2012 907 Titanium??? The hot ticket!!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 64 of 64
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NOBBY605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    379

    2012 907 Titanium??? The hot ticket!!


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    73
    Seems to have it all except for tampered headtube.

    Whoa, look at the price sticker!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    It will accept a tapered fork and it is built by Black Sheep.
    The LPG

  4. #4
    Moon Child
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    148
    the specs say it will handle 100 rims up to 4.5" (I thought BFLs are 4.7"?). Build mine right now with Big Fat Larrys with a Alfine 11 hub and a Gates belt drive.

    When can I stop by to pick it up?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    481
    I would love to have a titanium frame.

    Needless to say all the offerings are out of my price range.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTR2ebike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,872
    What about a replaceable derailleur hanger?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    396
    there are too many technological advancements in the fat biking world to go big on a Ti frame. It needs to simmer down a bit and get to a more stable/predictable future.

  8. #8
    Fat!Drunk!Slow!
    Reputation: JordyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,453
    Replaceable hangers are overrated! :-D Seems the picture doesn't match the description. Don't see an e-type fd mount on the ST and the HT looks like its 44mm but the picture size/angle could be deceiving. Looks like I'd be between sizes and that CS is long for my liking. Looks good tho!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    487
    sliding dropouts 135 offset possible?

  10. #10
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,137
    Quote Originally Posted by GTR2ebike View Post
    What about a replaceable derailleur hanger?
    I doing think you need one on a ti frame???

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    I doing think you need one on a ti frame???
    Matter of opinion.

    Ti wont rust like steal, and is less likely to fail than alu, maybe.

    But fixing it would be a PITA.

    Part of me going with paragon drop-outs, was the replaceble aspect.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,142
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    there are too many technological advancements in the fat biking world to go big on a Ti frame. It needs to simmer down a bit and get to a more stable/predictable future.
    Oh no! I just bought one! (a Twenty2, not a 907)
    Was I hoodwinked? Should I return it?

    This happened to me before, back in 1990 when I bought that Merlin.
    You know, the one I still have, and continue to ride, and looks like new after 10 minutes with a Scotchbrite pad...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2012 907 Titanium???  The hot ticket!!-merlin-ss-1.jpg  


  13. #13
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfurry View Post
    Matter of opinion.

    Ti wont rust like steal, and is less likely to fail than alu, maybe.

    But fixing it would be a PITA.

    Part of me going with paragon drop-outs, was the replaceble aspect.
    Yah, I've never had a ti frame, but figure the derailleur will bust long before the ti bends.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    Yah, I've never had a ti frame, but figure the derailleur will bust long before the ti bends.
    That would be my thought.

    I have only had one hanger suffer a bend, and it was on my Al Flash that is made from a thin stamped steel.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    Yah, I've never had a ti frame, but figure the derailleur will bust long before the ti bends.
    I have had 6 ti frames over the years & your right the derailleur will bust 1st,but you can bend a ti hanger too Years ago I did on a Lynskey made Litespeed It was one of their 6/4 tubeset with 6/4 dropouts & hanger,no big crash or anything,just poor shifting after a smashed derailleur & checked it with that frame/hanger gauage & it was bent a little so yeah they can bend, just saying anyway at $2850 for the 907 ti,its nice but not $2850 nice,hope the ti fatbacks didn`t go up that much

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ak greeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by KP snowman View Post
    I have had 6 ti frames over the years & your right the derailleur will bust 1st,but you can bend a ti hanger too Years ago I did on a Lynskey made Litespeed It was one of their 6/4 tubeset with 6/4 dropouts & hanger,no big crash or anything,just poor shifting after a smashed derailleur & checked it with that frame/hanger gauage & it was bent a little so yeah they can bend, just saying anyway at $2850 for the 907 ti,its nice but not $2850 nice,hope the ti fatbacks didn`t go up that much
    ti fatbacks are still 2000.00
    litespeed's break

  17. #17
    Front Range Cyclist
    Reputation: juansevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    there are too many technological advancements in the fat biking world to go big on a Ti frame. It needs to simmer down a bit and get to a more stable/predictable future.
    Yup. Disagree.

    Fat bikes have been around for seven years. Ti frames going on almost 30.

    Not sure what "technological advancements" you are speaking of as nothing has changed really in the last 7 years. Nor will here be any in 7 years that would warrant a wait for anything.

    Wheels will be the next frontier, and even then....it won't be anything that will make buying a Ti frame now out dated anytime soon.
    In the immortal words of Socrates..."I drank what?"

    Facebook.com/monstercrosser
    Twitter: @monstercrosser

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Ummmm......170 hubs have only been around a couple years and BFL's this year. Things are getting bigger and parts no longer work on previous older bikes so things are still evolving. Maybe things will stay the same for awhile but what happens when Surly develops an even bigger tire then your SOL again.
    The LPG

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo View Post
    Yup. Disagree.

    Fat bikes have been around for seven years. Ti frames going on almost 30.

    Not sure what "technological advancements" you are speaking of as nothing has changed really in the last 7 years. Nor will here be any in 7 years that would warrant a wait for anything.

    Wheels will be the next frontier, and even then....it won't be anything that will make buying a Ti frame now out dated anytime soon.
    Well I am not looking to flame around with anyone but speaking for my self I would have been bummed buying a 2000+ ti frame that cant fit a BFL on a 100mm rim if bought that frame like 6 months ago.

  20. #20
    Front Range Cyclist
    Reputation: juansevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    Ummmm......170 hubs have only been around a couple years and BFL's this year. Things are getting bigger and parts no longer work on previous older bikes so things are still evolving. Maybe things will stay the same for awhile but what happens when Surly develops an even bigger tire then your SOL again.
    Still aren't answering my question....where is this "constantly evolving" that you speak of?

    170mm hubs....sweet You can build a symmetric wheel. You can also build a 29er wheel to throw in the back for the summer months to add versatility. But it has yet to be proven to be a "must do" or even necessary for most people at all. 2 years and only two hubsets available. Still not an "evolution"....the whole fat bike world isn't switching too 170mm as the standard. Nor does it need to. Nor should it consider it. If it was really needed for wider tires and rims....why didn't Surly (with their reputation for making all things bomber) use 170mm on the Moonlander?

    Because it's not necessary or a must. I'm 235lbs and ride 135mm hubs with drilled out Rolling Daryls. Don't see whole forum threads dedicated to taco'ed 135mm rear wheels. Nor do I see mine even going out of true anytime soon. So....170mm. Myth busted.

    BFL's....probably should read some of the other posts, Surly's own site, and other fat bike makers. Heck a friend has a set on his Pug with 82mm rims and can't tell a huge difference to his Moonlander. So, another Evolution Myth Busted.

    So....tell me....where are all these parts that are "constantly evolving" that had required people to keep upgrading over the last 7 years because of this "evolution? Again....Myth Busted.

    For SEVEN years people have been building custom bikes around Surly's ground breaking rims/tires as well as using the 100mm BB standard (which previously existed in the DH world so nothing new there either) with no risk of being left behind. Nor will anyone who loves that setup be left behind in the next 7 years either. Nor is anyone looking to do anything too different anytime soon...market is too small.

    And for your "when Surly develops an even bigger tire then your SOL again"....no, you'll be buying an even bigger frame/fork if they do. Thats' what you had to do with the Moonlander if you wanted 100mm rims and the BFL's. Yet still they used a 135mm rear hub spacing and the 100mm BB spacing. So...no worries.

    Last...it's no longer just Surly's game either. Surly's smart guys did their research and ride a lot. Now everyone is following the standards set. New tires are designed to fit in current frame offerings. New rims are too. I know of one major company that's going to be offering a crank...and guess what? 100mm BB. Others are working on things as well....but for the most part sticking to working with what's out there. If anything, I think you'll see (actually I know you will) tires down to 3.2" being offered. Maybe 3" to give some versatility to those who use their fat bikes year round and on dirt too. Some will offer narrower rims just to offer a lighter option.

    Wheels will be the next big frontier for fat bikes. But they'll work within confines of existing standards. Other than that....I foresee no "evolution" that will make a sweet ti frame built custom around existing standard obsolete anytime soon. As one person already pointed out...their old Merlin is still an amazing rig to ride. Same here no matter if I'm right or wrong about my above observations.
    In the immortal words of Socrates..."I drank what?"

    Facebook.com/monstercrosser
    Twitter: @monstercrosser

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    there are too many technological advancements in the fat biking world to go big on a Ti frame. It needs to simmer down a bit and get to a more stable/predictable future.
    I see where your coming from, but I think this is going to be the norm. For example take headsets:- Many, many moons ago all bikes, MTB, Road, Tourer etc.. had 1" threaded headsets and quill stems! Gary Fisher brought out the Evolution 1.25" around '89, Tioga brought out the 'Avenger' 1.125" headset, the 'aheadset' threadless system appeared, here in the UK Pace Cycles brought out a system where the stem and steerer where one piece and the headset was adjusted and clamped at the fork crown!

    Just as we thought it settled down to mostly threadless steerers and 1.125" OS, there are now tapered steerers, inset headsets!?

    Who knows what the next few years will bring? Fatbikes and bikes in general will forever "evolve" as new ideas come to light. I've got a 2011 Pug and so what if I can't run 100mm rims with BFLs! It'll still take me where other bike can't and most probably continue to get me comments from passers-by! Not to mention put a big cheesy grin on my face every time..

    What will stay the same and be relied upon is the 'industry standards' - the "diamond frame", the "spoked wheel". That's what makes a bike and as the pic of the Ti Merlin proves, quality components will always be around.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    I've found that sticking to rigid hardtails has enabled me to avoid the various fads thrown up by the industry.

    A good rigid hardtail from today is still going to be a good ride in 30 years time.

    Frames angles may come and go, but the human body isn't changing, so what works now on a bike will still work in the future.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,142
    Besides, it's Ti! It's worth its weight as scrap metal

    (Good thing nobody noticed the 1" steerer and lack of disc tabs on my Merlin.)

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,242
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    Well I am not looking to flame around with anyone but speaking for my self I would have been bummed buying a 2000+ ti frame that cant fit a BFL on a 100mm rim if bought that frame like 6 months ago.
    You would be bummed for sure but the other side of the coin is bikes are always changing so if you wait for it to stop you will never get a Ti frame and that too would be a bummer. If you like ti that is, which I do. I got a first generation ti Fatback when the second came out. That way I could get it cheaper which is the only way I could get it. It won't quite fit BFL's on hundies but I can live with that and I've been able to ride it for a couple thousand miles so far and hopefully quite a few more in the future.
    Latitude 61

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    You would be bummed for sure but the other side of the coin is bikes are always changing so if you wait for it to stop you will never get a Ti frame and that too would be a bummer. If you like ti that is, which I do. I got a first generation ti Fatback when the second came out. That way I could get it cheaper which is the only way I could get it. It won't quite fit BFL's on hundies but I can live with that and I've been able to ride it for a couple thousand miles so far and hopefully quite a few more in the future.
    trust me my friend, I have arms that twist real easy and I do spend loads of cash on bikes.
    My dream fatty bike would be carbon cause that stuff makes me weak in the knees I just want whatever big pimpin fat bike frame I get to make 100mm BFL look small between the chain stays that way I can weather an upgrade or two without feeling like the frame is a relic, pf30 (cause DH is becoming more and more weight weenie so I'm guessing we will see pf30 in 100mm wide cranks) and tapered headset, post mount disc brakes would all be nice as well

    Happy holidays

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by yxan View Post
    trust me my friend, I have arms that twist real easy and I do spend loads of cash on bikes.
    My dream fatty bike would be carbon cause that stuff makes me weak in the knees I just want whatever big pimpin fat bike frame I get to make 100mm BFL look small between the chain stays that way I can weather an upgrade or two without feeling like the frame is a relic, pf30 (cause DH is becoming more and more weight weenie so I'm guessing we will see pf30 in 100mm wide cranks) and tapered headset, post mount disc brakes would all be nice as well

    Happy holidays
    Amen!
    The LPG

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    The main reason I upgraded to a new frame this season is so I could run a 100mm rim with a BFL tire. That is something that could not be done last year with most of the frames in production. I would consider that a descent step in evolution. Like YXAN I would be bummed if I built a new $2k - $3k plus frame last year and couldn't run the biggest rim/tire combo available. If I chose not to run that combo I would still be bummed if I couldn't. After riding 100mm rims in snow I can't see myself going smaller anytime soon.
    The LPG

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bewelnak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo View Post
    Still aren't answering my question....where is this "constantly evolving" that you speak of?

    170mm hubs....sweet You can build a symmetric wheel. You can also build a 29er wheel to throw in the back for the summer months to add versatility. But it has yet to be proven to be a "must do" or even necessary for most people at all. 2 years and only two hubsets available. Still not an "evolution"....the whole fat bike world isn't switching too 170mm as the standard. Nor does it need to. Nor should it consider it. If it was really needed for wider tires and rims....why didn't Surly (with their reputation for making all things bomber) use 170mm on the Moonlander?

    Because it's not necessary or a must. I'm 235lbs and ride 135mm hubs with drilled out Rolling Daryls. Don't see whole forum threads dedicated to taco'ed 135mm rear wheels. Nor do I see mine even going out of true anytime soon. So....170mm. Myth busted.

    BFL's....probably should read some of the other posts, Surly's own site, and other fat bike makers. Heck a friend has a set on his Pug with 82mm rims and can't tell a huge difference to his Moonlander. So, another Evolution Myth Busted.

    So....tell me....where are all these parts that are "constantly evolving" that had required people to keep upgrading over the last 7 years because of this "evolution? Again....Myth Busted.

    For SEVEN years people have been building custom bikes around Surly's ground breaking rims/tires as well as using the 100mm BB standard (which previously existed in the DH world so nothing new there either) with no risk of being left behind. Nor will anyone who loves that setup be left behind in the next 7 years either. Nor is anyone looking to do anything too different anytime soon...market is too small.

    And for your "when Surly develops an even bigger tire then your SOL again"....no, you'll be buying an even bigger frame/fork if they do. Thats' what you had to do with the Moonlander if you wanted 100mm rims and the BFL's. Yet still they used a 135mm rear hub spacing and the 100mm BB spacing. So...no worries.

    Last...it's no longer just Surly's game either. Surly's smart guys did their research and ride a lot. Now everyone is following the standards set. New tires are designed to fit in current frame offerings. New rims are too. I know of one major company that's going to be offering a crank...and guess what? 100mm BB. Others are working on things as well....but for the most part sticking to working with what's out there. If anything, I think you'll see (actually I know you will) tires down to 3.2" being offered. Maybe 3" to give some versatility to those who use their fat bikes year round and on dirt too. Some will offer narrower rims just to offer a lighter option.

    Wheels will be the next big frontier for fat bikes. But they'll work within confines of existing standards. Other than that....I foresee no "evolution" that will make a sweet ti frame built custom around existing standard obsolete anytime soon. As one person already pointed out...their old Merlin is still an amazing rig to ride. Same here no matter if I'm right or wrong about my above observations.
    Well said sir. I think I know you

  29. #29
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo View Post

    170mm hubs....sweet You can build a symmetric wheel. You can also build a 29er wheel to throw in the back for the summer months to add versatility. But it has yet to be proven to be a "must do" or even necessary for most people at all. 2 years and only two hubsets available. Still not an "evolution"....the whole fat bike world isn't switching too 170mm as the standard. Nor does it need to. Nor should it consider it. If it was really needed for wider tires and rims....why didn't Surly (with their reputation for making all things bomber) use 170mm on the Moonlander?

    .
    The whole fat-bike world isn't very big, and many of the newer designs do use 170mm hubs. (On One proto, many small builders) Still, that doesn't necessarily mean anything yet.

    But as for the "why didn't Surly do that", I think it has more to do with that company's ethos and tradition than it does with anything else. They used 135OLD out of convenience and with regard to what would be easiest for folks to source when the Pugs was offered as a frame set. (So, that being "bomber" and all.....) The tradition continues with the Moonlander.

    I didn't quote the part about wheel failures you brought up, but if you search this forum, there have been whel failures discussed here. The statistical comparisons between 135mmOLD failures and 170mmOLD failures is not very meaningful at this point, because there are not enough 170mm bikes out there, (but perhaps this is changed by now), however, I suspect a good comparison of what works best will soon shake out.

    More folks using fat bikes year round and more fat bikes than ever before will start to bring out the weak links. I don't think we can say with authority which way is better yet. That said, my money is on symmetrical builds. It just makes more sense.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    I've specc'd my Ti frame with 1 1/2" headtube, post mount rocker drop-outs, and clearance for BFLs. So I've obviously given at least a passing thought to future proofing.

    But IMHO a great bike today, is a great bike tommorrow. As long as I can replace parts when needed, I'll be smiling on it.

    I guess if you pay Ti money, you've paid top shelf money, and if a new feature comes out the following year. Your bike is no longer top shelf. But thats life.

    Personally, I'm jumping on the train now, while my legs still have a little juice left.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Thats^ one of those posts thats gonna come back to bite me in the botty. Is'nt it.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfurry View Post
    I've specc'd my Ti frame with 1 1/2" headtube, post mount rocker drop-outs, and clearance for BFLs. So I've obviously given at least a passing thought to future proofing.
    Which Ti frame are you getting?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bewelnak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Which Ti frame are you getting?
    I'm curious too!! Sounds like something we could have whipped up!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Which Ti frame are you getting?
    Going with Triton cycles. Tis early days, but dealings so far have been very positive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bewelnak View Post
    I'm curious too!! Sounds like something we could have whipped up!
    The pics of your Ti fattys are partly to blame for my current financial dismay

    If everthing turns out as hoped, and planned. I guess it wont be much different to the Bully. Not intentionally BTW (honest).

    Seems weird that the Ti 907 doesnt have any inbuilt chain tensioning. EBB, sliders etc. One thing I will jump on in the future. Is a 170 IGH with a decent range.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  35. #35
    Front Range Cyclist
    Reputation: juansevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    The main reason I upgraded to a new frame this season is so I could run a 100mm rim with a BFL tire. That is something that could not be done last year with most of the frames in production. I would consider that a descent step in evolution. Like YXAN I would be bummed if I built a new $2k - $3k plus frame last year and couldn't run the biggest rim/tire combo available. If I chose not to run that combo I would still be bummed if I couldn't. After riding 100mm rims in snow I can't see myself going smaller anytime soon.
    It's a unique angle, but it isn't "evolution" by any stretch. It's also a category breaker to a certain degree with it's need for a whole new frame and it's limited gearing choices. And really, I see frame builders coming up with ways around this in the future. I'd honestly just steel the Ragley 3 finger stay design and apply it myself.

    Bigger tires is going to be a more niche thing than a standard thing in the future. Yep, sure it rides better in the sand and snow....but do you have enough of either to ride on a regular basis to give up gearing choices and really need a new frame/fork?

    Answer for the general public is no.

    As fat bikes get used more rear round and for non-snow/sand conditions you'll actually be seeing tire sizes go down and potentially rim sizes too. Year round I predict a 45mm-55mm rim on a wheel set with 3.2-3.5's. Depending on where you live and your preferences, you'll have a set of those tires for sure and maybe the wheel set as mentioned. Then for the winter you'll have a second wheel set with whatever your choice of 3.7-4.7 tires.

    So that said....i don't see much changing. I do see why people would want a 170mm spacing, but i don't necessarily see it becoming a standard until we have more than 10 options for 170mm rear hubs. Currently I only know of two stock, and if you have the dough Phil Wood will make you a set. So we have a bit to go. Currently, we have such a great variety of 135mm hubs and few cases (other than outlier cases we see on forums) of trashed wheels. Even if road year round. But then again, that's where a narrower rim will be promising as well and thus still make 135mm attractive.

    Right now I do wish I had 170mm just because of the 29er wheel argument. I get that one. 100mm rims for those who do snow/sand I can understand wanting it too. But still, to me both are more along the same thing as straight 1 1/8" steerer vs tapered. Yeah one is better/stiffer....but is it needed by all? No. Will we ever get to just tapered as much as it would make things easier for the world? No. Same with 135mm vs 170mm. It's not enough to make anyone care enough to switch.

    though I'd be the guy with a BFL on the 82mm rims. You may decide to succumb to the rear setup but ride with pride the BFL's on 100mm rims.
    In the immortal words of Socrates..."I drank what?"

    Facebook.com/monstercrosser
    Twitter: @monstercrosser

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Are you sure? Hahaha
    The LPG

  37. #37
    Moon Child
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo View Post

    Bigger tires is going to be a more niche thing than a standard thing in the future. Yep, sure it rides better in the sand and snow....but do you have enough of either to ride on a regular basis to give up gearing choices and really need a new frame/fork?

    Answer for the general public is no.
    You must have been missing on what is going on. The answer is a resounding YES. Bigger = Better. Its is the American Way. Right or wrong, step aside, this is the future of fat biking. 2013 will the year every major fat builder will have BLF on 100s. Wanna bet?

  38. #38
    Front Range Cyclist
    Reputation: juansevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by Fresno View Post
    You must have been missing on what is going on. The answer is a resounding YES. Bigger = Better. Its is the American Way. Right or wrong, step aside, this is the future of fat biking. 2013 will the year every major fat builder will have BLF on 100s. Wanna bet?
    Yeah I do. Maybe should do some research on what I do for a living.

    There will be smaller tires by Interbike this fall. I'll wager that. It's really cheating taking it though. Because I know better. And can tell you at NAHBS in 2013 you'll also be seeing otherwise...as well as something very new.

    Bigger has limits. Moonlander is showing us that already. Beautiful, fun bike. But it has it's limits. Limits gearing options. Which is fine because the Moonlander has been purpose built and it does that purpose very well. And yes...you'll see some bigger tires in the 4.2-.4.6 range by end of this year as well. But doesn't mean "ever major fat builder" will be on it. Too limiting for rear. Up front however.....

    But like I said, you'll have to wait for Interbike and NAHBS 2013. Change doesn't always have to change everything you'll see.
    In the immortal words of Socrates..."I drank what?"

    Facebook.com/monstercrosser
    Twitter: @monstercrosser

  39. #39
    Front Range Cyclist
    Reputation: juansevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    Are you sure? Hahaha
    I only bet on what I know I can win.
    In the immortal words of Socrates..."I drank what?"

    Facebook.com/monstercrosser
    Twitter: @monstercrosser

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by GTR2ebike View Post
    What about a replaceable derailleur hanger?
    Replaceable derailleur hangers are appropriate on Aluminum and Carbon frames, but just not needed on Ti. The reason is simple; you wont find a derailleur tough enough to fail that hanger, period. The worst damage you might do is bend it, and then it's simply a case of tweaking it straight again. Ti has awesome fatigue properties! Alum not so much...

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Yeah I don't doubt that smaller setups will become very popular as a lot of guys use these fat rigs as their only bike. Just giving you a hard time Juan. That being said I was really impressed how 100mm rims handle on dirt and technical terrain with BFL's and Nate's. I seriously considered possibly buying a set of RD's for summer riding but the 100's are a blast and I think the tire profile is more to my liking and riding style. I also have a quiver of MTB's though and riding a fat bike in the summer is more of a novelty for me.
    The LPG

  42. #42
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo View Post

    Bigger has limits. Moonlander is showing us that already. Beautiful, fun bike. But it has it's limits. Limits gearing options.
    Just heard something today about 2013 that may make you change this statement.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  43. #43
    Fat!Drunk!Slow!
    Reputation: JordyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Just heard something today about 2013 that may make you change this statement.
    Well DO SHARE!!!

  44. #44
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Just heard something today about 2013 that may make you change this statement.
    170mm rear offset?

  45. #45
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Can't say anything just yet, but when this becomes public knowledge, it will blow some minds and make many re-think drive train set ups. That is all.....
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Hahhahha. Time to upgrade again next season I guess.
    The LPG

  47. #47
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Can't say anything just yet, but when this becomes public knowledge, it will blow some minds and make many re-think drive train set ups. That is all.....
    I think I remember you teasing us in kind of the same way last year! Shame on you!!


    L8R

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTR2ebike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,872
    I'm going to place my order for next year once the snow melts...assuming it actually snows this season

  49. #49
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    I'm guessing he's focussing on the 'limited drivetrain' part and we're going to see a 100mm Hammerschmidt come out. Maybe even 3 speed.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    I'm dreaming of a XTR level IGH in 170mm. I know it will never happen but one can dream.
    The LPG

  51. #51
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,836
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    I'm dreaming of a XTR level IGH in 170mm. I know it will never happen but one can dream.
    I feel ya. I'd be all over a wide Alfine that actually has a granny hole and isn't quite as expensive as a Rohloff. I'm not holding my breath =/
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  52. #52
    Front Range Cyclist
    Reputation: juansevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Just heard something today about 2013 that may make you change this statement.
    Not really. I know some of the same birdies and its' not enough. Plus I am not sold on "bigger is better" either.....Talking to the guy who got two fully pimped jeeps to pull over while in my wagon on Gooseberry Mesa last fall. . It's all about finesses.

    If I want to, I can run a BFL front/rear on my bike as is. But I'm not really interested in running 100mm rims. Just means more weight. May be nice for the Sand Dunes (we're going to check 'em out soon). I'm pretty happy as is. Moonlander is fun though, but my budget doesn't allow for one of everything. Nor does mosts.
    In the immortal words of Socrates..."I drank what?"

    Facebook.com/monstercrosser
    Twitter: @monstercrosser

  53. #53
    Moon Child
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Can't say anything just yet, but when this becomes public knowledge, it will blow some minds and make many re-think drive train set ups. That is all.....
    Okay, Ted told me everything (liquor works everytime)........9" WIDE FAT TIRES!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    I'm guessing he's focussing on the 'limited drivetrain' part and we're going to see a 100mm Hammerschmidt come out. Maybe even 3 speed.
    So my future proofed frame, is outdated before it even gets to the final blue print stage.

    FML.

    Just kidding
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bewelnak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    116
    This thread has some interesting comments going on here....

    After building and testing multiple rear triangle designs, we have found that the one big clearance frame to fit all riders isn't ideal. The attachment point of the stays to the 100mm bottom bracket can have a dynamic effect on the handling. To fit 4.7's and multiple chainrings, the chainstays must be welded closer in toward the center of the bottom bracket at a steeper angle. This situation puts a fulcrum point further from the crank and gives more leverage on the BB in a lateral direction inducing flex.

    If you live in Northern Minnesota (not this year!!) or up in popular snowbike areas like the gang up near Yellowstone and consistently ride a lot of snow and maximum float is the only goal, then the BFL bike is the ticket. A 1 X setup can allow the chainstay attachment location to stay wide and clear any tire diameter available which is fantastic, if you have the power to cope with fewer gears. We have significantly more orders for fatbikes that run 4 inch diameter or less tires than all other designs together. The stays stay wide on the bb and the full range of gears are functional.

    If you live in not-so-snowy area and spend time riding all the other terrain, as well as snow, there are other things to consider. As juansevo predicts, the wheel/tire sizes may settle in the smaller region 3.5" rather than the 4.7" and go towards the lighter/more high performance setups. Think about any other bikes - you can ride your normal 29er rig with 2.5" in the front and rear, but do you? Depends....if you're somebody in the UK, you'll be on the wider, heavily treaded tires to deal with wet, rocky conditions. If you ride the twisty smooth singletrack of the Midwest, you'll be weight weinying (new term) it out with some thin 2.1's.

    Therefore, when deciding on a fatbike frame design we encourage people to consider their weight, power, riding style, intended use, terrain, component/drive selection and what they love about their current favorite bike. There is definitely benefits and compromises in any setup, whether it's BFL's, Endos, Larrys, Huskers, ss, geared, 1X, 170mm, offset 135mm, steel, titanium, etc.

    When you have options and get to make the design decisions for yourself, you are able to choose a product that will be a perfect fit for you, not someone else, and 15 years from now it will still be fun to ride.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Can't say anything just yet, but when this becomes public knowledge, it will blow some minds and make many re-think drive train set ups. That is all.....
    170mm IGH hub? Rohloff?

    Okay, just dreaming....

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    i'm dreaming of a xtr level igh in 170mm. I know it will never happen but one can dream.
    amen!

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    I doing think you need one on a ti frame???
    No? I wouldn't mind some replaceable swap-outs on bike of this caliber.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    Yah, I've never had a ti frame, but figure the derailleur will bust long before the ti bends.
    I guess it depends on how you ride it.

  60. #60
    Huckin' trails
    Reputation: David C's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Northender View Post
    I guess it depends on how you ride it.
    I had my hanger once bend on my alu FR bike. It didn't broke, but as left a nice nick on my frame and bent the drop out in a wave shape... It should have broke (the hanger), but the way the rd tangle with the spokes just made it impossible to and damage the drop out. Now if this was to happen on a $$$$$ Ti frame, I think a nice hanger could keep that frame intact. And maybe also save your rd ?
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    topless. that's what all mtb girls do. we go ride, get topless, have pillow fights in the woods, scissor, then ride home!

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Toni Lund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    I didn't quote the part about wheel failures you brought up, but if you search this forum, there have been whel failures discussed here. The statistical comparisons between 135mmOLD failures and 170mmOLD failures is not very meaningful at this point, because there are not enough 170mm bikes out there, (but perhaps this is changed by now), however, I suspect a good comparison of what works best will soon shake out.
    I suppose that some of the wheel failures are caused by same kind of issues that have been seen in normal 26" and 29er wheels - a bad build, manufacturing faults in rims and spokes, and so on.

    It's interesting that there is almost a 135mm offset vs. 170mm symmetrical war going on. Surely common sense says that 170mm symmetrical is stronger but is it so much stronger that 135mm offset can be labeled as weak? It seems to me that it can't.

    And then again, riding style, trail conditions and rider weight surely plays a very important role. 170mm symmetrical would make more sense for a big and heavy rider with a rugged riding style.

    More folks using fat bikes year round and more fat bikes than ever before will start to bring out the weak links. I don't think we can say with authority which way is better yet. That said, my money is on symmetrical builds. It just makes more sense.
    But at the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean that 135mmOLD offset build is bad.

    Yes, I own and ride a 135mmOLD offset build (2011 9:Zero:7), and so far it has been great, year-round, in different conditions. At the time of purchasing the key for me was the affordability and availability of 135mm hubs, and the fact that 135mm offset design has had so far a good reputation.
    "Cycling is not the whole life, it's much more."
    www.tonilund.fi - Facebook - Twitter - Google+

  62. #62
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    There's two issues with offset wheels, the differences in left to right spoke tension (dish) and leverage from the offset that could allow forces to twist/damage the rim. In many cases, the offset wheel has less difference in left/right tension (dish) compared to a 170mm symmetric wheel. It depends on the rim offset and hub offset. Freespoke calculates the tension of each side, it can be illustrative.

    For example, with RD rims, a 170mm Salsa hub has more difference in left/right tension compared to an 135mm Shimano XT hub (100/78 for the 170mm Salsa vs 90/100 for the 135mm offset XT). It works out to 2 turns of dish vs ~1/2 turn of dish. That's very significant for the strength of the wheel.

    Fat rims are very strong compared with road rims, I'm less worried about the leverage twisting the rim from offset than having a excessively dished wheel. The 170mm/Salsa/RD wheels needs ~2 turns of dish, that's the limit of what I like for an off road wheel.
    Last edited by pursuiter; 01-08-2012 at 10:04 AM.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,242
    Quote Originally Posted by pursuiter View Post
    There's two issues with offset wheels, the differences in left to right spoke tension (dish) and leverage from the offset that could allow forces to twist/damage the rim. In many cases, the offset wheel has less difference in left/right tension (dish) compared to a 170mm symmetric wheel. It depends on the rim offset and hub offset. Freespoke calculates the tension of each side, it can be illustrative.

    For example, with RD rims, a 170mm Salsa hub has more difference in left/right tension compared to an 135mm Shimano XT hub (100/78 for the 170mm Salsa vs 90/100 for the 135mm offset XT). It works out to 2 turns of dish vs ~1/2 turn of dish. That's very significant for the strength of the wheel.

    Fat rims are very strong compared with road rims, I'm less worried about the leverage twisting the rim from offset than having a excessively dished wheel. The 170mm/Salsa/RD wheels needs ~2 turns of dish, that's the limit of what I like for an off road wheel.
    I built up a pair of 170 rear 135 front wheels using rolling darryls and some modified XTR hubs. I had more even spoke lengths/tension lacing to only the spoke holes on one side of the rim. This was true for both the front and rear wheels. I also built up a set of Fat Shebas where I drilled the holes only slightly offset to even out the spoke tension. This moved the nipples off the thick part of the rim but the wheels are still going strong 3 years later.
    Latitude 61

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    I built up a pair of 170 rear 135 front wheels using rolling darryls and some modified XTR hubs. I had more even spoke lengths/tension lacing to only the spoke holes on one side of the rim. This was true for both the front and rear wheels. I also built up a set of Fat Shebas where I drilled the holes only slightly offset to even out the spoke tension. This moved the nipples off the thick part of the rim but the wheels are still going strong 3 years later.
    I noticed the same thing when I built up my large marge's with some XT hubs. I usually try to tension the drive side on the rear more and the disk side on the front more, but It wasn't easy with that build. As a result the wheels had a slightly higher tension (very little dish). So I guess the offset in the rim counters the offset in the hub allowing one to build a rim with more equal tension spokes (less dish).

Similar Threads

  1. Trek Ticket 2012
    By BJames111 in forum Urban/DJ/Park
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-08-2013, 10:10 AM
  2. 2012 Marzocchi - 66 RC3 Evo Titanium - 888 RC3 Evo Titanium V2
    By Nick_M2R in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-05-2012, 08:00 PM
  3. Lowering a 55 RC3 EVO TITANIUM / 2012
    By dclxvi in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-16-2011, 02:56 PM
  4. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 12:35 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.