road bikes had.

    Suitable dropouts for singlespeed will be available.

    The only negative is hubgear incompatibility.

    Did I mention I like the colour too...

    Edit: I've just cancelled mine. They're coming into the UK at an eye watering price for a non custom bike with standard tubing. I decided that paying 36% more than for a Pug frameset was too much of an early adopter tax.
    Last edited by Velobike; 06-11-2014 at 11:27 PM.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    +1 - Surly already does make symmetrical fat bikes. They have a Salsa sticker on them.

    In all seriousness I think Surly should keep the Pugs as is and make the ML symmetrical. That gives almost everyone what they want.

    Pugs:

    - IGH friendly
    - cheap standard hubs
    - runs BFLs on 82mm rims
    - runs 29+ rubber on Rabbit Holes for summer use
    - Salsa makes symmetrical version for those who want it

    Moonlander [symmetrical]

    - runs everything currently available
    - steel fatbike
    - hubs will be mo' 'spensive
    So now the question is will the Moonie survive or is it Pugs + ICT???
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    So now the question is will the Moonie survive or is it Pugs + ICT???
    My guess is yes, the Moonie will continue to have fans. 1st because it will take IGH hubs but also because, though I haven't seen all the details numbers wise, the geometry looks to be quite different too.

    You know how it goes too, you just can't tell about a bike 'till you actually get on one and ride it. Guessing it will be late Summer before many of us get a chance to do that. Pic's sure look great though!!

    Edit: except for Coast Kid... Lucky!

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,092
    Enjoyed the first ride in the UK of an ICT last Friday at Forth Fat just after Tyler pulled it out the box, real nice. A Krampus on Quadruple steroids!!!
    Nice features like;
    Direct mount SLX mech that gives real quick changing,
    Loads of chain to tyre (UK spelling!) clearance,
    Yet also a decent chainline with 2x10,
    Rear seat stays that were nowhere near my size 11 clogs.

    An Alfine 8spd will be going on my Moonie with its BFL`s for grassland field boundries and salt marshes.
    One of these Trucks for razzing about out the saddle having a hoot and a giggle

















    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    My guess is yes, the Moonie will continue to have fans. 1st because it will take IGH hubs but also because, though I haven't seen all the details numbers wise, the geometry looks to be quite different too.

    You know how it goes too, you just can't tell about a bike 'till you actually get on one and ride it. Guessing it will be late Summer before many of us get a chance to do that. Pic's sure look great though!!
    There will be fans no doubt....just wondering if the sales numbers between those two platforms justify keeping both.

    If the ICT has Krampus geo it will tour just fine. The big wheels provide so much stability you don't need "touring geo" on these bikes.

    I'm an IGH fan so I appreciate that about the ML, but I haven't drunk enough kool aid to forget we are in the minority.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  86. #86
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,304
    this is why i'm greatly anticipating delivery of an ICT!
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    this is why i'm greatly anticipating delivery of an ICT!
    What's the ETA of the ICT?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rjedoaks View Post
    Their blog predicts Aug.


    Pedaling
    Check
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    876

    Will Surly Ever Build A Symmetrical Fat Bike?

    Their blog predicts Aug.


    Pedaling

  90. #90
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Aug=oct

    rog

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,575
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    Aug=oct

    rog
    2015?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

Similar Threads

  1. Surly Straggler Ordered. Help me with the Build!
    By matmattmatthew in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 03:49 PM
  2. surly 1x1 - new build
    By teleguy03 in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-20-2012, 08:14 AM
  3. Surly LHT Build
    By Hartmame in forum Surly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-09-2012, 08:52 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, 08:17 AM

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
  •