Page 111 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1161101107108109110111
Results 5,501 to 5,547 of 5547
  1. #5501
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    169
    Schwable marathon supreme
    Soma shikoro
    Schwable big ones

    Depends on how much flat protection you want. Ragbrai is supported right? Go light and supple tires.

  2. #5502
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    227
    Yep, it is supported, predominantly pavement with a small bit of gravel/dirt potentially.

    I am glad you mention the Schwalbe Big Ones. I was really curious about them. Schwalbe claims they have very low rolling resistance for such big tires. It sounds right up my alley.

  3. #5503
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by ciquta View Post
    last year I did a 1500km road/lightgravel trip with 2.35" big apples, and couldn't be happier

    loved the cushion, fast rolling at reasonable pressure and good protection (only one flat)

    so much that i've put a pair also on my urban bike

    That looks and sounds awesome! I am afraid everyone will think I am crazy running such wide tires... and the resistance could suck.... but I like the cushiness of big tires. I may try Big Apples or Big Ones or Big Bens... So many big Schwalbe options.

  4. #5504
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ciquta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by SocratesDiedTrolling View Post
    That looks and sounds awesome! I am afraid everyone will think I am crazy running such wide tires... and the resistance could suck.... but I like the cushiness of big tires. I may try Big Apples or Big Ones or Big Bens... So many big Schwalbe options.
    honestly?
    I think you would be ridiculous running 40mm tires on a Fargo...

    2.35" is the sleekest I can go now, looking forward to put my hands on the new Surly Extraterrestrial 29x2.5"

  5. #5505
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by SocratesDiedTrolling View Post
    Yep, it is supported, predominantly pavement with a small bit of gravel/dirt potentially.

    I am glad you mention the Schwalbe Big Ones. I was really curious about them. Schwalbe claims they have very low rolling resistance for such big tires. It sounds right up my alley.
    The big ones in 2.35 are way fast and fun! I've been using them on mixed surface riding.

  6. #5506
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,103
    Quote Originally Posted by SocratesDiedTrolling View Post
    That looks and sounds awesome! I am afraid everyone will think I am crazy running such wide tires... and the resistance could suck.... but I like the cushiness of big tires. I may try Big Apples or Big Ones or Big Bens... So many big Schwalbe options.
    You would think the resistance would suck, but compare the Big One to other road and touring tires and you'll be very surprised....

    Schwalbe Big One LiteSkin Rolling Resistance Review

    Road Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews

    Tour/E-Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert
    '15 Crossrip Ltd

  7. #5507
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    227
    Thanks, everyone! I am definitely gonna take a hard look at Big Ones. What do people think of Serfas Drifters? I am gonna throw those on just for now since they are cheap and already present at the bike shop. I may upgrade to something pricier like the Schwalbe ones once the event is closer. I imagine the Serfas Drifter, while smooth, is not so fast rolling as the Schwalbes.

  8. #5508
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ciquta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    66
    I don't think the big ones are a good choice on paved road.
    They are made for sandy terrain, expect low protection and quick wear on hard surfaces.

  9. #5509
    arc
    arc is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    235
    I think the Big Ones are being replaced by the G One Speed, same carcass with a gravel type tread.

  10. #5510
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    14
    Anyone know how the dropouts will differ between the 27+ and 29+? Thanks!

  11. #5511
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    Anyone know how the dropouts will differ between the 27+ and 29+? Thanks!
    Not sure I understand the question. Assuming your wheelsets are the same spacing, don't you just slide the Alternator dropouts back or (or forward) to accommodate the width/heigth of the tire? I've seen nothing to suggest a dropout change is needed, except when converting to thru axle, SS, or internal gear hub.
    Last edited by veloborealis; 4 Weeks Ago at 02:17 PM. Reason: Clarity
    The older I get the better I was...

  12. #5512
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    14
    I was under the impression that the Woodsmoke had some different dropouts to take care of bottom bracket height changes when going from different sized wheelsets. And I was seeing if the same thing applies to the 2017 Fargo.

  13. #5513
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    I was under the impression that the Woodsmoke had some different dropouts to take care of bottom bracket height changes when going from different sized wheelsets. And I was seeing if the same thing applies to the 2017 Fargo.
    I don't know about the WS, but I've seen nothing about dropouts to fine tune BB height for the Fargo. Maybe someone with more knowledge will chime in.
    The older I get the better I was...

  14. #5514
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    Anyone know how the dropouts will differ between the 27+ and 29+? Thanks!
    From what I've gathered the only reason you should use different dropouts is to accommodate different types of axles.

    The frame only is shipped with 148mm rear and 100mm front, same as the 27+ complete option. The 29er is shipped with other dropouts, not sure which though.

    The dropouts slide back and forth to make room for beefier tyres and/or achieve longer or shorter chainstays with less or more clearance.

    I'm currently waiting on the frame, building it up to run 29+ with boost rear and thru axle front. The bb drop is still greater than my other bikes so I don't think the added height from plus tyres will be a problem for me.

  15. #5515
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4
    If you take a closer look on the design of the dropouts you'll see that the axle swings downward with a shorter setting and upward with a longer setting. This should at least lower or lift the bb height a tiny bit to compensate for different sizes.

  16. #5516
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by evirob View Post
    If you take a closer look on the design of the dropouts you'll see that the axle swings downward with a shorter setting and upward with a longer setting. This should at least lower or lift the bb height a tiny bit to compensate for different sizes.
    Good observation! BTW, the 29er complete ships with the 135mm Alternator reduction plates (100mm front/135mm rear/QR). Make sure to post pics of your 29+ Fargo when you get it done.
    The older I get the better I was...

  17. #5517
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by veloborealis View Post
    Good observation! BTW, the 29er complete ships with the 135mm Alternator reduction plates (100mm front/135mm rear/QR). Make sure to post pics of your 29+ Fargo when you get it done.
    Ah yes, that's why I got the frameset instead of the stock 29er. Really wanted boost (and the color is great).

    I'll be back for some pics when I'm done.

  18. #5518
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    14
    Thanks for the reply, just got the frame yesterday to build up a 29+ myself.

  19. #5519
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,236
    Quote Originally Posted by evirob View Post
    If you take a closer look on the design of the dropouts you'll see that the axle swings downward with a shorter setting and upward with a longer setting. This should at least lower or lift the bb height a tiny bit to compensate for different sizes.
    For a 29+ the drop out should allow for a lower bottom bracket height on a Fargo since the effective overall diameter will be much larger than with 27.5+ or 29"er wheels. In other words, the bottom bracket should go lower on 29+ relative to the wheel axles to maintain similar handling characteristics between wheel sizes.

    If the design were trying to accomplish this the slope of the slot in the frame that the Alternator would follow would be "up and back", not the way that it is. That said, since the Alternator pivots from the top bolt, it cannot be done any other way than the way it is. It would require a different Alternator plate design for 29+ only.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  20. #5520
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    14
    Guitar Ted, do you think 29+ will end up with too high of a bottom bracket marginalizing stability? Is this an oversight by salsa not releasing new plates?

  21. #5521
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5
    question: is it okay to put a 27+ (x3.0) wheelset in the front while retaining my 29 easton arc35 on 2.4 ardent in the back? i ride a 2015 green machine fargo. many thanks...

  22. #5522
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    419
    Yes, I did exactly that. The diameter is the same.

  23. #5523
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,236
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    Guitar Ted, do you think 29+ will end up with too high of a bottom bracket marginalizing stability? Is this an oversight by salsa not releasing new plates?
    It is obvious that 29, 29+, and 27.5+ all have different axle heights from the ground. Unless the designer compensates for this in the design there will have to be some compromises made when using one of those wheel sizes.

    A higher bottom bracket when using a taller wheel seems counter intuitive unless there is a specific design goal to meet which requires a taller bottom bracket. I have trouble seeing how a taller BB would benefit the Fargo with 29+ wheels, but perhaps there is some reason/use situation that makes that desirable. I know that for myself, it would be a deal breaker, having ridden a 29+ converted bike with a high BB as a result.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  24. #5524
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    419
    29er and 27.5+ have almost the exact same diameter. Given the difference in axle to crown measurements on most front suspension forks; I doubt that you could tell much difference with those 2 sizes. I run a 27.5 x 2.8 front wheel and a 29x2.3 rear wheel. Because 27.5 x 2.8 is slightly smaller than a 27.5 x 3.0; it lowers the bottom bracket slightly. To compensate, I changed from 180mm cranks to 175mm. I love the extra cushion on the rigid from fork.



    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    It is obvious that 29, 29+, and 27.5+ all have different axle heights from the ground. Unless the designer compensates for this in the design there will have to be some compromises made when using one of those wheel sizes.

    A higher bottom bracket when using a taller wheel seems counter intuitive unless there is a specific design goal to meet which requires a taller bottom bracket. I have trouble seeing how a taller BB would benefit the Fargo with 29+ wheels, but perhaps there is some reason/use situation that makes that desirable. I know that for myself, it would be a deal breaker, having ridden a 29+ converted bike with a high BB as a result.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails The Salsa Fargo Thread-wheelsize.jpg  


  25. #5525
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    29er and 27.5+ have almost the exact same diameter. Given the difference in axle to crown measurements on most front suspension forks; I doubt that you could tell much difference with those 2 sizes. I run a 27.5 x 2.8 front wheel and a 29x2.3 rear wheel. Because 27.5 x 2.8 is slightly smaller than a 27.5 x 3.0; it lowers the bottom bracket slightly. To compensate, I changed from 180mm cranks to 175mm. I love the extra cushion on the rigid from fork.
    I don't have any personal experience but I've read on the plus forums that you also need to take into consideration loaded weight with rider when comparing wheel diameters. This is because the b+ will squish/compress more than the 29er. So even though the tire diameters when unloaded are similar, they become different enough when comparing with a loaded rider on the bike. ymmv.
    2003 Kona A
    2005 Kona A
    2012 Cannondale Hooligan
    2016 Salsa Deadwood

  26. #5526
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5
    thank you for the answering my question. the infographic on wheel diameters is especially helpful. i originally wanted three wheelsets for my fargo. i put 40mm clement xplor mso on the stock wheelset and built a second set with easton arc35 rims for wider 29 tires. up next is a 27.5+ wheelset (2.8 back and 3 front). but i am thinking whether putting a 2.8 or 3 wide tire on the front arc35 will approximate what i want from the 27.5+ tires. my question is aiming at a compromise while postponing more than half the cost of another wheelset.

    with regards to plus wheels compressing more than regular 29s, will my weight of 65kgs do this in such a way that will affect how the fargo handles?

    thanks again

  27. #5527
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,080
    Quote Originally Posted by buell View Post
    I don't have any personal experience but I've read on the plus forums that you also need to take into consideration loaded weight with rider when comparing wheel diameters. This is because the b+ will squish/compress more than the 29er. So even though the tire diameters when unloaded are similar, they become different enough when comparing with a loaded rider on the bike. ymmv.
    Static loaded radius is a fairly common measurement in the auto world. It gives you an idea of ride height when the weight of the vehicle is applied. I'd be interested to seeing what the numbers are for various width bike tires but honestly do know that it would make a huge difference in real world circumstances.

  28. #5528
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    29er and 27.5+ have almost the exact same diameter. Given the difference in axle to crown measurements on most front suspension forks; I doubt that you could tell much difference with those 2 sizes. I run a 27.5 x 2.8 front wheel and a 29x2.3 rear wheel. Because 27.5 x 2.8 is slightly smaller than a 27.5 x 3.0; it lowers the bottom bracket slightly. To compensate, I changed from 180mm cranks to 175mm. I love the extra cushion on the rigid from fork.
    The point being is that they are all different, and the 29+ is very different.

    This is why when folks switch from B+ to 29"er, I agree with you. The handling and performance differences are typically in a range that most will accept. (Or not be able to discern, whichever you choose.)

    But to jump from there to 29+?

    That's the point I was trying to explain in my last post- without making an adjustment with an Alternator plate design that accounts for that bottom bracket height difference, the Fargo will not be the same bike as it is with B+/29"er wheels. In fact, the Alternator design as it is actually exacerbates the problem (if you think a high BB is a problem here) when you attempt to use 29+ wheels by swinging downward and back, which raises the bottom bracket slightly.

    Thanks for posting that graphic which visually illustrates my point about overall diameter differences quite well.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  29. #5529
    Training for the Darwin's
    Reputation: Forster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,932
    Quote Originally Posted by sal-it View Post
    thank you for the answering my question. the infographic on wheel diameters is especially helpful. i originally wanted three wheelsets for my fargo. i put 40mm clement xplor mso on the stock wheelset and built a second set with easton arc35 rims for wider 29 tires. up next is a 27.5+ wheelset (2.8 back and 3 front). but i am thinking whether putting a 2.8 or 3 wide tire on the front arc35 will approximate what i want from the 27.5+ tires. my question is aiming at a compromise while postponing more than half the cost of another wheelset.

    with regards to plus wheels compressing more than regular 29s, will my weight of 65kgs do this in such a way that will affect how the fargo handles?

    thanks again
    Normally you'd run 27.5+ or any + tire at a lower pressure so you'll notice. Is that good or bad? I can't answer because I haven't ridden the current frame. I know on my 2013, lower pressures make things squirrelly but that's not useful information, because the frames are set-up differently.

    As an aside, I ride a large frame and can get some toe interference with the front wheel when I fun fenders (close to the tire). I can't imagine that issue has been resolved to the point where I'd try the bike in 29+ mode.
    The most expensive bike in the world is still cheaper than the cheapest open heart surgery.

  30. #5530
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    26
    Hi guys, quick question, my brother is 6ft, and might be getting a Fargo. Since he wrecked his old frame, he's been riding my old El Mariachi which is a small, so he's been looking for a new frame.

    He plans on swapping out the drops with his jones hbar so should he get the Medium or Large? 2015 version btw as it's on sale.

  31. #5531
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,692
    If he's 6' he should get a large.
    Disclaimer: Please don't make the mistake of thinking I take most of this seriously.



  32. #5532
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,080
    Quote Originally Posted by DoLB View Post
    Hi guys, quick question, my brother is 6ft, and might be getting a Fargo. Since he wrecked his old frame, he's been riding my old El Mariachi which is a small, so he's been looking for a new frame.

    He plans on swapping out the drops with his jones hbar so should he get the Medium or Large? 2015 version btw as it's on sale.
    This could get tricky, for a few reasons. First, he's going to be conditioned to riding a bike that is too small, so there is a good chance that a properly sized bike is going to feel wrong, at least at first.

    Second, changing to a MTB bar is going to make the Fargo fit ~2.5 sizes too small compared to the equivalent sized bike designed for MTB bars.

    Simply put, the appropriate sized Fargo (large) with MTB bars is going to put the bars in roughly the same place as the bike he has now that is too small.

    Honestly it may be a better idea to go for a bike designed for MTB bars and skip all the headaches.

  33. #5533
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    26
    OK Thanks for the input guys.

    He likes the fit on my Jones, and it is more upright than his fit on the El Mar, with a seatback post heightened to his level. Would a large Fargo be even smaller with jones bars?

  34. #5534
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    128
    I just came across a 2016 Salsa Fargo X7 on craigslist for cheap. Anybody have an idea of what it's worth? I see bikes posted on different craigslists for $1000 or more.

  35. #5535
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    For a 29+ the drop out should allow for a lower bottom bracket height on a Fargo since the effective overall diameter will be much larger than with 27.5+ or 29"er wheels. In other words, the bottom bracket should go lower on 29+ relative to the wheel axles to maintain similar handling characteristics between wheel sizes.

    If the design were trying to accomplish this the slope of the slot in the frame that the Alternator would follow would be "up and back", not the way that it is. That said, since the Alternator pivots from the top bolt, it cannot be done any other way than the way it is. It would require a different Alternator plate design for 29+ only.
    I see now that i mistyped, I meant that the axle swings somewhat upwards.

    I must admit though, I've no idea how the dropouts actually works. Just judging from pictures it would indeed "rise" the axle when set all the way to the back. Might be wrong though.

    Here's how I'm thinking:
    The Salsa Fargo Thread-fargo-dropout.jpg

    Anyways, I'm probably getting a regular 29:er wheelset later on if I'm not hooked on the 29+. Coming from skinny tires both will be an improvement off-road.

    Btw, you we're a big help in my decision getting a Fargo in the first place. Really enjoyed your blog/page

  36. #5536
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by DoLB View Post
    Would a large Fargo be even smaller with jones bars?
    No, it will still be a large.

    Though he may find that he would like to change the stem length/height going from a drop bar to a Jones. How much, if at all, is hard to say since I have no idea what stem is on the bike now, nor what his preferred position is. Bottom line is that much of it will come down to preference, and he'll just have to experiment to find what he likes.
    Disclaimer: Please don't make the mistake of thinking I take most of this seriously.



  37. #5537
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    No, it will still be a large.

    Though he may find that he would like to change the stem length/height going from a drop bar to a Jones. How much, if at all, is hard to say since I have no idea what stem is on the bike now, nor what his preferred position is. Bottom line is that much of it will come down to preference, and he'll just have to experiment to find what he likes.
    Cool, thanks a bunch!

  38. #5538
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Honda Guy View Post
    I just came across a 2016 Salsa Fargo X7 on craigslist for cheap. Anybody have an idea of what it's worth? I see bikes posted on different craigslists for $1000 or more.
    If we are talking about the same Fargo, then it is 2017 one. If I were you, I would run quick. Yes, I think it is an amazing deal. For that price, you could normally buy just a frame from earlier gen Fargos. Here you are getting just a few weeks old bicycle.

    I would really be concerned that it has been stolen, but the seller put his name and phone number in the ad. So, might be totally legit.

  39. #5539
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edved37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    138
    I've searched but haven't found much info yet. I signed up for DK200 and plan on riding single speed. I have a titanium Warbird which I could switch over and also have a Nature Boy disc but its a tad small. Now I've always wanted a Fargo so my thought was to tank a couple bikes and either build a frame up single speed Fargo or find one geared and do the switch.
    Long story short...are many guys running SS and what are you thoughts on this bike set up this way to take on DK200? Thanks for any help
    Beargrease NX1
    Titanium Warbird
    Nature Boy Disc
    Jones Diamond Frame/truss fork

  40. #5540
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,236
    Quote Originally Posted by edved37 View Post
    I've searched but haven't found much info yet. I signed up for DK200 and plan on riding single speed. I have a titanium Warbird which I could switch over and also have a Nature Boy disc but its a tad small. Now I've always wanted a Fargo so my thought was to tank a couple bikes and either build a frame up single speed Fargo or find one geared and do the switch.
    Long story short...are many guys running SS and what are you thoughts on this bike set up this way to take on DK200? Thanks for any help
    You know, now that you mention it, I don't see many single speed set ups on Fargos.

    Anyway, single speed bikes have been and are a good choice for the DK200. There are not many climbs a good, in shape rider could not pull off there (depending on how hot it gets ) and there is no reason a SS Fargo could not be ridden to a respectable finish, given a good rider is aboard it.

    So, I would say that it would work. I've seen many SS riders finish the DK200 and I have ridden one there as well. No reason to shy away from SS if that is your jam.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  41. #5541
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    169
    The Surly ET 29er just came in stock, and I have a pair on order for my Gen 1 Fargo. Hope they fit!

    Tires | Parts and Accessories | Surly Bikes

    ExtraTerrestrial 29 x 2.5

    A 29” version of our high-volume, heavy-duty, off-road touring, set-it-and-forget-it ExtraTerrestrial tread. Like its 26” counterpart, it was designed to shine on hard pack surfaces and features an extremely low-profile, directional tread pattern that offers tons of traction with hardly any rolling resistance. With a nylon breaker in the sidewalls for cut protection, a molded pattern for anti-cut propagation, and a Kevlar cap under the tread, ET gives you more flat protection than you ever thought possible. Available in 29 x 2.5” in 60tpi.

    Bead Seat Diameter: 622mm
    Rim Width: 19mm – 50mm outer dimensions
    Casing: 60tpi, tubeless-ready bead

  42. #5542
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    419
    The Surly ET 29er 2.5" tire's outer width is 64 to 71mm (depending on rim width). My guess is that it will fit in the front, but not in the rear:

    http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downlo...o_Chart_v2.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by renegade44 View Post
    The Surly ET 29er just came in stock, and I have a pair on order for my Gen 1 Fargo. Hope they fit!

    Tires | Parts and Accessories | Surly Bikes

    ExtraTerrestrial 29 x 2.5

    A 29” version of our high-volume, heavy-duty, off-road touring, set-it-and-forget-it ExtraTerrestrial tread. Like its 26” counterpart, it was designed to shine on hard pack surfaces and features an extremely low-profile, directional tread pattern that offers tons of traction with hardly any rolling resistance. With a nylon breaker in the sidewalls for cut protection, a molded pattern for anti-cut propagation, and a Kevlar cap under the tread, ET gives you more flat protection than you ever thought possible. Available in 29 x 2.5” in 60tpi.

    Bead Seat Diameter: 622mm
    Rim Width: 19mm – 50mm outer dimensions
    Casing: 60tpi, tubeless-ready bead

  43. #5543
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ACosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    34
    Beer run with the Salsa Fargo.

    It's awesome how I know I'll have some fun when I take the Fargo out of the bike rack. Even when I'm just going a few blocks away to get some beer and cheese on a snowy day.


  44. #5544
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    The Surly ET 29er 2.5" tire's outer width is 64 to 71mm (depending on rim width). My guess is that it will fit in the front, but not in the rear:

    http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downlo...o_Chart_v2.pdf
    The larger dimensions in that chart are on a 50 mm rim, which is unlikely for most Fargo riders. I'll be using the original Salsa Semi 29er rims which are ~29mm outer width. I just did some quick measurements, and I think they will fit front and rear.

    When the Fargo first came out, there were reports of it fitting 2.3" tires on a 35 mm rim. With a non-knobby tire, it should clear an an even bigger tire.

  45. #5545
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5
    i have 2.4 ardents on 35mm inner width easton arc rims (39mm outer width). clearance is fine especially when i extend the chainstay length. another millimeter from the tire will not affect the clearance much

    edit: oops. but i am talking about a 2015 fargo 3

  46. #5546
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    169
    The surly ET 29x2.5 fit my Gen1 Fargo just fine. The tread is about 2.38, while the casing is more like 2.25 with tubes at 25-30 psi. Even if they stretch, there should still be clearance.

  47. #5547
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by renegade44 View Post
    The surly ET 29x2.5 fit my Gen1 Fargo just fine. The tread is about 2.38, while the casing is more like 2.25 with tubes at 25-30 psi. Even if they stretch, there should still be clearance.
    Update: After a 2nd night and being inflated to 50 psi, the tread is now at 2.5" and casing is 2.44". This is on Salsa Semi 29er rims, which are just under 30 mm outside width.

    Max pressure is 60 psi, so Surly's chart seems fairly accurate.
    Last edited by renegade44; 1 Week Ago at 07:03 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
  •