Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 70

Thread: Lynskey Fatbike

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,105

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    4' Tire clearance won't cut it any more. To many people want 5" clearance. Any new frame engineered should handle 5" tires to give the purchaser the choice to go big or not so big.

  3. #3
    Clears
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    90
    Lemme guess before I click the link, another hardtail fat bike........shocker

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    I wouldn't say it's new...Lynskey has been making the Ti Fatback for years. With Fatback ditching the 170 for 190, it left a spot for Lynskey to slide into...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,417
    They should just call it a Fatback


  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    4' Tire clearance won't cut it any more. To many people want 5" clearance. Any new frame engineered should handle 5" tires to give the purchaser the choice to go big or not so big.
    Not sure I'd agree with that. Personally, I'm fine with 170mm hubs and 4" tires. I also "downsized" from RDs to Marge Lite rims, making my rig a bit less fat, and I'm liking it. There's not enough 190mm bikes out there yet to be able to say if it's gonna stick. No aftermarket hubs, either (that I'm aware of). So there's some risk jumping on that bandwagon at this point.

  7. #7
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Not sure I'd agree with that. Personally, I'm fine with 170mm hubs and 4" tires. I also "downsized" from RDs to Marge Lite rims, making my rig a bit less fat, and I'm liking it. There's not enough 190mm bikes out there yet to be able to say if it's gonna stick. No aftermarket hubs, either (that I'm aware of). So there's some risk jumping on that bandwagon at this point.
    I agree. Everyone I know on a fat bike is on 4" tires. I run a Bud up front and often lust for something faster rolling---especially when I ride with them.

    Also, SS'ers can probably run a large tire in the back with no drivetrain worries. I think this usually refers to running a full range of gears with a large tire.
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  8. #8
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,242
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    I wouldn't say it's new...Lynskey has been making the Ti Fatback for years. With Fatback ditching the 170 for 190, it left a spot for Lynskey to slide into...
    And don't forget the titanium Mukluk, (until this coming year's model), which Lynskey also made.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Not sure I'd agree with that. Personally, I'm fine with 170mm hubs and 4" tires. I also "downsized" from RDs to Marge Lite rims, making my rig a bit less fat, and I'm liking it. There's not enough 190mm bikes out there yet to be able to say if it's gonna stick. No aftermarket hubs, either (that I'm aware of). So there's some risk jumping on that bandwagon at this point.
    Tell that to 9-0-7 and Borealis. They both have invested heavily to create Carbon frames that are 190 mm and fit Bud/Lou on Clownshoe's. There are probably a couple I didnt think of also or don't know of. Carver also makes the Ti-Obeast that accepts Bud/Lou on Clownshoes. I would not buy a new frame if it didn't have that capability. You may want to go big some day too. Why not have the choice?

  10. #10
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,156
    Cool if ya like ChiTi that breaks a lot, I guess......
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  11. #11
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    I've gotta say that for the riding I do on the East coast of the U.S., I don't feel a need for a 190mm frame. We don't get huge amounts of snow in the winter here in VA. Both 70 and 47mm rims work like a charm for me, especially when doing 50+ mile trail rides. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I hope the 170mm frames stay around.

  12. #12
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,635

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    I thought they (Lynskey) only made the first year Ti Muk...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  14. #14
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    25,536
    The "Obsolete"?
    "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.

  15. #15
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,242
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    I thought they (Lynskey) only made the first year Ti Muk...
    Which was carried over to this year, and next year's is Taiwanese manufactured.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    gottcha
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Desert Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    372
    Does "ChiTi" break a lot? I guess there must be different grades of Titanium, but how different are they? or is it the welds?
    " F#ck it, lets go ride bikes!"

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    I thought Lynskeys were made in the USA? However I did just look at their site and it makes no mention of Made in the USA or otherwise...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,342
    I find it difficult to justify Ti for a fatbike frame. (I've got a Ti 29er and a Ti CX bike, so I do like the stuff)

    I can't see much point in it on a fatbike because the fat tyres do the job you want it for on skinny bikes, and you end up with a heavier frame than the equivalent quality in aluminium.

    About the only advantage I can think off (apart from the shininess ) was if I was crossing a lot of salt water beaches where the corrosion resistance would be an advantage
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  20. #20
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    I thought Lynskeys were made in the USA? However I did just look at their site and it makes no mention of Made in the USA or otherwise...

    They are made in Tennessee.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    That's what I thought, but I would also think they would have that prominently notated on their site
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  22. #22
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,193
    Quote Originally Posted by JYB View Post
    I've gotta say that for the riding I do on the East coast of the U.S., I don't feel a need for a 190mm frame. We don't get huge amounts of snow in the winter here in VA. Both 70 and 47mm rims work like a charm for me, especially when doing 50+ mile trail rides. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I hope the 170mm frames stay around.
    +1
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  23. #23
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,946

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Surlynot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    67

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    I don't feel a need for a 190mm frame
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    I hope the 170mm frames stay around.
    ^ this, as it suits the xc style riding that i do.
    Nothing against 190, but neither have I for 170!
    Leave nothing but footprints & take nothing but photographs.

  25. #25
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,242
    Lynskey says the frame has a 70° Head Angle based on a 474.5mm axle to crown fork. The specs on the complete say the bike has a Moonlander fork. I don't think Moonlander forks are offered in that long a configuration. So either the actual head angle will be steeper, or there is a Moonlander fork that long. (Surly's site is not very helpful in this regard, by the way.)
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  26. #26
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Desert Walker View Post
    Does "ChiTi" break a lot? I guess there must be different grades of Titanium, but how different are they? or is it the welds?
    I'll assume you're asking me, since I brought it up.

    Yes, it does. Not all, as a unbending rule, but cheap ti sourced from China because of price is of dubious purity. This leads to all sorts of issues, including breaking, generally at weld points.

    If they switched to premium ti, prices would go up, and failure rate, down.

    I'll stick with builders who take pride in charging what's necessary to deliver a superior product, and let others enjoy what the race to the bottom provides.

    As a long standing ti geek, it's just the way I feel. Kinda like a premium Angus burger with really tasty fresh veggies hot off your home grill, next to a Big Mac, both are burgers, and yet, not.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Craig how do we get a poll started to find out every one's tire width preference? It would have to be, (if you could only have one width what would it be), kinda thing. Maybe I am the only one who thinks new frames coming out should fit the largest tires made.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    Craig how do we get a poll started to find out every one's tire width preference? It would have to be, (if you could only have one width what would it be), kinda thing. Maybe I am the only one who thinks new frames coming out should fit the largest tires made.
    This.

    Or at least have both size models for the same price.

  29. #29
    Black Sheep rising
    Reputation: utabintarbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I find it difficult to justify Ti for a fatbike frame. (I've got a Ti 29er and a Ti CX bike, so I do like the stuff)

    I can't see much point in it on a fatbike because the fat tyres do the job you want it for on skinny bikes, and you end up with a heavier frame than the equivalent quality in aluminium.
    I kinda disagree. I do a lot of gravel roads, as well as trails, and the extra little flex of titanium really takes the edge off, relative to my Pugsley. My Ti bikes are generally my most comfortable bikes.

    And not all ChiTi is created equal. My Carver has taken a beating under my fat ass, and I've had no issues. YMMV
    Let the market decide!

    N42.58 W83.06

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kyttyra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    186
    Attachment 823318

    I do not really like the looks of that bike:
    *why Moonlander fork instead of a nice Ti one
    *straight seatpost and long stem look awkward
    ...these are remedied reasonably easily, but long chainstays with only 4" tyre clearance look obsolete (Trek and Schlick APe look nice and playful with "fat-lite" geometry).

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    673
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've seen more broken and badly-made Lynskey frames than all other makes & models combined. Maybe that's because I used to sell them....

    I always said I'd never buy another, which is why I was pleased when the 2013 El Mariachis moved production.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I find it difficult to justify Ti for a fatbike frame. (I've got a Ti 29er and a Ti CX bike, so I do like the stuff)

    I can't see much point in it on a fatbike because the fat tyres do the job you want it for on skinny bikes, and you end up with a heavier frame than the equivalent quality in aluminium.

    About the only advantage I can think off (apart from the shininess ) was if I was crossing a lot of salt water beaches where the corrosion resistance would be an advantage
    To quote myself: "Advantages of Ti include: lighter than steel, no rust/oxidation, no paint, less likely to dent, finish can be restored to like new by amateur with steel wool, generally more durable than steel or aluminum, repairable without having to repaint, resale value. And it has intangible magical properties. That's all I can think of at the moment."

    I'm the original owner of a 1990 (pre-Litespeed) Merlin mountain frame that I rode, raced and abused as my only mountain bike for 10 years. Probably the only bike that I could never part with, even tough it hardly gets used these days.

  33. #33
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    Yeah we need more bickering in this forum
    I agree this forum has really turned to this.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    I agree this forum has really turned to this.
    Really? Seems mostly respectful and reasonable to me.
    Except for the Walgoose stuff, which deserves it.

  35. #35
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    25,536
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    To quote myself: "Advantages of Ti include: lighter than steel, no rust/oxidation, no paint, less likely to dent, finish can be restored to like new by amateur with steel wool, generally more durable than steel or aluminum, repairable without having to repaint, resale value. And it has intangible magical properties. That's all I can think of at the moment."

    I'm the original owner of a 1990 (pre-Litespeed) Merlin mountain frame that I rode, raced and abused as my only mountain bike for 10 years. Probably the only bike that I could never part with, even tough it hardly gets used these days.
    Lack of heat transfer with carbon>titanium.
    "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.

  36. #36
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,156
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    Craig how do we get a poll
    I haven't done it, but it's a function on the forums, so start one if you like.

    I don't know that we need one really, but at the end of the day, it makes sense to build a bike that can take the widest available tire, as no one ever complains about having too much clearance, but having tire choice limited by frame build? That just seems silly if you're starting with a clean slate, to build a frame, for todays market, if you ask me....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  37. #37
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,635
    Why no helix?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Well I'm sorry if you feel that discussion is bickering. Certainly NOT my intent! I thought that the forum was to discuss all things fat. My opinions are just that (mine), and I completely understand that. Has any one been bad mouthing any one else or their views? I don't see that here. I totally respect each and every persons choice and view point on this forum. If I have been disrespectful or negative towards any one please accept my humble apology. Why would you consider a poll on tire width preference a source of contention?

  39. #39
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    Why would you consider a poll on tire width preference a source of contention?
    You've obviously never discussed engine oil on a motorcycle forum before...

  40. #40
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    Well I'm sorry if you feel that discussion is bickering. Certainly NOT my intent! I thought that the forum was to discuss all things fat. My opinions are just that (mine), and I completely understand that. Has any one been bad mouthing any one else or their views? I don't see that here. I totally respect each and every persons choice and view point on this forum. If I have been disrespectful or negative towards any one please accept my humble apology. Why would you consider a poll on tire width preference a source of contention?
    No you do an excellent job with your post and I look forward to reading them. What I refer to is a lot of the new bike release threads turn into big arguments about bg manufactures getting involved.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    Did't think you were out of line at all gcappy. Have your poll if you like. Can't do any worse than the Westboro fat bike thread
    God hates fatbikes?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by utabintarbo View Post
    I kinda disagree. I do a lot of gravel roads, as well as trails, and the extra little flex of titanium really takes the edge off, relative to my Pugsley. My Ti bikes are generally my most comfortable bikes....
    I'd be concerned about the integrity of a Ti bike that could be felt to flex when the tyres are at 6-8psi. I do appreciate what you're saying though because it is a definite help on my CX bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    ....it makes sense to build a bike that can take the widest available tire, as no one ever complains about having too much clearance, but having tire choice limited by frame build? That just seems silly if you're starting with a clean slate, to build a frame, for todays market, if you ask me....
    Not only should it be built for the widest tyre, it should allow clearance for full mudguards/fenders. That makes a huge difference to how long it takes to get the shivers when the tracks are slushy.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  43. #43
    Black Sheep rising
    Reputation: utabintarbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I'd be concerned about the integrity of a Ti bike that could be felt to flex when the tyres are at 6-8psi. I do appreciate what you're saying though because it is a definite help on my CX bike.
    FWIW, I am pretty heavy (was 280, now 250 lbs.) so there is more ...opportunity for flex. Also, I generally run 13-17psi when doing gravel roads, depending on the tire. On trails, 8-10psi, and the flex is less noticeable. So it comes down to - we actually agree.
    Let the market decide!

    N42.58 W83.06

  44. #44
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,156
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    Can't do any worse than the Westboro fat bike thread
    Yeah! That lasted about as long as a mating shrew.

    Meh, guess I figured enough of those images were out there, it wouldn't offend, guess I was wrong.

    There was a fatbike in the pic though, I swear!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Yeah! That lasted about as long as a mating shrew.

    Meh, guess I figured enough of those images were out there, it wouldn't offend, guess I was wrong.

    There was a fatbike in the pic though, I swear!
    I saw it. I think.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    heaven is for 5 inch only

    and dogs
    Arghhhhh!!

  47. #47
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    Quote Originally Posted by AC/BC View Post
    Why no helix?
    Mainly because it's pointless and looks terrible.

    :-)
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    heaven is for 5 inch only

    and dogs
    Dogs, I get.

    But 5"? That's an abomination.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    I'll be burning for my 2" wheels and 3.8 rubber
    See ya there. We'll ride.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by utabintarbo View Post
    ...So it comes down to - we actually agree.
    Indeed
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lynskey Got It Right This Time 2011 Lynskey PRO29 SS
    By Superlight2003 in forum Lynskey
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-30-2014, 07:42 PM
  2. Lynskey mt 650
    By jbp3 in forum 27.5
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-12-2013, 07:45 PM
  3. New Fatbike Build (LBS or experienced FatBike shop)
    By synthesis in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-23-2013, 02:56 AM
  4. Lynskey Ti 29
    By craigstr in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-20-2013, 10:03 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 05:12 AM

Posting Permissions

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