Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 149
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359

    Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?

    I heard that Surly is supposed to release some new bikes with clearance for 6" tires. Anyone know anything?

    WINTERBIKE EXPO

  2. #2
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    I heard that Surly is supposed to release some new bikes with clearance for 6" tires. Anyone know anything?
    6"? like many of my previous girlfriends, I am going to say that is too big for most to use properly, let alone handle...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    62
    I'm trying to get my head around this. A single Vee Rubber Snowshoe 2XL weighs 1800 grams. So a 3XL at 6" instead of 5.05" might weigh another 250 grams (half a pound). And the diameter of the tire on the wheel would be another 2" bigger, meaning you'd need even lower gears to have the same effort per mile as you would on a 2XL.

    You could conceivably go to 24" rims in order to keep the diameter under control, but the economics for manufacturers and dealers aren't that great. You'd have to support another standard for wheels, and another series of parts that somebody would need to inventory to support another extremely niche market.

    It's almost certain that no bike shop except perhaps a couple in Minnesota and Alaska would ever be able to do enough business to stock needed rims. My local shop is a very successful store in the greater NY area (where it snows, though not as much as MN and WI). They've sold only a couple of fat bikes per season. If anything breaks on my fat bike, I know they won't be able to fix it same day, but will have to wait for parts.

    Also, it seems lots of people don't like the immense Q-factor of a fat bike drive train but you'd need even greater Q-factor to clear the tires. So what would that do to drive trains?

    I'll believe it when I see it and when I see how they deal with these challenges. In the meantime, while it's possible that they'll do this, I'll go ahead and remain skeptical.
    1980 Trek 614
    1980 Ritchey Everest custom MTB, serial #27
    2015 Trek Boone 5
    2015 Felt DD30 fatbike
    2016 S-Works Enduro

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    550

    Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?

    It could be possible actually! If Trek keeps releasing different sizes like the 27.5x4.5, I am sure someone else will release something different soon. 6Ē is ginormous! Iíd be curious of that I tell you

    OP, any link to that rumour?
    2015 Specialized Rockhopper
    2015 Giant Stance FS (wife's bike)
    2016 Framed Alaskan Alloy

  5. #5
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,248
    Quote Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post

    ***

    Also, it seems lots of people don't like the immense Q-factor of a fat bike drive train but you'd need even greater Q-factor to clear the tires. So what would that do to drive trains?

    ***
    You can keep the q factor a bit lower with elevated chainstays or internal gear hubs.
    --Peace

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Engineer90 View Post
    It could be possible actually! If Trek keeps releasing different sizes like the 27.5x4.5, I am sure someone else will release something different soon. 6Ē is ginormous! Iíd be curious of that I tell you

    OP, any link to that rumour?
    I don't have any links unfortunately. My LBS told me that Surly was coming out with a revised Pugsley and Moonlander. The Moonlander would have clearance for 6" tires. They are to be released soon at a fatbike show. I'm hoping they also come out with a huge tire built like the Bud/Lou to fit the bike. The 2XL has a pretty thick case and could easily be made lighter IMO. Espin has written in the 2XL thread that the prototype 5.6 3XL that he's been riding uses a thinner, more flexible case than the 2XL.

  7. #7
    PRETENDURO
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7,671
    How wide are your hips?
    QUOTE from MTBR.COM: You have given Brewtality too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    This doesn't look particularly uncomfortable to ride to me.


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Ooh a 6Ē tire bike with lighter casing than the 2XL would be incredible. Would buy.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,104
    Treks engineers found documents from farming that larger diameter narrower vs wide smaller diameter roll better thru soft materials with the same area contact patch
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    Treks engineers found documents from farming that larger diameter narrower vs wide smaller diameter roll better thru soft materials with the same area contact patch
    Yeah... I listened to the first part of their podcast and i don't buy into it entirely. Farm tractors use ridiculously tall and skinny rear tires so as to fit between the furrows of crops and they also use small, narrow front tires for steering. Not a very good comparison to fat bikes in snow.

    My feeling is a properly designed and constructed 26x5.6" or larger fat bike tire that uses a light weight and thin carcass will be the ultimate for floatation as it will have way more volume than Trek's stupid idea of decreasing sidewall height and increasing wheel diameter.

    This prototype 5.6" doesn't look slow...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Aceldama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    Treks engineers found documents from farming that larger diameter narrower vs wide smaller diameter roll better thru soft materials with the same area contact patch
    And Trekís marketing department found they could sell last yearís customers the another bike with a slightly different wheel and tire.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    Treks engineers found documents from farming that larger diameter narrower vs wide smaller diameter roll better thru soft materials with the same area contact patch
    Nothing new about that.
    The taller tire pushes less dirt with the same amout of tire riding on the ground.
    Last edited by headwind; 10-28-2017 at 11:04 AM.

  14. #14
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,617
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."

    - Hunter S. Thompson
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: campykid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    268
    I would kill for Espen's 3xl prototypes. I would also kill for a Nobel peace prize (stolen from Steven Wright).

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    142
    I can see it as a probability, it is Surly we're talking about. The Pugs utilize a 135mm offset arrangement, so why not offset it a bit more to clear a 6" tire.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,711
    Some good thoughts in this thread, and some that are either uninformed or trolling.

    I'm in the camp that hasn't yet found a tire/rim combo that's too wide -- currently running 105mm rims with 2XL tires. Have room for 3XL's on this frame/fork.

    That said, I recognize that those of us whom truly need (different from merely wanting) tires this wide to float on/over snow are few. Very small niche.

    I've heard rumblings that Surly is going in a different direction than expected on this project. Looking forward to it, and certainly willing to try whatever they cook up. But not holding my breath that it's going to be better (where I live and ride) than what I have now. Nor am I expecting that they're going to get the broad-based support that this sort of thing needs.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    21
    It would be great for a few other options in the legitimate 5 inch tire class.

    It doesn't always happen but more often or not my wife floats across the surface, and I dig a trench. Even if my weight journey takes me down to early college I'll still outweigh her by 80 lbds. It would be awesome to have a proportional contact patch to what she has with the 4.5 inch tires.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,727
    I think it's cool that folks are pushing limits, super fat may not be my thing, but I can appreciate the possibilities.

    I'd like to try a 6" tire in snow, curious to see how so much float will ride.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,644
    I've been saying for a few years the magic size is 8".

    That would have sufficient volume to be able to support a bike and rider over very soft going - but you'd be in the deep stuff if you ever got stopped and tried to put a foot down, down, down....

    There are several impracticalities to such a tyre though, and unless riding recumbent trikes or quads becomes common, I can't see it ever happening.

    6" is probably close to the practical limits right now with a direct drive chain to the rear wheel.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,328
    27.5x6 perhaps?
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: worldskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    223
    Naw, knowing surly it will be a 24" x 7" and it will be called the Waffle House or after some strange dive diner open 24x7 that they always crash at...

    Rim will be a 24" x 168mm beast that is called the CC or Chris Christie.
    Trust me, I have a beard and gray hair.

  23. #23
    Flying Sasquatch
    Reputation: KTMNealio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    241
    Maybe someday there will be tires that can float me in the snow

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    293
    So is surly planning on making some tires wider than the bud and lou ?

    That would be pretty tempting.

    I spent a bunch of time on the white/cream vrubber snow shoe xls last winter, and while I really (*really* - I really want a studded "big" tire!) wanted them to work for me, ended up bailing on them due to the slow rolling nature of those tires, on the snow conditions I ride them in. I can't imagine riding the 2xls. I am sure they work for some folks, they just didn't work for me.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: worldskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    223
    More WAS from worldskipper...(wild ass speculation)

    The new frame will be called the 'swamp bus' and will have a offset 177mm hub utilizing the new AYFKM drop outs. - (Are You Fu^*#N Kidding Me) (tm)

    Front fork will be made of steel 'natch', and will be able to run the aforementioned offset 177mm hub. The new drop outs will allow you to switch the chain around and run the bike backwards through the trail you just made without turning the bike around.

    Color will be of course gator green or more likely school bus yellow.
    Name:  SoCSafariTour.jpg
Views: 2086
Size:  46.7 KB

    This will of course trigger Trek to bring out their secret weapon, the tall wheeled fatbike (36"x3.8") with the new 180.5mm rear hub (new standard of course), 3 years sooner than they wanted.
    Name:  421921297090754.jpg
Views: 2067
Size:  10.4 KB

    Ah what a glorious time to be alive!
    Trust me, I have a beard and gray hair.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    I'm wondering if Surly will use asymmetrical geometry to fit a larger tire along with additional clearance for an even bigger tire? The Moonlander can fit 2XL's so it was future proofed pretty well. Were there any issues with the weird, offset rear tire on the Moonlander?

    It seems like the ICT was kind of a dud as I see new, old stock ICT framesets advertised online in many places. I don't think their proprietary crank set up with the stupid press fit bottom bracket was a good move. Hopefully their new bike uses a threaded BB and more standardized parts.

    What are the downsides to asymmetrical geometry besides looking strange? I'd love to have even larger tires for the winter riding I do and if asymmetrical is the way to get that I'd seriously consider it.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Bump... expo right around the corner, anybody heard anything?

  28. #28
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by worldskipper View Post
    More WAS from worldskipper...(wild ass speculation)

    The new frame will be called the 'swamp bus' and will have a offset 177mm hub utilizing the new AYFKM drop outs. - (Are You Fu^*#N Kidding Me) (tm)

    Front fork will be made of steel 'natch', and will be able to run the aforementioned offset 177mm hub. The new drop outs will allow you to switch the chain around and run the bike backwards through the trail you just made without turning the bike around.

    Color will be of course gator green or more likely school bus yellow.
    Name:  SoCSafariTour.jpg
Views: 2086
Size:  46.7 KB

    This will of course trigger Trek to bring out their secret weapon, the tall wheeled fatbike (36"x3.8") with the new 180.5mm rear hub (new standard of course), 3 years sooner than they wanted.
    Name:  421921297090754.jpg
Views: 2067
Size:  10.4 KB

    Ah what a glorious time to be alive!


    Yeah but what about the geometry and wheelbase ?
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    21
    This weekend brought a little extra snow, at my weight 4.0s was a no go, 4.6 (4.3 really) ground controls worked but the bud/lou combo was even better. Only 2xl experience was in a parkng lot, didn't really get any idea of if they are a step up or not.

    For me the dream would be a 2xl on bud/lou casing, so a little lighter weight, with stud pockets in the lugs. In the snow like we had, and often do have, puncture resistance isnt really needed like the 2xl has. Transitions from fluff to bare ice were common, honestly a lou with minimally larger lugs to hold a stud would be awesome.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Comfisherman View Post
    This weekend brought a little extra snow, at my weight 4.0s was a no go, 4.6 (4.3 really) ground controls worked but the bud/lou combo was even better. Only 2xl experience was in a parkng lot, didn't really get any idea of if they are a step up or not.

    For me the dream would be a 2xl on bud/lou casing, so a little lighter weight, with stud pockets in the lugs. In the snow like we had, and often do have, puncture resistance isnt really needed like the 2xl has. Transitions from fluff to bare ice were common, honestly a lou with minimally larger lugs to hold a stud would be awesome.
    The bad things about the 2XL are the weight, stiffness and rolling resistance. I've run both the black and PSC versions and they take a lot of effort to push. I think they are amazing for deep snow riding and way more capable than the Bud/Lou but the Bud/Lou are more versatile and much, much faster. I agree with you, if they could make it lighter and have stud pockets it would be really great.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    I got to looking at the Surly lineup and they really do need to do something. Last winter a LBS told me Surly was no longer relevant in fatbikes and that took me by surprise but looking at their current line up the guy's comment makes more sense. The Pugsly and Moonlander are old and the offset geometry makes no sense anymore. They aren't even sold as complete bikes anymore. The Wednesday being limited to a 4.6" max width isn't being very versatile as it limits its usefulness for winter riding. The ICT having a press fit bottom bracket is a huge step backwards and goes against what Surly riders prefer is simple, proven parts and bikes that are easy to work on and modify.

    The new Mukluk can fit bigger tires than the Wednesday, it's lighter and has a much better rear drop out set up. It seems like the sister company Salsa is way more on the ball than Surly. The Mukluk has a threaded bottom bracket so it seems like they saw the error of the ICT.

    Hopefully Surly reclaims their title of having production bikes that can fit the largest tires and give expedition/explorer type riders something to be excited about. It seems like the market has left Surly behind with an emphasis on light, fast and flickable fat bikes. Their two current models seem to miss the mark for that type of riding.

  32. #32
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,541
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    I got to looking at the Surly lineup and they really do need to do something. Last winter a LBS told me Surly was no longer relevant in fatbikes and that took me by surprise but looking at their current line up the guy's comment makes more sense. The Pugsly and Moonlander are old and the offset geometry makes no sense anymore. They aren't even sold as complete bikes anymore. The Wednesday being limited to a 4.6" max width isn't being very versatile as it limits its usefulness for winter riding. The ICT having a press fit bottom bracket is a huge step backwards and goes against what Surly riders prefer is simple, proven parts and bikes that are easy to work on and modify.

    The new Mukluk can fit bigger tires than the Wednesday, it's lighter and has a much better rear drop out set up. It seems like the sister company Salsa is way more on the ball than Surly. The Mukluk has a threaded bottom bracket so it seems like they saw the error of the ICT.

    Hopefully Surly reclaims their title of having production bikes that can fit the largest tires and give expedition/explorer type riders something to be excited about. It seems like the market has left Surly behind with an emphasis on light, fast and flickable fat bikes. Their two current models seem to miss the mark for that type of riding.
    You do realize the irony in this, right? Surly is all about NOT reacting to trends and the latest direction an industry is taking. They are pretty much the extreme OPPOSITE of this. I would suggest that they've never really been about snow, although they hit a home run with the bud and lou tires. They had to be pulled kicking and screaming to do things like move to symmetrical rear ends and fit the larger crop of tires, which they do. Wanting Surly to be able to fit snowshoe 2XLs is just a bit over the top, for a company that likes to remain in a comfortable place and anti-progress.

    Surly makes fatbikes, but their presence and direction doesn't seem to target winter snow/ice riding to anywhere near the extent that some companies do. Surly seems more interested in making some all-around bikes with mid to low end component specs. Nothing bad about that. You are in a small minority if you think that a bike has to be able to run 2XLs IMO.
    "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.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    That's interesting and a different view of the fat bike world than was evident from my neck of the woods. It's good to get a diffferent perspective on things. In my area the vast majority of fatbikes I saw until maybe the past two years were Surlys, mostly the Pugsley. Now I'm seeing many different brands so it looks like that LBS I spoke to last spring was correct about Surly. It doesn't make much difference to me as a bike is a bike and I'll buy whatever I determine to be the best value for my money at the time depending on what it is I want to do.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,644
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    ...The Pugsly and Moonlander are old and the offset geometry makes no sense anymore...
    If you like the idea of light hubs and singlespeed, or the option to also use inexpensive hubgears, they make more sense than most bikes out there now.

    In fact it would be nice if the fatbike makers made a frame specially for hubgears. There could be a much narrower Q factor.

    I don't want suspension, so Modern Trail Geometry and slack angles have absolutely no appeal to me on a bike that will spend most of its life travelling slowly picking its way along whatever looks like a viable track. Through axles at the rear preclude hubgears, so I'd do not want that either even though I like the principle.

    As I see it the latest fatbikes are more SUV than dirt crawlers (and nothing wrong with that, it's where the bigger market is).

    If they bring out a Moonie that will take a 6" tyre, my name will go down for one right away so long as I can fit a hubgear to it.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Wanting Surly to be able to fit snowshoe 2XLs is just a bit over the top

    You are in a small minority if you think that a bike has to be able to run 2XLs IMO.
    My Ice Cream Truck runs 2XLs front and rear (although it might not count as "legal" clearance). I think this thread is more people hoping for a platform that fits an even bigger tire - a 3XL, or a 27.5x5.0, studded, lighter, and the bike to fit it. If we haven't yet hit the limit of fatness of conventional drivetrains, why not make a bike that does? Surly seems like it would.

    What really shocks me is that none of the manufacturers have even tried making the The Fattest Bike Possible so far (Hanebrink doesn't count). Something like Espen's 3XL bikes, or Mikesee's Meriweather. It would be like printing money until the competition catches up.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Also, by my count, Surly has made "the biggest tire ever" four times:

    1. Endomorph/Pugsley/large marge
    2. Big Fat Larry (first tire over 4"), Moonlander, Clownshoe rim trifecta
    3. Bud/Lou
    4. 29x3 Knard / rabbit hole / Krampus trifecta

    So they have a proven track record of introducing new size categories. Some may say they're about due again.

  37. #37
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    My Ice Cream Truck runs 2XLs front and rear (although it might not count as "legal" clearance). I think this thread is more people hoping for a platform that fits an even bigger tire - a 3XL, or a 27.5x5.0, studded, lighter, and the bike to fit it. If we haven't yet hit the limit of fatness of conventional drivetrains, why not make a bike that does? Surly seems like it would.

    What really shocks me is that none of the manufacturers have even tried making the The Fattest Bike Possible so far (Hanebrink doesn't count). Something like Espen's 3XL bikes, or Mikesee's Meriweather. It would be like printing money until the competition catches up.
    The final fatbike that I did for the Diamant brand was the BLCK Diamond X2.
    It comes stock with 2XLs and it will fit up to 5.6'' effective width:

    https://www.gsport.no/produkt/206453...mond-x2-sykkel

    The production version of the prototype that I was riding in 2016/17 (and still do).
    Choice of cassette on the X2 was inspired by Mr. Curiak:

    Carbon fork, e13 9-44t cassette, 26T ring on the race face crankset, 100mm Alex Blizzerks, etc.

    Price is in NOK (divide by 8.3 for USD) and subtract the 25% sales tax (always included in the listed price)
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    21
    I may have a wrong impression of tire manufacturing, but isn't the hard part the mold making? I've spent some time in unrelated small scale manufacturing industry, prototyping was 90% of the budget. The part was only about 35$ to manufacture, but the prototype was about 15x that to setup tooling. The part could be as cheap as 17$ on a scale in of thousands.

    If vee has the mold for the prototype, what is the issue with producing more? seems like the hard expensive part is out of the way. Do they have some magical mystical cnc prototyper for tires?

    On an unrelated note, what is type of scale are we talking for bike production. it seems like were talking hundreds not thousands in reference to bikes. Or at least that's how many they seem to bring in of treks xl per year.....

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    Also, by my count, Surly has made "the biggest tire ever" four times:

    1. Endomorph/Pugsley/large marge
    2. Big Fat Larry (first tire over 4"), Moonlander, Clownshoe rim trifecta
    3. Bud/Lou
    4. 29x3 Knard / rabbit hole / Krampus trifecta

    So they have a proven track record of introducing new size categories. Some may say they're about due again.
    Thanks for this. It was always my impression that Surly led the way with the fattest tires on production bikes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    The final fatbike that I did for the Diamant brand was the BLCK Diamond X2.
    It comes stock with 2XLs and it will fit up to 5.6'' effective width:

    https://www.gsport.no/produkt/206453...mond-x2-sykkel

    The production version of the prototype that I was riding in 2016/17 (and still do).
    Choice of cassette on the X2 was inspired by Mr. Curiak:

    Carbon fork, e13 9-44t cassette, 26T ring on the race face crankset, 100mm Alex Blizzerks, etc.

    Price is in NOK (divide by 8.3 for USD) and subtract the 25% sales tax (always included in the listed price)
    Thanks for the link Espen! It looks like it runs $1,756 US dollars and then subtract another 25% for the tax?

  40. #40
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    Thanks for this. It was always my impression that Surly led the way with the fattest tires on production bikes.



    Thanks for the link Espen! It looks like it runs $1,756 US dollars and then subtract another 25% for the tax?
    $1349 (US style pricing w/o sales tax).
    (I know someone who just picked one up for $1250)
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Dang! Thatís a good price. I could see myself ordering one if the 3XL tire finally comes out for production.

  42. #42
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    You do realize the irony in this, right?

    .....for a company that likes to remain in a comfortable place and anti-progress.
    I'd say your statement is pretty ironic as well, given the innovations that Surly has come up with over the years. Name a company that produces fat bikes (other than small niche/custom) that has come up with anything truly innovative in the fat realm? They're all basically copying each other and making the same ****ing thing, and just tweaking it here and there to claim they have something unique. Surly isn't "anti-progress" - they just have a different idea of it than the prevailing mentality of the industry. Which is a good thing, imo.

    As a famous general once said, "If everyone is thinking the same, then someone isn't thinking."

    *Btw, I don't own a Surly fat bike, and this isn't a knee-jerk reaction. But I respect their approach a lot more than most of the uncreative, regurgitated stuff on the market these days.
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  43. #43
    Waiting for Godot
    Reputation: OilcanRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,026
    Well I hate to spoil all your guesses but it's gonna be a fat 29er. The casing will not be much more than what a 26x4.6 has to keep weight down a bit. The bonus is that it will come in a 5.2" and 6" version. Hopefully the 6" version will be first. Slow increments just pass me off. Let's get right to what we want. It will be taller. Think around 32 total height. But remember that at lower air pressure that you will lose some of that.
    Personally I have been waiting for this for a while. The 29er platform makes more sense to me and will start to fix a lot of the non float issues from before.

    I am building a pinion gearbox fat bike that can run this, so I will be ready when it comes out.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    I'm curious how you know this? A 6" wide 29er would be a pretty large tire. Can a frame be built to keep the standover height the same as what bikes currently have? Otherwise it seems like an OEM would be limiting their market to only tall people with this tire configuration.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    The final fatbike that I did for the Diamant brand was the BLCK Diamond X2.
    It comes stock with 2XLs and it will fit up to 5.6'' effective width:

    https://www.gsport.no/produkt/206453...mond-x2-sykkel

    The production version of the prototype that I was riding in 2016/17 (and still do).
    Thanks, Espen. You got prototype tires from Vee, so Iím assuming you have some relationship with them. Do you have a sense of why they nerfed the tire after giving you a prototype? Seems like your prototype is more like what people want in 3 ways: itís studded, itís lighter, and itís bigger.

    I wonder if Vee could use the mold/tooling they used for your ď3xl prototypesĒ to make a bunch more tires like them. Once the tires are out there, I bet the bikes will follow suit. The tires seem to be the choke point in this process.

  46. #46
    Waiting for Godot
    Reputation: OilcanRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,026
    @ak-rider, A 32" tall 29er would not be for tall people. The current 26x5.2 XXL tire is 31.5" tall. Heck Blacksheep builds 36er in medium and small. I rode the medium and it was perfect. I'm 5'10". Maybe you missed the part about not making the casing a million inches tall?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Those 36ers are okay but I prefer mine as a 39. No, not really, just found the image. It looks a bit stand over challenged.
    Name:  366FDECA-977E-4097-9926-2DCB81EE8FFD.jpeg
Views: 1365
Size:  34.4 KB

    Thinking about a fat tire 29er, Iím not sure that going low profile with the sidewalls would be the best more for floatation in snow. Maybe itís not intended for that?

  48. #48
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,651
    Perhaps, Espen can answer the question of casing thickness... If his proto tires have the heavy ass casings like the production 2XL's. If they were made similar to Schwalbe's LiteSkin casings, they wouldn't be nearly the boat anchor the 2XL's are!
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  49. #49
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    Thanks, Espen. You got prototype tires from Vee, so Iím assuming you have some relationship with them. Do you have a sense of why they nerfed the tire after giving you a prototype? Seems like your prototype is more like what people want in 3 ways: itís studded, itís lighter, and itís bigger.

    I wonder if Vee could use the mold/tooling they used for your ď3xl prototypesĒ to make a bunch more tires like them. Once the tires are out there, I bet the bikes will follow suit. The tires seem to be the choke point in this process.
    Yep, I have a very good relationship with them, both as an OEM customer and also helping them with some design input and testing.
    The reason why my protos were downsized from 315mm (bead-bead) to 298mm for the production version was likely requests from other OEMs.

    I think the mold was modified for the smaller size.

    Best way is to send them a request:
    https://www.veetireco.com/contact-us/

    NB: the studs on mine (only one studded, the other had stud pockets, though) was essentially a waste of time as these knobs are too tall, too skinny and flimsy.
    Stud base was poking out throug the sides of the knobs in many places.
    I advised them to delete the studs for the production.

    The fantastic single ply casing of my tires are an important reason why they are so much better than the double ply casing production ones.
    Thinner than for example the Schwalbe LS casing, but still very strong, and due to its flexibility, it does not detoriate at super low pressures like thicker casings often do.
    Much lighter and rolls MUCH faster than the 2 ply production ones. More grip and of course more flotation too.
    I outroll my buddy's Jumbo Jim 4.0s on any kind of snow covered surface and I have outrolled much heavier riders on D5s as long as the snow isn't rock hard.

    Not even going to the 315mm size, I think the production sized 298mm ones would improve vastly if they did them in the single ply construction. I urged them to do just that when I met with them in September (Germany) and then again in October (Taiwan), but the more input/demand they see from customers around the world (via the link I provided above) the better.
    Don't expect many OEMs to push them for such a tire, as it is much easier and less headache inducing to build a 26x4.5'' bike with bombproof 2 ply tires.
    A single ply 2XL (or 3XL) is more of an aftermarket product.
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    The thin casing Makes perfect sense Espin. I noticed the same issues with studs you mention. I was able to stud the black set last winter with grip studs but it wasnít perfect and the bases tore through some of the smaller knobs. I couldnít stud the cream ones as they were way too soft. The other day I rode my old bike with Bud/Louís and the difference in rolling resistance was night and day over the 2XLís. The Bud/Louís were way, wat faster but weíve only got a dusting of snow so floating was not an issue. I think there is enough demand for the 3XL to make it profitable for somebody.

  51. #51
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    The thin casing Makes perfect sense Espin. I noticed the same issues with studs you mention. I was able to stud the black set last winter with grip studs but it wasnít perfect and the bases tore through some of the smaller knobs. I couldnít stud the cream ones as they were way too soft. The other day I rode my old bike with Bud/Louís and the difference in rolling resistance was night and day over the 2XLís. The Bud/Louís were way, wat faster but weíve only got a dusting of snow so floating was not an issue. I think there is enough demand for the 3XL to make it profitable for somebody.
    You do run the 2XLs tubeless?
    That makes all the difference in the world, as pretty much all tubes out there will stretch a lot to fill the tire and that increases the rolling resistance vs a not-so-stretched tube. Noticed this phenomenom a few years back when a colleague insisted on running 24'' fat tubes in 26''. His bike barely rolled at all.
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    No, I tried last spring and couldnít get them to seal. I even tried ghetto tubeless and it didnít work well and at the end of the experience I just had a mess of sealant to clean up. My wheels are basically shaped like this |___| and donít have a safety bead. I didnít want to take the effort to build them up with foam and whatnot. Both versions of the tire have way more resistance than any of the other tires Iíve ridden, even when at 10-11psi for hard surfaces. I really like them for floatation in snow and they are nice when slowly bouncing your way across a rocky riverbed. I think that thin, light weight casing your riding in your videos would be amazing!

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    You do run the 2XLs tubeless?
    That makes all the difference in the world, as pretty much all tubes out there will stretch a lot to fill the tire and that increases the rolling resistance vs a not-so-stretched tube. Noticed this phenomenom a few years back when a colleague insisted on running 24'' fat tubes in 26''. His bike barely rolled at all.
    Iíve ridden my PSC 2Xls both tubed and tubeless. Even though theyíre the heaviest tire out there, Iíve never found them to be the boat anchors some others complain about - even with tubes, Iíve done long steep climbs in them. But 2100 grams of rotational mass per wheel is not ideal! And the casing is clearly thicker than some of my other tires, notably my jumbo Jims. JJ casing on a studded 3XL tire would be ideal. Once the tire exists, the first manufacturer that makes a bike to fit it would sell a ton of them while they have the ďmax floatĒ market cornered.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    21
    Brings me back to my original question, how many tires are needed for it to be viable for a company to produce?

    Today's riding conditions were such that I went from good packed snow trail to hundred yard long 6 inch derp powder drifts. Punctuated by 4-6 miles of solid frozen river bare ice. I needed float, decent rolling and studs. Dunno how many are in my boat but a pair of 3xls would do nicely.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Yep, Iím in your same boat. I donít think it is impossible for someone to mass produce such a tire and itís not unreasonable for fat bikers to want such a tire. Wider, taller and stiffer knobs compared to the 2XL could easily be grip studded, or better yet come with factory studs or at least stud pockets. I donít see any downsides to a large volume, lightweight ballon type tire. I think there is far more to be gained in going this route than with lower profile, larger diameter wheels like a fat tire 29er.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RickBullottaPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Comfisherman View Post
    Brings me back to my original question, how many tires are needed for it to be viable for a company to produce?

    Today's riding conditions were such that I went from good packed snow trail to hundred yard long 6 inch derp powder drifts. Punctuated by 4-6 miles of solid frozen river bare ice. I needed float, decent rolling and studs. Dunno how many are in my boat but a pair of 3xls would do nicely.
    Get a nice set of snowshoes or skis. ;-)

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by RickBullottaPA View Post
    Get a nice set of snowshoes or skis. ;-)
    no kidding, groom with hok skis or snowshoes after large dumps and then use some readily available tires.... so much less exhausting than slogging thru pow.
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    21
    Snow was so powdery it was likely to not need snow shoes, skis would have been only 25% Effective as much of it was not snow covered. Its probably not a common snow condition but one we found on about 6 weeks spring and 4 weeks fall last year with similar results this year.

    Several bikes with different setups, was not ridable at my weight on ground controls in fluf, was rideable on low pressure on bud/lou but on the edge. Lighter people rocked bud lou on more medium pressure and my wife kept up on ground controls. Moral of the story, bigger tire for us larger sized folks would have extended my ability to ride.

  59. #59
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Comfisherman View Post
    Brings me back to my original question, how many tires are needed for it to be viable for a company to produce?

    Today's riding conditions were such that I went from good packed snow trail to hundred yard long 6 inch derp powder drifts. Punctuated by 4-6 miles of solid frozen river bare ice. I needed float, decent rolling and studs. Dunno how many are in my boat but a pair of 3xls would do nicely.

    I think there aren't more than a few hundred, optimistically, whom want/need the same as you. Waaaaaay out on the fringe.

    I'm one of 'em. Not holding my breath that what arrives next is going to scratch our itch.

  60. #60
    Waiting for Godot
    Reputation: OilcanRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I think there aren't more than a few hundred, optimistically, whom want/need the same as you. Waaaaaay out on the fringe.

    I'm one of 'em. Not holding my breath that what arrives next is going to scratch our itch.
    I could possibly see the numbers be much higher initially and when people catch on that they can finally ride on all soft snow and sand and tundra and other soft stuff, the number of sales would increase. Even more than what is being seen by the larger tires now. This makes sense as we are still being held back by not enough float. A more capable tire would create it's own popularity and environment of fun.

    Also add to the fact that more float will also increase ride comfort and grip. Gears can keep any weight increase in check. Think pinion gearbox. Makes more sense without having to keep increasing the BB width and adding more gears.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dilligaff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Comfisherman View Post
    Several bikes with different setups, was not ridable at my weight on ground controls in fluf, was rideable on low pressure on bud/lou but on the edge. Lighter people rocked bud lou on more medium pressure and my wife kept up on ground controls. Moral of the story, bigger tire for us larger sized folks would have extended my ability to ride.
    A few of us went out last year and are running the same tires at similar weights. The only difference was I was tubeless on 100mm wheels, one was tubeless on 80mm, and the last guy was tubed on 80mm. I could ride around no problem whereas the other two broke through or slipped following behind. It was the best display I've seen where a small amount of width made a big difference.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    21
    A couple hundred seems plausible to me, it will definitely be minimal market. With that said, minimal market can still be financially viable for companies. The question is, how big will the price premium be? Say minimal change to the lugs of the 3xl to accept a stud pocket, keep the casing how it is. Those of us who want studs can shove them in ourselves, for those who wont find tons of ice can leave them out. Does anybody have an idea of what the cost of a mold plus say a run of 200 would be? I suppose tomorrow morning should be a call to vee to see what they say.

    Honestly the goal for me is not super uber float, I'm just 6'4" and at my weight heck even my target weight I need 3xls to float on a similar tread psi as my wife does on 4.5's. When I do the math bud and lou on 100s gets me about 75% the psi as my wife on 4.5s. I've gone on enough group rides to realize the mass of cyclist self identify with hobbits not D-lineman, it would be nice to have similar float per pound.

    It really is noticeable float difference, we had a rider at 132 ready to ride, 151, 165, and me at 248. rider at 132 floated on 4.5s on 80s with hardpack type pressures. The middle weight riders aired down and did just fine, the 151 on the bud and lou could roll through at commuter pressures. Sadly for me, it was bud and lou tubeless at as low as they would go, but the thought occurred wider would just be a little better.

  63. #63
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by OilcanRacer View Post
    I could possibly see the numbers be much higher initially and when people catch on that they can finally ride on all soft snow and sand and tundra and other soft stuff, the number of sales would increase. Even more than what is being seen by the larger tires now. This makes sense as we are still being held back by not enough float. A more capable tire would create it's own popularity and environment of fun.

    Also add to the fact that more float will also increase ride comfort and grip. Gears can keep any weight increase in check. Think pinion gearbox. Makes more sense without having to keep increasing the BB width and adding more gears.

    Some good ideas.

    Now all you (we) need is money to pay for it. Scrape enough together and someone will pay attention and take on the project.

  64. #64
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    What really shocks me is that none of the manufacturers have even tried making the The Fattest Bike Possible so far (Hanebrink doesn't count). Something like Espen's 3XL bikes, or Mikesee's Meriweather. It would be like printing money until the competition catches up.

    I think this is because they're smart. Investing the resources to bring an uber-niche product to market is a big risk. The fatbike market is already beyond saturated. Even if *we* know that a 3XL bike would work well, *they* know they're probably not going to come out ahead on the project. From their perspective, why risk it?

  65. #65
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Comfisherman View Post
    If vee has the mold for the prototype, what is the issue with producing more? seems like the hard expensive part is out of the way. Do they have some magical mystical cnc prototyper for tires?

    On an unrelated note, what is type of scale are we talking for bike production. it seems like were talking hundreds not thousands in reference to bikes. Or at least that's how many they seem to bring in of treks xl per year.....

    The issue is both demand (they don't see enough to justify producing/distributing the tires) and potential durability.

    Espen's 3XL's are light, but so is he, so he's been able to nurse them along. Stick a 200 or 250# rider on them and they aren't going to last very long on anything other than clean, white snow. And even then, snow is abrasive...

    So you can solve that by adding fancy materials, which drives up costs, which drives away some of your already very small market.

    Or you can solve it by adding extra material to the casing, which drives up weight, which drives away some of your already very small market.

    No free lunch.

    I once had some tires made because I saw a niche that wasn't being filled: 29 x 2.5" about 10 years ago. WTB was kind enough to entertain this project, as long as I was writing the check. They allowed me to start with 200 tires, which was still a big ask. The per tire price didn't change one iota even if I'd ordered 2000, or 5000.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    The fatbike market is already beyond saturated.
    The fat bike market may be saturated, but with products that are difficult to distinguish from one another. Bringing a bike that's obviously, objectively more capable than anything else out there - via a very easy-to-compare metric such as tire width - would have widespread consumer appeal. They would sell bikes to people who already own a fatbike, because the new bike does what the old bikes can't. If people saw a 3xl bike side by side with a bike on 4.8s or 4.0s at the LBS, who wouldn't anticipate consumers opting for the monster truck?

    But you're right, I'm not buying the molds or building the frames. I just think it's odd that none of the manufacturers want to go after what would obviously be a leg up on the competition - something that nobody else offers. Bike buyers shop based on specs and capability, and the 3XL bike would crush the competition in those categories.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    William,
    You wrote almost exactly what I was going to write after reading through the recent posts. The first thing that struck me when I saw my first fat bike was the tire size. I was immediately drawn to the bike with the largest tires. When people see my other bike with the 2XLís the first thing they comment on are the size of the tires and then they give them a squeeze.

    Right now there is no bike out there that makes me want to buy a new one unless things progress and it can fit bigger tires. Some $3000 carbon wonder bike isnít going to float my +200lbs any better than what I already have but bigger, wider tires sure as heck will. Having a bike with larger tires than the rest is the cheapest, easiest way to stick out from the rest of the OEMís. It would make sense for Surly to do that with their heavier steel frames since they canít compete on weight or raciness or speed. It makes since for the smaller OEMís as well who canít produce carbon frames. These bikes wouldnít be for everyone but neither is a mountain sled with a 174Ē long track but snowmachine OEMís sell quite a few of those to because they float better in deep snow and make it easier for heavier, less skilled riders to keep up with their friends in deep snow and in the mountains.

    I donít see building the 3XL as rocket science. Iíve never seen Espenís tires but they seems to be no reason to me why a Bud/Lou canít be scaled up in size with the same or very similar thickness case. The 2XL leaves a lot to be desired as it is heavy and not as supple. Itís not even built very well as Iíve had 5 different 2XLís and they all have a wobble cast into the tire. But they do float better and Iíll stick with them until the next best thing comes around.

  68. #68
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    .....I just think it's odd that none of the manufacturers want to go after what would obviously be a leg up on the competition - something that nobody else offers. Bike buyers shop based on specs and capability, and the 3XL bike would crush the competition in those categories.
    Honestly, I don't think it's odd at all. Many manufacturers were simply jumping on the fat bandwagon a few years ago and I think that's about the extent of their dedication to the niche. And it's obvious in terms of what they have brought to the table, which is little if anything that is original.

    Of course, there are some manufacturers with deep roots in fat, and who I'm sure have/are considering continuing to push the envelope. But like Mike says, the numbers have to be there, and even more so for the little guys. The number of people who are really going to get after the kind of riding being described here is really small. But I continue to remain optimistic that we may see something, some day...
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  69. #69
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I've been saying for a few years the magic size is 8".

    That would have sufficient volume to be able to support a bike and rider over very soft going - but you'd be in the deep stuff if you ever got stopped and tried to put a foot down, down, down....

    ...
    All of you desiring the elusive "floating bike", be careful what you wish for.

    If ever you fall off, you'll never get it going again unless you are packing stilts. Good luck!
    (I am picturing an actual person in knee-deep, un-traveled snow in the actual scenario where the bike is up on the snow and the top tube is at the unfortunate rider's chest. If I were any kind of artist I'd have sketched it on a napkin.)

    Maybe you can use your camp stove to melt some snow and build a ladder or a ramp out of ice (Wondertwin powers...activate!)
    SPD snowshoes?
    Inflatable gaiters?
    Inflatable boat?

    I mean, the actual application of these increasingly large tires is, as MC put it, for the smallest of niches.

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    All of you desiring the elusive "floating bike", be careful what you wish for.

    If ever you fall off, you'll never get it going again unless you are packing stilts. Good luck!
    That's a great point, I once ventured too far out on a Spring crust ride, once the sun softened the surface I started breaking through and getting going again when you're over knee deep in the soft stuff was not easy or much fun.
    '07 Spec Enduro
    '14 Salsa Mukluk 2
    '16 Salsa Bucksaw GX1

  71. #71
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    The fat bike market may be saturated, but with products that are difficult to distinguish from one another. Bringing a bike that's obviously, objectively more capable than anything else out there - via a very easy-to-compare metric such as tire width - would have widespread consumer appeal. They would sell bikes to people who already own a fatbike, because the new bike does what the old bikes can't. If people saw a 3xl bike side by side with a bike on 4.8s or 4.0s at the LBS, who wouldn't anticipate consumers opting for the monster truck?

    But you're right, I'm not buying the molds or building the frames. I just think it's odd that none of the manufacturers want to go after what would obviously be a leg up on the competition - something that nobody else offers. Bike buyers shop based on specs and capability, and the 3XL bike would crush the competition in those categories.

    I'm playing devil's advocate here, but please understand that I want the same thing you do.

    Everything you say has some truth to it, but you're grossly oversimplifying things. Adding another loss leader to their bottom line is not something any company wants to do, which is why the bike you want does not yet exist.

    Getting the tires to market is indeed the biggest stumbling block. And it does not follow that just because the tires exist the frames will follow.

  72. #72
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post

    I donít see building the 3XL as rocket science. Iíve never seen Espenís tires
    Vs a Juggernaut Pro (effective casing width 4.2'' on 80mm)

    (Plug: The ''skinny'' bike on the right is (at least was) the lightest mass produced fatbike, BTW. The 18.9lb/8.6kg BigBob LTD, a bike that I designed a few years back. Test: https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/ )

    Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?-3xl.jpg
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  73. #73
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    All of you desiring the elusive "floating bike", be careful what you wish for.

    If ever you fall off, you'll never get it going again unless you are packing stilts. Good luck!
    (I am picturing an actual person in knee-deep, un-traveled snow in the actual scenario where the bike is up on the snow and the top tube is at the unfortunate rider's chest. If I were any kind of artist I'd have sketched it on a napkin.)
    -F
    Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?-3xl-waist.jpg

    Watch the video that the screen shot was taken from:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEgnVaLZaE

    I have a 17lb bike with 4.5'' on hundies, but I pick this bike on 99 out of 100 snow rides despite it weighing 5lbs more.
    It makes such a difference that I will very likely quit snow riding on anything but rock hard snow in case I lose/destroy these tires.
    Riding anything resembling powder is so much easier/faster. I was ''forced'' onto skinnies (4.8) for a while last year for some tire testing for a tire maker and it was a nightmare. Peace of cake stuff became a chore of epic proportions on the 4.8s from sinking in where I would just ''hover'' on the thin walled 5.6's.
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  74. #74
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,617
    Holy Shit Snacks.

    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  75. #75
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3XL waist.jpg 
Views:	70 
Size:	87.8 KB 
ID:	1169929

    Watch the video that the screen shot was taken from:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEgnVaLZaE

    I have a 17lb bike with 4.5'' on hundies, but I pick this bike on 99 out of 100 snow rides despite it weighing 5lbs more.
    It makes such a difference that I will very likely quit snow riding on anything but rock hard snow in case I lose/destroy these tires.
    Riding anything resembling powder is so much easier/faster. I was ''forced'' onto skinnies (4.8) for a while last year for some tire testing for a tire maker and it was a nightmare. Peace of cake stuff became a chore of epic proportions on the 4.8s from sinking in where I would just ''hover'' on the thin walled 5.6's.
    You are firmly in the small niche to which these tires are aimed. I'd still like to see the rider hop back on and ride off.

    -F

  76. #76
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    I'd still like to see the rider hop back on and ride off.
    -F
    Here ye go, mr. Fleas

    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  77. #77
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    You are firmly in the small niche to which these tires are aimed. I'd still like to see the rider hop back on and ride off.

    -F

    I've never made it look graceful, but you can do it if you have trees handy. Lean the bike on the tree, climb back up the bike, get set, push off of tree and pedal away.

    If you were above timberline or in a meadow you could probably use a fellow rider the same way...

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Dang Espen, that photo next to the 4.2 was just ridiculous! I should have clarified Iíve seen seen your tires in person like what Mikesee mentioned about their construction. Iím picturing that they are quite supple and more like a balloon than a standard tire.

    In the second video would it be accurate to say you were riding in spring snow with a thin layer of crust on the top?

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    All of you desiring the elusive "floating bike", be careful what you wish for.

    If ever you fall off, you'll never get it going again unless you are packing stilts...
    I've thought about this too.

    The simple answer is a bike with no toptube.

    The other answer is a quadbike, either recumbent or upright.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

  80. #80
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post
    Here ye go, mr. Fleas

    Noice!

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  81. #81
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    Dang Espen, that photo next to the 4.2 was just ridiculous! I should have clarified Iíve seen seen your tires in person like what Mikesee mentioned about their construction. Iím picturing that they are quite supple and more like a balloon than a standard tire.

    In the second video would it be accurate to say you were riding in spring snow with a thin layer of crust on the top?
    Exactly: it feels like riding on a supple baloon. Magic carpet ride. Insanely smooth and I just ride away from folks on ''playful'' bikes with suspension, armor, etc , despite me being a lousy downhiller.

    And yep: spring snow with crust in the video. We see such conditions a lot throughout the year, actually. Lots of freeze-thaw-freeze

    Here is the classic picture that we took in company with a Dillinger 4:
    Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?-vs-d4.jpg
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  82. #82
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen W View Post


    Watch the video that the screen shot was taken from:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEgnVaLZaE

    I have a 17lb bike with 4.5'' on hundies, but I pick this bike on 99 out of 100 snow rides despite it weighing 5lbs more.
    It makes such a difference that I will very likely quit snow riding on anything but rock hard snow in case I lose/destroy these tires.
    Riding anything resembling powder is so much easier/faster. I was ''forced'' onto skinnies (4.8) for a while last year for some tire testing for a tire maker and it was a nightmare. Peace of cake stuff became a chore of epic proportions on the 4.8s from sinking in where I would just ''hover'' on the thin walled 5.6's.
    If only the 2XL's were of the same construction...
    My 2XL's are stiff and had they been similar to Schwalbe's liteskin, they would be totally awesome.

    The 5.6's you're riding look so damn nice! Would enjoy giving em a try at some point. The float has to be something to be experienced first hand, I would think.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Espen,
    I followed your recommendation and emailed VeeTire requesting they manufacture the 3XL. I want the ones you are riding with the single ply. Iím totally okay if they are snow only tires because I donít feel anything bigger than a 4.8 is practical or useful for summer riding. I donít even ride 4.8s in the summer because I think they are overkill.

    I know that if they released the tire the bikes would follow. Iíve emailed one OEM in Europe who said theyíd update their bike to fit the new tire so Iím confident the market is there.

    Banshee,
    Iím in agreement with you on the 2XL.

  84. #84
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,651
    ak-rider,

    I've done the same. I also asked em to make a 2XL with (for lack of better description) a LiteSkin version of the 2XL for those of us that don't weigh 250 or more! The argument of punctures when there is a base of 8' or more is ludicrous. Who the hell is gonna break out a shovel and dig their way down to the stuff that might puncture a fatbike tire in the dead of winter?
    That aside, I've had one goat head find a JJ 4.8 LiteSkin in 2 years of daily driving, not worried about that. I just want absolute performance for the beanpole that I am.

    Espen, thanks for sharing your experiences with the ultra fAt tires!

    Might just hafta call Scott Quiring for a frame if those 5.6's get to market...
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  85. #85
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Yep, single ply is Alfa & Omega.
    I roll away from Jumbo Jim 4.0
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  86. #86
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post

    Espen, thanks for sharing your experiences with the ultra fAt tires!

    Might just hafta call Scott Quiring for a frame if those 5.6's get to market...
    My pleasure, Sir!
    You could get a 3XL capable bike now, buddy just picked one up for $1250 or so:
    https://www.gsport.no/produkt/206453...mond-x2-sykkel
    (I'm not affiliated with the brand nomore)
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  87. #87
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,651
    You ran away? @.o

    Thanks for the link. *ponders adding to the collective*
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  88. #88
    Oslo, Norway
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    You ran away? @.o

    Thanks for the link. *ponders adding to the collective*
    Yep.

    The bike is likely sold out (very few were made) , but an improved frame/bike might be available under another name next year. Maybe
    Espen Wethe
    www.kindernay.com
    Kindernay on BikeRumor: https://goo.gl/iQtWxu

  89. #89
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,651
    Dammit, Espen!! No worries cause those bytchen 5.6"ers aren't available anyhow ... Doh!
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70
    This is for sale

    all details here Un v√©lo de neige sous le sapin ? - Salamandre : √* chacun son v√©lo ...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Winterbike 2017 - year of the 3XL tire?-big-fat-salamandre.jpg  


  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    450
    I just e-mailed Vee as well. Should we start an online petition as well?

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Thatíd be sweet, Iíd sign it. Give us more float!

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    244
    Sooo Surly's Instagram today is a bunch of stuff about the Pack Rat...

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    Ya, nothing except that road bike on their Facebook page as well. It doesnít seem like the venue a road bike would be released at.

  95. #95
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,651
    Quote Originally Posted by alexkraemer View Post
    I just e-mailed Vee as well. Should we start an online petition as well?

    That might sway Vee into offering what the fatbike riders are asking for.

    +1
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    380
    I would guess Vee has a very good idea how big the market would be for a 3xl based on their sales numbers of 2xl tires. I'd also guess the market isn't large enough to justify the capital. But I could be wrong...

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    21
    This may be true, however, After the excitement of the 3xl the 2xl was a bit of a letdown. Some tires aren't all that great and flop, vee has made some winners and some lemons.

    The original snowshoe was a bit of a lemon, but the psc xl was a good selling tire that worked fairly well.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobShort View Post
    I would guess Vee has a very good idea how big the market would be for a 3xl based on their sales numbers of 2xl tires. I'd also guess the market isn't large enough to justify the capital. But I could be wrong...

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    359
    I thinking Surly is saving the best for last. The world wouldnít be able to handle a huge release on Saturday. Sunday will be the day a fat bike version of the Pack Rat is released with ultra short chainstays. The concept will be all the weight you can pack on the front in the tandem milk crates will balance the bike out for maximum float AND traction.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    607
    I was there yesterday and nothing excited me really. Trek's demo fleet consisted of about 5 9.8s. No super huge cool tires.

    The only thing I saw that interested me was an EX8 for under $2400.
    "At least I'm enjoying the ride"

    16' Trek 8.4 DS
    16' Farley 7
    and I'm OK admitting..
    16' Sturgis

    Minneapolis MN

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,644
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    I thinking Surly is saving the best for last. The world wouldnít be able to handle a huge release on Saturday. Sunday will be the day a fat bike version of the Pack Rat is released with ultra short chainstays. The concept will be all the weight you can pack on the front in the tandem milk crates will balance the bike out for maximum float AND traction.
    And made from Surly's new exclusive steel - Gaspipehinneum
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57ļ36' Highlands, Scotland

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2XL, 3XL and 4XL gloves
    By Velokid1 in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2016, 08:36 AM
  2. Winterbike is this weekend
    By tonyvt in forum Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-03-2015, 08:30 AM
  3. WinterBike at Vermont's Kingdom Trails returns!
    By MTBVT.com in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-12-2013, 05:44 PM
  4. WinterBike at the Kingdom Trails returns!
    By MTBVT.com in forum Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2013, 11:19 AM
  5. Winterbike Event
    By knightrideride in forum Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-20-2012, 06:32 PM

Members who have read this thread: 439

Posting Permissions

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