I really like my Fat front Jones. I love the idea of this, but wouldn't want to go back to 100mm front spacing. I wonder how the 3" 29er tire would compare to the 3.8" 26er tire... Maybe I get these rims build onto 135mm front hub and give it a go.
I will be putting these rims on my Jones - and a Knard on the front!!! - this is what I've been waiting for - it will be fatter AND lighter than my Gordo/WW setup. I wonder how low you can run them? 15psi or less?
In a lineup that includes an Ogre and a Troll, a Krampus makes perfect sense. My only question is does this now belong in a new 29er+/semi-fat sub-forum? I love Surly's stuff, I'm only sad all I own is one of their forks.
Originally Posted by Skrufryder
Silly rabbit Jack Daniel drinking donkey kissing caterpiller
While it's a very cool bike, especially if you're looking for one, I'm more interested in the tyre. Would put it on my KM to help raise the front and BB a bit and slack out the HA a tad and slow the steering down. This would probably pair nicely with a WTB WW 2.55" outback This is the only thing I've wanted to do to my KM (slack the front) and was thinking of purchasing a 490-500mm fork to do it, but this would be more funner and add more cush
One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
'Normal' fat bikes are 26" rims. This is a full on 700c rimmed bike, placing it in the 29" realm. You might be lucky if these fit in your fat bike, as these appear quite tall. certainly won't fit in any normal suspension forks.
'Normal' fat bikes are 26" rims. This is a full on 700c rimmed bike, placing it in the 29" realm. You might be lucky if these fit in your fat bike, as these appear quite tall. certainly won't fit in any normal suspension forks.
I made some measurements from pictures, the diameter of the 3" wide tire is 765mm, about 35mm more than a 29x2.1 tire. I would be very interested to get an actual width measurement of the tire.
I made some measurements from pictures, the diameter of the 3" wide tire is 765mm, about 35mm more than a 29x2.1 tire. I would be very interested to get an actual width measurement of the tire.
Originally Posted by SURLY
Standover height measured using Surly Big Fat Larry tire measuring 762mm in diameter.
'Normal' fat bikes are 26" rims. This is a full on 700c rimmed bike, placing it in the 29" realm. You might be lucky if these fit in your fat bike, as these appear quite tall. certainly won't fit in any normal suspension forks.
Anyone know how much taller than a 29er w/2.4 tire would be?
Anyone know how much taller than a 29er w/2.4 tire would be?
Diameter should rise up to around 30 mm - it will rise the front about 15 mm and will be also 15 mm in the fork.
This makes it very interesting as a front tire for a Karate Monkey. Rising the front should make the steering angle about one degree slacker so it would run a little more stable on decents.
Because also the seat tube is a little more slacker I would use a seatpost without setback an the body centre is moved to the previous position for still good climbing.
BTW: On the Krampus pics there is much room between the tire and the seatpost - so it must have very long chainstays and should not have this quick steering like a Karate Monkey.
We will see, when the frame geometry charts are published...
Diameter should rise up to around 30 mm - it will rise the front about 15 mm and will be also 15 mm in the fork.
This makes it very interesting as a front tire for a Karate Monkey. Rising the front should make the steering angle about one degree slacker so it would run a little more stable on decents.
Because also the seat tube is a little more slacker I would use a seatpost without setback an the body centre is moved to the previous position for still good climbing.
BTW: On the Krampus pics there is much room between the tire and the seatpost - so it must have very long chainstays and should not have this quick steering like a Karate Monkey.
We will see, when the frame geometry charts are published...
Yeah, a well-fitted KM with 29+ front wheel would turn into a bit of a dual-slalom type of bike that will still climb well. Or one could make the bike fit that much more easily with a drop bar setup. I would like to suggest trying a 47mm On-One or Redline Flight fork on the KM, to compensate for the slackening of the head tube angle, (although the redline is a longer fork in itself, hmmm) and make the KM (or other 72º HTA 29"er) a bit more like the Redline Flight or, ultimately, Genesis 2.
If suspension forks can be found to clear the brace, just reduce travel to prevent bottoming and you're set.
Surly doesn't need to do the "yeah me too" stuff like 650B, they made their own new genre. Again.
Indeed. Let's not forget the Karate Monkey is the first 29" Singlespeed, the KM fork the first rigid one to fit 80mm corrected, and the frameset the first on the market in all of 29", if the Supercal 29 with Marz doesn't count. That was crazy expensive, BTW, the KM a steal.
If riding 26x3 Gazzalodis already made sense to some people, how about a 29+ tire half the weight?
Will someone beef the tire up with a layer of kevlar or whatever and build a (relative) short travel DH bike around it? Some DH forks are bound to fit it already.
Surly deserves respect for being a brand to just make bikes that are freeking fun, regardless of trends. All I hear these days is "650B this and 650B that" and they come out with something different and interesting. As a proud Karate Monkey owner for 8 years, I have faith that this bike will be a blast!
"Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself
Once a few of those Krampi are wandering our Earth...
Especially if they become one-and-only bikes for folks, or maybe only bike to take on a trip...
What about a road rim/tire standard to complement the 29+ bike? Regular 29" slicks would drop the BB. Maybe not such an issue on the road, but even a 2.35" Supermoto already drops it like one inch, certainly when using 50mm rim, if that works at all for 2.35's.
Enter: 32minus tires. Not quite 32" as one would expect.
32" is the standard I've been proposing for quite a few years now. Probably since around the time I proposed 29x3.0 (shortly after I learned of Surly's shocking Pugsley 26x3.7 project)
29+3" (a sound full size increment, nothing half-azzed) makes for 698mm bead seat diameter. Rim outer diameter 711mm.
Make the first batch of rims them 27mm wide, to work with both modest (up to 2.4") knobby tires, AND 35mm or so slicks to be used in 29+ bikes as road wheels. 36 spokes, of course. I prefer more actually.
Now 711mm is dead-on 28 inches. Yes, 700c/622/29" rims are 25" when you put the ruler to them.
Add some 2.5" for the 35mm slick tires, and you get 30.5" just like 29+. If you need only 23mm rims and 28mm tires, more power to you. It will be quite light and the BB height will still work out for the type of riding (asphalt) you'd typically enjoy with it.
Imagine a bike that fits you perfectly like a favorite MTB, which has road wheels which are significantly bigger than a typical 700c setup. As are your 29+ trail wheels. If the bike has the tire clearnance, you could even take it a step further, with 2.1" knobbies to make for 32" in diameter. Only .75" taller for your BB over 29+.
Remember 26x2.1" WTB nanoraptors, and the difference +10% made to arrive at 1999 29x2.1" Nanoraptors? That was huge.
Now, add ANOTHER 10%. Yes, it works out that way nearly to the third digit. Imagine that. The feel of that not-so-special Nano, as it was in 26", as it improved for 29", and then increased 10% once more. Then imagine your favorite 2.1" tire. Maybe a Conti Twister, maybe a soft compound Schwalbe Jimmy, maybe still that smooth rolling Nano.
And it just MIGHT fit your krampus bike, if surly is as generous as usual with tire spacing. Main concerns are seat tube, BB yoke and seat stay bridge. Fork is fine.
Seriously, think about it. 32" is getting closer and closer in terms of our everyday riding reality.
For Surly, I am sure one day it will be a dedicated model. It may be a half inch taller or smaller than I propose that time around. But if Krampus doesn't fit 32" and 32-, then soon one of its offspring will.
And making that rim and tire will be much easier than the Rabbit Hole/Knard combo. Don't underestimate the work this must have cost Surly. They likely took all their knowledge and balls, and still lost baths of sweat of this project. They once told me how hard it was to do the Pugsley, technically and financially. What they did here is huge, but 32" is now a piece of cake in comparison.
Your crampus bike and wheel sets:
29+ main wheelset for trail use, whatever that means to you
32- semi-skinny or real skinny road slicks to ride with the missus, or frustrate the local roadie peloton.
32" traditional 2.1" knobbies. Not looking for volume or mad grip, just something to make a dull trail a challenge, and still get nice flow and float. 32" will likely do better on the beach than 26x3.0 Gazzas.
A 30-35mm 32" rim and suited off-road tires 2.0-2.5" is the next step, and is at least as worthy as a stand alone project as is Krampus. Pick your favorite 29" rubber and setups, and extrapolate that 10% bigger. Yes, size L frames and up, it will not be easy to fit an M rider, sorry.
I recall a several years back during frostbike riding my 26er and trying a 29er for the first time. A good friend brought it to the show and I was able to try it out in the snow. It had so much more float over the 26 conti explorer pro wide 2.1" tire I was using (yep I just dated my self a bit). Then this really funky bike showed up. Welds were not all that clean and it was just raw steel that looked as if it was finished the night prior. Thing was rolling 36" tires that we played in QBP parking lot that day. Kept bashing it into curbs, with the snow and large tire diameter it felt as if we could roll over anything. Next year or year after the Pug was introduced. I was lucky enough to be able to grab my friends 29er trying to follow them on the trails. As long as you kept moving on the 29er you were good. Stop and you sink right thru the crust. The pugs kept on moving.
Blending the two a 29er and wider tire like the pug I am really excited seeing how it will ride. Now if I could order one with 16" Chain Stays keeping the wide tire and side wall with a narrow BB that would be ideal. Although I think it would violate one of the basic laws of physics.
Once a few of those Krampi are wandering our Earth...
Especially if they become one-and-only bikes for folks, or maybe only bike to take on a trip...
What about a road rim/tire standard to complement the 29+ bike? Regular 29" slicks would drop the BB. Maybe not such an issue on the road, but even a 2.35" Supermoto already drops it like one inch, certainly when using 50mm rim, if that works at all for 2.35's.
Enter: 32minus tires. Not quite 32" as one would expect.
32" is the standard I've been proposing for quite a few years now. Probably since around the time I proposed 29x3.0 (shortly after I learned of Surly's shocking Pugsley 26x3.7 project)
29+3" (a sound full size increment, nothing half-azzed) makes for 698mm bead seat diameter. Rim outer diameter 711mm.
Make the first batch of rims them 27mm wide, to work with both modest (up to 2.4") knobby tires, AND 35mm or so slicks to be used in 29+ bikes as road wheels. 36 spokes, of course. I prefer more actually.
Now 711mm is dead-on 28 inches. Yes, 700c/622/29" rims are 25" when you put the ruler to them.
Add some 2.5" for the 35mm slick tires, and you get 30.5" just like 29+. If you need only 23mm rims and 28mm tires, more power to you. It will be quite light and the BB height will still work out for the type of riding (asphalt) you'd typically enjoy with it.
Imagine a bike that fits you perfectly like a favorite MTB, which has road wheels which are significantly bigger than a typical 700c setup. As are your 29+ trail wheels. If the bike has the tire clearnance, you could even take it a step further, with 2.1" knobbies to make for 32" in diameter. Only .75" taller for your BB over 29+.
Remember 26x2.1" WTB nanoraptors, and the difference +10% made to arrive at 1999 29x2.1" Nanoraptors? That was huge.
Now, add ANOTHER 10%. Yes, it works out that way nearly to the third digit. Imagine that. The feel of that not-so-special Nano, as it was in 26", as it improved for 29", and then increased 10% once more. Then imagine your favorite 2.1" tire. Maybe a Conti Twister, maybe a soft compound Schwalbe Jimmy, maybe still that smooth rolling Nano.
And it just MIGHT fit your krampus bike, if surly is as generous as usual with tire spacing. Main concerns are seat tube, BB yoke and seat stay bridge. Fork is fine.
Seriously, think about it. 32" is getting closer and closer in terms of our everyday riding reality.
For Surly, I am sure one day it will be a dedicated model. It may be a half inch taller or smaller than I propose that time around. But if Krampus doesn't fit 32" and 32-, then soon one of its offspring will.
And making that rim and tire will be much easier than the Rabbit Hole/Knard combo. Don't underestimate the work this must have cost Surly. They likely took all their knowledge and balls, and still lost baths of sweat of this project. They once told me how hard it was to do the Pugsley, technically and financially. What they did here is huge, but 32" is now a piece of cake in comparison.
Your crampus bike and wheel sets:
29+ main wheelset for trail use, whatever that means to you
32- semi-skinny or real skinny road slicks to ride with the missus, or frustrate the local roadie peloton.
32" traditional 2.1" knobbies. Not looking for volume or mad grip, just something to make a dull trail a challenge, and still get nice flow and float. 32" will likely do better on the beach than 26x3.0 Gazzas.
A 30-35mm 32" rim and suited off-road tires 2.0-2.5" is the next step, and is at least as worthy as a stand alone project as is Krampus. Pick your favorite 29" rubber and setups, and extrapolate that 10% bigger. Yes, size L frames and up, it will not be easy to fit an M rider, sorry.
This is an excellent post and lot of thinking on your part...
...I commend you, very interesting reading!
This is an excellent post and lot of thinking on your part...
...I commend you, very interesting reading!
Thanks for sharing these thoughts!
Don't flatter me, it'll cost you rep points.
I am a poor man, otherwise I'd have launched 32" just to be able to ride it myself. And 29+ all the same.
If you are not really short, there is some fun or even advantage to be had with 32".
I built a 29er (170mm hub) rear wheel for my Mukluk. I run a Specialized Control 29X2.3 in back and a Surly 4.9 BFL in the front. With my other modifications, this half fat hybrid weighs 28.3 lbs in XL size. I'm hoping the Kanard fits in the rear of the mukluk frame (it might not). If it does, it would be the ultimate set up for most rides I do.
Paul...Palm Springs, CA
Most definitely sign me up for at least one of these Knard tyres when they're available, most definitely want one to put on the front of the KM with 2.55" WW LT outback
Originally Posted by MTBR
he Knard 29×3 weighs in at 820 grams and is available in 120tpi folding
One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
I think the Knard will fit in the p-35 rim but id worry it blows off the rim at the wrong time (technically there is no right time for a tire to roll off the rim )
I will contact Surly to see what they say about the Knard on a Karate Monkey.
This is going to be much better than adding a 490mm fork. I had a 490mm and ended up sticking with the KM fork. I think I will be trying the 29er+ setup myself. Right now I am running tubeless WWs.
I'd love to know if the Knard/Rabbit Hole combo would fit a Salsa Enabler fork. I am guessing yes. Much respect to the Surly for repeatedly making enormous contributions to cycling culture.
I'd love to know if the Knard/Rabbit Hole combo would fit a Salsa Enabler fork. I am guessing yes. Much respect to the Surly for repeatedly making enormous contributions to cycling culture.
I thought the front was going to be 100mm spacing. Isn't the Enabler 135mm? Would you just lace the RH rim to a 135 hub?
I run a carver carbon fork on my Mukluk. It's basically the same size as the Salsa enabler. There is lots of room with a standard 29er rim and a 2.4 tire (about 2.5 inches to the side of the crown). This tire is bigger but it can't be more than an inch taller than a standard 29er.
Bummer, not arriving until March. At least I have plenty of time to pile up my pennies for the purchase.
One of the hottest bikes at QBP’s SaddleDrive event is the new Krampus. A 29er fat bike with 3 inch tires. Complete bikes will be available around March with an MSRP of $1950.
I have no use for a bike like this. I ride on pavement or gravel. Really this bike has no practical appeal for me.
I still want one.
Here's why:
I built up a Surly Ogre over the winter. I built it up as an urban bike, and as I did parts selection I specifically chose parts that wouldn't break over parts that were high performance. My motto was "I'm not building a bike that goes AROUND things. I'm building a bike that goes OVER or THROUGH things.". It's an awesome bike. This bike is my ogre, turned up to 11.
I thought the front was going to be 100mm spacing. Isn't the Enabler 135mm? Would you just lace the RH rim to a 135 hub?
The front of the Krampus, i.e. its fork, will be 100mm. The Salsa Enabler is 135mm. The Knard is a tire. THe Rabbit Hole is a rim. The tire and rim can be built onto any size hub you want. I realize this thread is about the Krampus. But the Knard begat the Krampus.
I run a carver carbon fork on my Mukluk. It's basically the same size as the Salsa enabler. There is lots of room with a standard 29er rim and a 2.4 tire (about 2.5 inches to the side of the crown). This tire is bigger but it can't be more than an inch taller than a standard 29er.
Now all we need is a suspension fork!
Whatever the tallest rear tire you've run, consider that the difference with Knard's 30.5" need to be halved for loss of clearance. I bet lateral clearance will be fine, vertical might be a bit of a squeeze. Suppose the tallest you've run is ONLY 29.00". Tape a 0.75" block to it and see how it goes round.
A thing that sortof disappoints me in my mix-matching dreams, is that I don't think I'll get this to work with V-brakes. I'd buy 3.0" tire / 50mm fork compatible V's+Levers if they existed. Maybe in the Fat Bike forum someone runs a home made solution.
A thing that sortof disappoints me in my mix-matching dreams, is that I don't think I'll get this to work with V-brakes. I'd buy 3.0" tire / 50mm fork compatible V's+Levers if they existed.
My guess is it's better for your health if that dream does not come true. The stopping distance might be a little more than you dreamed of...
A thing that sortof disappoints me in my mix-matching dreams, is that I don't think I'll get this to work with V-brakes. I'd buy 3.0" tire / 50mm fork compatible V's+Levers if they existed. Maybe in the Fat Bike forum someone runs a home made solution.
I've used a Tektro 857AL (110mm arms) with a 26" 47mm rim (on a unicycle) and there is clearance for a Duro 26x3.
I've used a Tektro 857AL (110mm arms) with a 26" 47mm rim (on a unicycle) and there is clearance for a Duro 26x3.
That's very interesting, thanks! The Knard doesn't look very tall for a true 3.0.
Would canti post spacing not be an issue?
And Jeroen, you know me well enough to understand that I would even skip a front brake from a build I would think I go that minimalistic. Stopping distance is irrelevant with unlimited grip.
If you are listening, and I read in another thread that you are. Produce twice as many tires as you planned to in the first run. For if they fit in the front of a rigid fork, many are going to want one, just because.
If you are listening, and I read in another thread that you are. Produce twice as many tires as you planned to in the first run. For if they fit in the front of a rigid fork, many are going to want one, just because.
Me too! Just because. I want two. And a Krampus.
You surely need an old bike wrench as a test pilot. I am available!
Will the Kanard fit a Carver O'Beast FatBike fork?
Originally Posted by Cloxxki
Whatever the tallest rear tire you've run, consider that the difference with Knard's 30.5" need to be halved for loss of clearance. I bet lateral clearance will be fine, vertical might be a bit of a squeeze. Suppose the tallest you've run is ONLY 29.00". Tape a 0.75" block to it and see how it goes round.
A thing that sortof disappoints me in my mix-matching dreams, is that I don't think I'll get this to work with V-brakes. I'd buy 3.0" tire / 50mm fork compatible V's+Levers if they existed. Maybe in the Fat Bike forum someone runs a home made solution.
I uploaded a picture of the Carver O'Beast fork for FatBike with a 2.3X29er tire. Sure looks like the Kanard should fit.
If you are listening, and I read in another thread that you are. Produce twice as many tires as you planned to in the first run. For if they fit in the front of a rigid fork, many are going to want one, just because.
me too!
dont have the money at the moment for a complete build..but I guess I surely would like to try the wheel /tire combo on my rigid fork..
alright mikesee, since you seem to be chilling on this thread more'n the other.
in terms of traction, I'm assuming this compare smore favourably iwth hudu's than nate's?
I've still got gazzis, so not in a rush to lose traction for weight. (although it WOULD be luvverly!) which is why I was originally waiting for the nates to get more widely available before i got a fatbike.
If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!
I love the idea of big volume 29er tyres. 2.3 gatos are monsters (for me) and great for mud and wider on my p35s than 2.4 ardents. My jones has bags of clearance up front for more and I'm game for bigger. Starting to think about a fat front but I think this sounds much better. I'll wait and see if they would fit/work on the rims - too narrow? Interesting chat above regarding geo changes/tyre height.
Ultimately I reckon the Knards might not be absolutely right for me tread wise but I love the overall size being 'birthed'.
Think surly are a very interesting bike company, very creative. I won't be buying a Krampus but I think it looks like a great bike, looked at it a lot . I look forward to hearing the ride reports.
If you are listening, and I read in another thread that you are. Produce twice as many tires as you planned to in the first run. For if they fit in the front of a rigid fork, many are going to want one, just because.
Me too, just because !
Will (does) it fit a KM front fork ? Please Surly say yes !!
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by evasive
edit- looks like I have a max of 3-3/8" clearance, so it'd be tight but doable.
Originally Posted by Skrufryder
This is the only thing I've wanted to do to my KM (slack the front) and was thinking of purchasing a 490-500mm fork to do it, but this would be more funner and add more cush 
