Are 177x12 rear-spaced fat bikes on the verge of extinction?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 34 of 34
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    603

    Are 177x12 rear-spaced fat bikes on the verge of extinction?

    If you were buying a new fat bike this year, would you be concerned that a bike with a 177x12 rear would be "outdated" in another year? Is the 2016 Beargrease the last hardtail fat bike with a 177x12 rear?
    Eat Food. Chop Wood. Ride Bike.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,037
    No, not at all. Unless you need to run 100mm rims and 4.7 or bigger tires there is no need for wider than 177mm.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ducman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    289
    I agree, with fat bikes becoming more mainstream and more year round bikes with front and full suspension. The need for 5" tires, a wide spacing is not going to be the driving factor. I think the industry is on a wider is better kick now and will settle in at 177 for most bikes and the rigid and pure snow bikes at 197

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bconneraz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    71
    I just purchased a bike with a 177x12 rear, and have no worries about it becoming outdated. With some thru axle hubs, changing the spacing to accomodate different frames as as simple as changing the collars on the hubs.
    got moto?

  5. #5
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    I personally think that fat bikes with 177 rear spacing that can handle up to a 4.6 on 90's with a single ring is a pretty good way to go.

  6. #6
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    This is like asking if 4" tires are outdated. No, they're not. 5" tires are cool but not everyone wants or needs them - and likewise not everyone wants or needs 190/197 spacing to handle those tires.

    I'd make an analogy to 'cross/touring bikes. There are dirt-touring/mountain bikes like the Fargo now that can fit 2+" tires. That doesn't mean your 1980s touring bike that only fits 30s is obsolete, and it doesn't mean buying a bike that only fits smaller tires is a bad move today, if you don't need big tires.

    There will be plenty of 177 bikes for many years.

    -Walt

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    603
    I would agree. Which 177 rear frames can handle up to a 4.6 on 90s with a single ring?
    Eat Food. Chop Wood. Ride Bike.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    I personally think that fat bikes with 177 rear spacing that can handle up to a 4.6 on 90's with a single ring is a pretty good way to go.
    This^

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    There will be plenty of 177 bikes for many years.
    -Walt
    And this^

  9. #9
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    Quote Originally Posted by CyclingJunkie View Post
    I would agree. Which 177 rear frames can handle up to a 4.6 on 90s with a single ring?
    Beargrease, newer Mukluks, and the new Surly Wednesday (not sure about 90's on it but 82's fur sure) for starters. I'm sure there's more but.....

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    481
    The Wednesday, at 170/177, looked like the most ridden bike at this years Interbike Dirt Demo.

  11. #11
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,500
    Quote Originally Posted by CyclingJunkie View Post
    I would agree. Which 177 rear frames can handle up to a 4.6 on 90s with a single ring?
    My Lamere can (and does).
    "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.

  12. #12
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    Even though q factor doesn't bother me at ll and my currant bike (197) can fit the biggest of bigs I do wish I would've went 177 with just enough room for 4.6's on 90's. It's all I really need nowa days in Central WI anyways.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,065
    I have 197x12 and can fit big rubber ( ). I don't need it though, and my next bike will be 177. I hope they don't go away!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    991
    LaMere not withstanding, I don't think to many other 177/12 rear's handle the 4.8 tires. I am sure there are others out there, I just don't know who they are (and do any of them handle 90 or 100 rims with the big guns?), but to answer your question...I wouldn't touch it. 197/12 for me, but that's just me. I want to run big rims and big tires, why in the heck, if you were buying new anyway, you'd want to go smaller is beyond me. I liken it to buying a new fatbike with a QR in the rear, I admit I don't get it. I don't get a lot of things though.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    My Ti Fatback can handle Bud, Lou, and any of the 4.6 on 90mm rims and its 177/12. Bud or Lou is a little tight but rideable for sure..

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    LaMere not withstanding, I don't think to many other 177/12 rear's handle the 4.8 tires. I am sure there are others out there, I just don't know who they are (and do any of them handle 90 or 100 rims with the big guns?), but to answer your question...I wouldn't touch it. 197/12 for me, but that's just me. I want to run big rims and big tires, why in the heck, if you were buying new anyway, you'd want to go smaller is beyond me. I liken it to buying a new fatbike with a QR in the rear, I admit I don't get it. I don't get a lot of things though.
    For dirt only.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by AKCheesehead View Post
    My Ti Fatback can handle Bud, Lou, and any of the 4.6 on 90mm rims and its 177/12. Bud or Lou is a little tight but rideable for sure..

    So that's one, from a several year old frame not made anymore. BUT, that would be a sweet set-up. Well dun.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    For dirt only.
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say here....

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say here....
    You didn't put a question mark, but you asked why in the heck someone would get one.
    For dirt only.
    I have 65mm rims on panaracer FBN. To ride with my friends (who like to climb climb climb as fast as possible) having more tire and rim than that would be a hindrance.
    Plus, since I have short legs, the opportunity to go With a narrower Q would be great.
    So, there's the long answer.

  20. #20
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    If you mostly ride packed snow or dirt, 4" tires is more than enough, Litespeed. For backwoods snowdrift frostbeard Jack-Londoning, yes, you want 5" tires. Not everyone does that though.

    -Walt

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Beargrease, newer Mukluks, and the new Surly Wednesday (not sure about 90's on it but 82's fur sure) for starters. I'm sure there's more but.....
    Can someone confirm that a 4.6 Ground Control, mounted on a 90mm rim, will fit the rear of a Beargrease carbon with XX1 1x11?
    Eat Food. Chop Wood. Ride Bike.

  22. #22
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,900
    When I spoke with Dave Turner about the Khan, I purposely asked about 4.8" tires on the rear. He stated that they do indeed fit in due to the fact the rear end was designed to accommodate them with a 177 thru axle. Don't recall if he mentioned 100mm rims tho'.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    If history is any indication, once all fatbikes are made 197mm, then a push will be made to reduce the Qfactor using 187mm hubs, making both 177 and 197 obsolete...
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If history is any indication, once all fatbikes are made 197mm, then a push will be made to reduce the Qfactor using 187mm hubs, making both 177 and 197 obsolete...
    I can't wait. Bb shells will go to 90, making 100 and 120 obsolete.

    " before I had trouble riding up my street, but now with a 10mm smaller bottom bracket I'm getting cat1 podiums. It's just so efficient! "

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by CyclingJunkie View Post
    Can someone confirm that a 4.6 Ground Control, mounted on a 90mm rim, will fit the rear of a Beargrease carbon with XX1 1x11?
    I have not tried that exact combo, but do know a GC will fit with a 82, 85, and 100. The new Dunderbeist even cleared the rear on a 100mm. The only tire that didn't fit me so far is a JJ 4.8 on 85's. The side knobs grazed the chainstay. With a little trimming they fit.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by jpfurn View Post
    I have not tried that exact combo, but do know a GC will fit with a 82, 85, and 100. The new Dunderbeist even cleared the rear on a 100mm. The only tire that didn't fit me so far is a JJ 4.8 on 85's. The side knobs grazed the chainstay. With a little trimming they fit.
    Thanks for posting this! This definitely makes me feel better about ordering some 90mm rims for my upcoming carbon Beargrease build.
    Eat Food. Chop Wood. Ride Bike.

  27. #27
    parts leftover
    Reputation: schlim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    994
    Quote Originally Posted by jpfurn View Post
    I have not tried that exact combo, but do know a GC will fit with a 82, 85, and 100. The new Dunderbeist even cleared the rear on a 100mm. The only tire that didn't fit me so far is a JJ 4.8 on 85's. The side knobs grazed the chainstay. With a little trimming they fit.
    Anyone know if a Dillinger 5 studded tire on an 80mm rim will clear a Beargrease frame? I've heard conflicting things.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by schlim View Post
    Anyone know if a Dillinger 5 studded tire on an 80mm rim will clear a Beargrease frame? I've heard conflicting things.
    I ran one on a 82mm rim the second half of last winter with zero issues!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    484
    I just bought a 2016 Beargrease and put DT Swiss rims(approx 80mm) and Flow and Dunderbeists on it tubeless. There is about 4mm clearance from the side knobs to the chainstay.

    Are 177x12 rear-spaced fat bikes on the verge of extinction?-fullsizerender.jpg

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    You didn't put a question mark, but you asked why in the heck someone would get one.
    For dirt only.
    I have 65mm rims on panaracer FBN. To ride with my friends (who like to climb climb climb as fast as possible) having more tire and rim than that would be a hindrance.
    Plus, since I have short legs, the opportunity to go With a narrower Q would be great.
    So, there's the long answer.
    +1 on the narrower bb. Unless you are focused on snow riding, 170/177 is a better set up for year round riding.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

  31. #31
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    In 190/197 frames defense some of them can maintain the same Q as 170/177 frames with a RF Cinch with a direct mount ring flipped.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by mohrgan View Post
    I just bought a 2016 Beargrease and put DT Swiss rims(approx 80mm) and Flow and Dunderbeists on it tubeless. There is about 4mm clearance from the side knobs to the chainstay.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FullSizeRender.jpg 
Views:	208 
Size:	110.4 KB 
ID:	1022125
    Why did Salsa get away from the Whisky's on their top builds? Was is from the failure rate? So are these new BG's more affordable with the cheaper wheelset? If I remember right the 2015 XX1 was around $3800 and the 2016 X1 is $3700 with alloy hoops, am I missing something?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by jpfurn View Post
    Why did Salsa get away from the Whisky's on their top builds? Was is from the failure rate? So are these new BG's more affordable with the cheaper wheelset? If I remember right the 2015 XX1 was around $3800 and the 2016 X1 is $3700 with alloy hoops, am I missing something?
    2015 XX1 was $5599 I think- Salsa Creates new Fat Bike Categories w/ New Bucksaw, Blackborow & More

    Carbon 1 was $3699 with alloy hoops.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jpfurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    2015 XX1 was $5599 I think- Salsa Creates new Fat Bike Categories w/ New Bucksaw, Blackborow & More

    Carbon 1 was $3699 with alloy hoops.
    Well that clears that up! I must have been looking at the X9 model with Marge Lites.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-14-2014, 02:09 PM
  2. 26" tires... moving to extinction?
    By LCW in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 08:09 PM
  3. Hubs: 177x12 rear & 142x15 front. Alternatives
    By Chemita.GS in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-03-2014, 04:13 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-03-2012, 08:29 PM
  5. Rear disc brake spaced front hub?
    By thickfog in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 12:31 PM

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.