Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Fatty SS?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    26

    Fatty SS?

    Anyone gone down this route? The idea seems so wrong and yet so right, as with most chub-related things...

  2. #2
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    406
    People have been doing this for years on a Pug

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,366
    I did. It's not all bad.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,784
    there's a long stretch of postings on lacemine29's blog about epic touring Alaska on some fat bikes. I think they were all riding singlespeed.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    116
    There are a couple related threads in the fatbike forum.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,694
    I think fat bikes and single speeds are a match made in heaven, really. Inclement conditions combined with the simplicity of a ss is just right. If the snow is so deep that a regular width tire isn't feasible, why on earth would you want cables and derailleurs to muck it all up?

  7. #7
    Desert RAT
    Reputation: Joshua_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    235
    Once you get your gearing right for your legs, it's perfect. I love my SS pugs!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua_B View Post
    Once you get your gearing right for your legs, it's perfect. I love my SS pugs!
    I second that
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatty SS?-100_0120.jpg  


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlexCuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    815
    The pugsley has 135 mm spacing for the front and rear right? It would be great to be able to just swap wheels without missing a beat if your freewheel froze up (this has happened to me a couple times, mostly in snowy conditions where I think the fatty would be most fun).

    Betting I have most of the parts for an SS drivetrain laying around too. Wonder if I should sell off my spare wheelset and pick up a pugsley frame. Sure the wife would love that
    Yeah I only carry cans cause I'm a weight weenie.

  10. #10
    questionably contented
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    13
    Done it. 2012 Pug running 32x20 with a Larry in front and an Endo in the rear. So far, good for everything from smooshy trails to single track to fire roads to snow (though not much snow so far, such has been winter). Riding pavement at all is pretty damned spinny, but that's just a good reason to ride on the verge.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    116
    Okay, I've been meaning to take a better picture for this thread but it hasn't happened so this will have to do for now.


  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jetboy23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,161
    Have any of you running a SS Fat bike found the wheel weights to require lower gearing compared to say a 29er? Loosing drivetrain drag is a benifit of SSing. Adding mega heavy tires would seem to counter this effect.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,366
    I run the same gearing (34x18) on mine as I do on my lighter bike and it SUCKS. So yes there's a difference. I believe the tires and tubes on the fat bike weigh about 9 lbs.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    780
    IF you are building a SS fatty, keep in mind that the +17mm asymetrical offset that pugsley employs to keep a 3x9 drivetrain chainline clear of the tire is not needed for SS an in fact requires negative dished spokes and/or rims with severly offset spoke holes. If you build a frame as a dedicated fatty SS, a symetrical (non-offset) 135 rear end works fine and make it possble to easily swap-in standard symetrical 29er wheels. SS fatty can also work with a standard 68/73mm width bottom bracket shell using the outer chainring position of a typical 3-ring crankset with 53mm chainline provides sufficient clearance for 100mm wide rubber (3.8" tire) but perhaps not for the newer uber-wide 4.5" tires. Benefits of using standard (non-100mm shell) crankset include reasonable Q factor and less risk of sidehill pedal strikes.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,098
    I've done a "simulation" by commuting on just one gear on my Moonlander, and found 22/13 to be the most suitable for that use. Not surprisingly it's a very similar gear ratio as on my 29er, which I run with 34/20. Do note that I go anywhere on the 29er with that gear ratio and switch to 34/18 for easier trails and fixed riding - I rarely even think of needing anything lower than 34/20, much less wish for it.

    On the Moonlander I can't handle deep snow going uphill on the "simulation SS" gear, but anything lower would be boringly slow for commuting. In that sense I feel that the fat bike in its true element needs a gearing so low that it's too low for anything else. What do I do with all the crazy traction if I can't produce enough torque to enjoy it? If I'm on an easy trail that I can handle on one gear, I might as well be riding my 29er.

    As a result I've been thinking of a "dinglespeed" setup with two chainrings and two sprockets. The faster gear would still be quite low (like 34/20) for general use and commuting, while the lower gear would be available when I seek out terrains where other bikes would stop. 32/22 perhaps.

    To put it short, I've pretty much buried the idea of a SS fat bike after riding one for a few weeks, but a DS is something I'd be willing to try. You still get most of the benefits of SS with dingle setups.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    780
    I have been considering the dinglespeed idea too. I am currently putting together a bike with an old 5-speed suntour freewheel I had collecting dust. The body of the FW is about 25mm width so can yield a more symetrically dished wheel than re-using a cassette hub which pushes the drive-side flange unnecessarily inboard for SS. I already have a box of old suntour freewheel cogs so give me a lot of cheap different options for setting up the cogs. (white industries 2-speed FW is limited to just a 2-tooth jump). Might even be possible to use the suntour freewheel setup with three cogs paired to the three chainrings of a MTB crank for even wider gearing range.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,098
    I have a regular XT rear hub on mine. The spokes are at a virtually perfect even tension - the "triangle" is symmetrical, so if I go dinglespeed, I'll just put some spacers and the cogs of my choice on the existing freewheel body and install the lock ring. Simple and effective.

  18. #18
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,486
    Yes, for ~11 months, and I love it. I use the same gear ratio as my 29er singlespeeds most of the time, and it's been fine. My frame uses 170mm rear hub and 100 mm bottom bracket. This allowed my chainstays to be built relatively short, thus, easy to lift the front end.

    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  19. #19
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,223
    Dang, son. That's a beaut. I've wanted a Vertigo since talking to Sean at NAHBS in Austin.
    500mm seatpost? Out of curiosity, just how short are the chain stays?

    Los
    "Shut up body and do what I tell you."
    Jens Voight

    http://teamjva.com/jens-voigt-soundboard/

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    536
    Saw someone sporting a SS fatbike at snowshoe last summer. I would love to try it on some DH trails.

  21. #21
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,486
    Custom 450mm long 30.9mm Eriksen seatpost. It has Paragon sliding drops, and they can get as short as 417mm, so ~16.4". With my current gear, it's ~16.5".
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  22. #22
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Drevil View Post
    Custom 450mm long 30.9mm Eriksen seatpost. It has Paragon sliding drops, and they can get as short as 417mm, so ~16.4". With my current gear, it's ~16.5".
    What the what?!? 417mm with a Husker Du?!?
    Impressive. Most impressive.

    Los
    "Shut up body and do what I tell you."
    Jens Voight

    http://teamjva.com/jens-voigt-soundboard/

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    384
    Fatty SS?-100_3632-medium-.jpg

    Yes, It's a good idea.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlexCuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by sslos View Post
    What the what?!? 417mm with a Husker Du?!?
    Impressive. Most impressive.

    Los
    Seriously! I'm definitely a short chainstay fan but I gotta wonder what qualifies as actually short, if 417 is only "relatively" short haha.
    Yeah I only carry cans cause I'm a weight weenie.

Posting Permissions

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