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?
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.
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...
Why yes, yes they will in a evil plot to put Salsa out of business!
Sorry it's the beer talking.
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.
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.
Asymmetrical doesn't allow the use of thin summer rims.
Advantages of the offset 135mm OLD rear.
- Lighter, cheaper, stiffer hubs
- Hub gears fit, so no need for fragile derailleurs
- It messes with the heads of the internet pseudo experts
As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland
I think they might do it, but for a future model that will have something else special about it. Like a 29x4 or 29x5.
You nailed it.
Originally Posted by Velobike
Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.
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.
...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...
+1 - Surly already does make symmetrical fat bikes. They have a Salsa sticker on them.
Originally Posted by bdundee
In all seriousness I think Surly should keep the Pugs as is and make the ML symmetrical. That gives almost everyone what they want.
- 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
- runs everything currently available
- steel fatbike
- hubs will be mo' 'spensive
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.
Originally Posted by ward
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.
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.
ward, so your desire is for a steel symmetrical bike?
I thought Fatback have steel options. Is that no longer the case?
I think ward wants symmetrical steel at a Surly price.
Umm... They didn't? The Moonlander is coming with an offset fork standard starting with this model year.
Originally Posted by ward
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.
THat would be the On-one. the rolling chassis deal is pretty sweet. Though it's only a pathetic 170.
Originally Posted by JAGI410
On-One is aluminum. But yes, otherwise awesome.
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"!
Haha so true, my front wheel is a dirty sl*t, back wheel is all angelic all the time!
Originally Posted by duggus
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
By matmattmatthew in forum Cyclocross
Last Post: 01-29-2014, 02:49 PM
By teleguy03 in forum Singlespeed
Last Post: 11-20-2012, 07:14 AM
By Hartmame in forum Surly
Last Post: 01-09-2012, 07:52 AM
By ctxcrossx in forum Fat bikes
Last Post: 07-07-2011, 12:20 PM
By appleSSeed in forum Surly
Last Post: 01-21-2011, 07:17 AM