2019 fatbike state of the union.- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 103 of 103
  1. #1
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274

    2019 fatbike state of the union.

    No secret that fatbikes have faded back to a more realistic place within most bike shops. That surge a few years ago represented manufacturers wanting to get into the game to sell units, and didn't accurately reflect the number of consumers truly interested in the niche.

    Now that we're back to reality, how do you see fatbikes being used (not marketed) and improved going forward?

    More width in rims and tires?

    Focus on lighter package weight with existing rim/tire sizes?

    Different geometry?

    E-assist?

    Moving forward, what sorts of (realistic) improvements are you hoping to see in 2, 5, 10 years?

    Discuss.

  2. #2
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,389
    Oh boy, Mikesee's starting us up again!

    Frankly, it's spot on that the demographic was severely misjudged as many thought with a "bandwagon" mentality as they joined the fatolution.

    There will be the brands that stand behind and fully support fat for years to come.
    Minor geometry adjustments and other tweaks will go on, color changes between model years...

    Tire offerings will be dialed along with improvements to casing designs that might take into account the shear dead weight along with improvement if durability.

    Of course, we have all seen the advent of 10, 11 and 12 speed traditional drivetrains along with internal gear hubs morph to be fatbike compatible. Pinion gearboxes with different number of speeds became available.

    We have seen many things go away as well, between brands eliminating fat, brands thinning the herd (Surly) and components being discontinued. Tires by Surly, rims by Surly, and the end of the Moonie...
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  3. #3
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,686
    I think focus on lighter package weight with existing wheel/tire sizes, maybe leaning more toward 27.5 Fat.

    Also in the fat bikes marketed more toward trail duties/year round quiver-killer types..... possibly longer front center/reach/slacker HTA tweaks.

    Hopefully some lighter (but still stiff enough) suspension fork options..... but that may be a stretch with the scaling back measures.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  4. #4
    Fat Biking & Health Rider
    Reputation: MikeTowpathTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,065
    Great questions. Being a realistic pessimist, I see the future as one being a niche brand of bike. A lot of manufacturers leaving the scene due to shrinking sales. I don't see no great revelations within the fat bike industry that we have not seen already. We may already have past Peak Fatbike.

    There will always be a loyal and hard core following such as myself and the folks who populate this particular portion of MTBR. But my purchases have already been made and as such, it's just a matter of upgrading or maintaining what I have. And as I tend to keep my bikes for a very, very long time, bike manufacturers best not depend upon the likes of me!

    If I have one true wish to see done is for the major tire manufacturer's make a fat tire supple enough yet backed with a real puncture proof tire casing such as that found on alot of the Schwalbe touring bike tires.

    E-Assist? Most definitely, one future direction. It totally transforms the fat bike into a vehicle where you can knock down some serious miles under your tires. It doubles the smile factor of the standard fat bike by a great margin. But again, a fat tired ebike is a niche product within a niche grouping. A shame, cause many bicyclists will never truly get that feeling of satisfaction we get when we start rolling those fat tires!

    2019 fatbike state of the union.-100_1875.jpg
    First fatty, Specialized Fatboy. Surly Nice Rear racks, Ortlieb pannier bags, front and rear. Schmidt Dyno hub lighting system. Stock Specialized/Sram drive train. This is the bike that got me hooked on bikes & the idea of going off road, again.

    2019 fatbike state of the union.-100_3812.jpg
    Second fatty, Haibike Full FatSix. Old Man Mountain Phat Sherpa's, front and rear. Tubeless Schwalbes. Stock Shimano drive train. Ortlieb pannier bags for touring. 2 extra 500wh Yamaha batteries for extra range....

    Again, a niche within the niche. But as many of us age out, afflictions occur but the need to get off-road remains the same. This will be the solution for a few of us. Not all, but a few; especially those with the discretionary dollars to make it happen.

    From what I've observed and it's just my opinion, the real manufacturing revoluton ongoing right now is in E-bikes, in particular, E-MTB. Each year, more bike manufacturer's have jumped on the bandwagon. The motor drive manufacturers are in a race to out do the competition in their latest drive motor or battery design and it's carried over to the bike manufacturers redesigning their bikes to meet this techno push....

  5. #5
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Some of my wish list are realistic. Many are not.

    Realistic:

    - Anti-rotation of bearings without resorting to red threadlocker. I've pedal-unscrewed bottom brackets subzero F, it is not fun at all. Perhaps just a frame tab and a set screw, which is probably asking too much cooperation.
    - Saddles that don't smack sharply in the small of the spine in dab situations where a dropper post can't be requested fast enough (milliseconds). Think like Gonzo from the Muppets.
    - Fine-adjust dropper posts that work subzero F. Some sort of inverted collet, or multiple-tooth array like how Echo trials freewheels work, but in a linear fashion. Just please no more hydraulics.
    - Sort-of-like-a-pogie glove. I call it "the claw". Thin insulation palm side of glove, absurd insulation / spaciousness toward the outside world. Have your heat, let go of bars in crash situation.

    Feasible, but sketchy:

    - Thin flat cranks for better Q. Thinner than the depth of the threads on a pedal axle. Cooperation between crank and pedal manufacturers required for this to work. The pedal axle would have a wide flare that would fit into the crank in a thin/broad way, the overall design of the rest of the pedal would be otherwise the same. I envision cooperation / supply chain problems here, otherwise it is a feasible notion.
    - I'm working on my torque-tolerant-downshift gearbox. It is almost ready. Max width, minimum Q. Almost ready...

    Unrealistic, maybe:

    - Center bar mount gear indicator that is transreflective. My whole childhood was spent with solar calculators that worked like a BOSS in broad daylight, I want to know my gear while pogie equipped, please.
    - Lauf-esque rear suspension without resorting to Thudbuster / without interrupting dropper post utility. This is hard to do.

    HYPER UNREALISTIC:

    - Please please please stop the noises. No more creaks or howls, I will pay through the nose for a quiet bike.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,186
    Jeez Mike....you really opened the floor to....ummm....I don't know what LOL!
    When I got my first fattie in 2010....you were pretty established here....and not many of us originals left.
    I've seen a lot of stuff come and go....can't imagine what you've seen.

    Ebikes....probably. I'm in my 60s and see that happening eventually.

    Wider tires soon become 1 trick ponies. But for those that actually ride in a lot of snow....yes! (although I have so many wheel/tire setups now)

    Full suspension? With Salsa dropping out....and Trek looking to do the same...that leaves a few small builders.

    Sadly....with every manufacturer working on jamming 160mm travel bikes that have 11" high bottom brackets and 8' long wheel bases down the public's throats is going to stunt many changes to fatties.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    516
    27.5"x4.5" wheels
    More ebike options
    some minor geometry changes
    Obviously the typical MTB progress in drivetrain, brakes, droppers etc.

    Fatbikes are pretty simple, so not really much to change unless we talk about FS fatbikes. Maybe throw in some hub standard changes just for the sake of it :-)
    2018 Motobecane Sturgis NX
    2016 Giant Toughroad SLR1

  8. #8
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Some of my wish list

    I like a man that knows *exactly* what he wants, even if I don't see as much value in his list as I do in my own...

    ...which is very simple:

    -Bigger tires with light tubeless casings and tread apropos to soft snow digging and floating. 26 x 5.6" or 27.5 x 5" at minimum. 120mm wide rims for the former, 105mm for the latter.

    and

    -Gearboxes with a decent range, that work well in the cold, that are sealed against moisture intrusion (so that they can be used in the way fatbikes beg to be used -- off piste) and that don't feel as though one is pedaling them underwater.

  9. #9
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Are there yet any 120mm rims? My position against making rims (flooded market) has softened with time. I could be talked into making some. I used to think that my small CNC platform would be a limiting factor. The solution is to instead make something like a big, slow, vertical lathe, like a Lazy Susan but with a special stationary cutter. Is there any point to doing this without tires to match? mikesee you've already figured out the elevated chainstay requirements.

    My strategy with gearboxes is to have as little of it as possible. Every contact point is an efficiency loss. My current design constraints can make a 6 speed (2x3) with extremely large clearance for fat tires encrusted in muck at a short chainstay length, or a 9 speed (3x3) in the same general Q factor, albeit with longer chainstay length. After the first iteration I'd like to see teeth faces that have been REM treated. I don't even know how this would affect cost but let us assume "expensive".

    The other challenge is that good sealing (off piste) is also a built-in efficiency loss. I've thought of a "constant ejection" design but, it is, uhhhh.... hehe... it is half baked let's call it that.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  10. #10
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,130
    They always come up with some new"standard" so we all have to buy new parts.
    Slightly wider rims will mean we need fat boost hubs, like 5.5mm wider than current...
    Of course e-everything for the lazy generation.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    609
    I currently have a slew of Farley Fat bikes and each one has it's purpose.

    I have been riding one of my Fat Bikes at a Road Bike for the last year and have put a couple thousand miles on it. I love riding road with it so much that a month ago I decided to build a Cyclo-Cross Fat bike so I can ride the road to the trails and hit the not so technical stuff just for something a little different.

    If it doesn't work I can always put some flat bars on the bike.

    2019 fatbike state of the union.-2019-07-08-mtb-farley-cyclocross-build-4-large-.jpg
    MJ
    14 Farley,Bluto,i9-27.5FatBNimbles
    16 Farley5,CarbonFork,27.5x4.5Barbegazi
    16 Farley9.6,Bluto,Onyx-26JumboJims

  12. #12
    Nutrailer
    Reputation: JackWare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    510


    I'm loving the chair positioned to admire the bike
    What a perfect waste of time

  13. #13
    Hybrid Leftys aren't real Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,915
    I feel like we'll not see too much change to fatties now. Just like 29ers when fat and 650B came along, they've languished since the big brands don't feel like they are the prime target for leveraging the foisting off of the maximum number of units.

    What I want? the return of standards.

    One THREADED bottom bracket standard.

    One headset/headtube diameter standard (I'm fine with tapered or 44mm, but do we need both, and then variations within tapered?).

    One freehub body standard (impossible, but a guy can dream).

    The end of internal cable routing.

    Complete cessation of the circle jerk surrounding stiffness. Bikes are stiff enough, parts are stiff enough, stop trying to convince the Joe SixPack average rider that stiffer everything, every year, actually improves their lives.

    Rest of it is basically the same as any other segment in the industry.

    The real change I see coming, is the death of brick and mortar, and leading the charge will be the industry itself, seeking ever increasing profits, in a shrinking market. Consumer direct sales will kill all mid sized shops. Gigantic stores propped up by singular brands will continue to underwhelm with low paid staff and generally no one over the age of 23 working there (except the owner). Small/tiny shops will continue to exist to serve the function of installing parts and doing adjustments that need to be done.

    I was happy with bikes 10 years ago, the ensuing decade brought little to make me think more was needed. Plus bikes was about it, and the industries obsession with putting racer boy types on them, and lapping up their input like hungry cats at a milk bowl, has ruined them with ever shrinking tire volumes, so I have little hope for really interesting stuff moving forward.

    E Bikes are the new darling. Give it 5 years, we'll be at Peak E, and wondering where to go from there.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  14. #14
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    MendonCycleSmith I hear ya on the stiffness thing, it is easier from a processing standpoint to have a large carbon tube cross section with a thin wall, it is easy to put together and makes for a stiff result up to a certain load point. So it's good for where a lot of frames are being well made in Taiwan et al.

    Is that good for the rider though? More prone to rock strikes. "Well we can make up for that with better resin"... yeah, well, what if you used the modern resin and small, thick tubes, and had super kick ass rock durability? "Well then it would be a heavier result because of (boring reasons) and light stuff sells" rrrrrrr @#$*@#

    That said I think Fatback deserves some praise with what they did with the Corvus. Have your external routing but it doesn't look external from a few feet away, very clever.

    I hope your gloomy predictions of the future of the LBS are wrong. I don't think you're wrong, but I hope you're wrong.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  15. #15
    Hybrid Leftys aren't real Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    MendonCycleSmith I hear ya.
    Had a consumer direct carbon + fame rom the UK in for a build recently.

    You pushed housing into a hole, and it miraculously popped out the appropriate hole, at the other end.

    It was magic, and the frame was $700.

    If the big boys feel it's unimportant, they plainly never actually built bikes before.

    So if it's the small, consumer direct, outside the box/industry mindset "makers" that will *save* us, then yep, bike shops are the next casualty of this war on maximizing profit above all else.

    The whole carbon tube thing you touch on, yep, snake eating its own tail.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,026
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    What I want? the return of standards.

    One THREADED bottom bracket standard.

    One headset/headtube diameter standard (I'm fine with tapered or 44mm, but do we need both, and then variations within tapered?).

    One freehub body standard (impossible, but a guy can dream).

    The end of internal cable routing.

    Complete cessation of the circle jerk surrounding stiffness. Bikes are stiff enough, parts are stiff enough, stop trying to convince the Joe SixPack average rider that stiffer everything, every year, actually improves their lives.

    Rest of it is basically the same as any other segment in the industry.

    The real change I see coming, is the death of brick and mortar, and leading the charge will be the industry itself, seeking ever increasing profits, in a shrinking market. Consumer direct sales will kill all mid sized shops. Gigantic stores propped up by singular brands will continue to underwhelm with low paid staff and generally no one over the age of 23 working there (except the owner). Small/tiny shops will continue to exist to serve the function of installing parts and doing adjustments that need to be done.

    I was happy with bikes 10 years ago, the ensuing decade brought little to make me think more was needed. Plus bikes was about it, and the industries obsession with putting racer boy types on them, and lapping up their input like hungry cats at a milk bowl, has ruined them with ever shrinking tire volumes, so I have little hope for really interesting stuff moving forward.

    E Bikes are the new darling. Give it 5 years, we'll be at Peak E, and wondering where to go from there.....
    I like your list. I'd love to have 3 bikes that could share most parts, but I've never managed that. I would have needed to sell all my existing bikes and buy 3 new ones at the same time to beat the "standards war", but my cash flow/desire for new bike bling has not made that possible. I have managed to stick with external cable routing on all my bikes so there is that.

    Bike shops are dying for a number of reasons. My personal reason for giving up on the LBS is spectacularly bad service in every area of interaction I have with them. I don't mind paying for excellent service, but I can't bear to waste my time and money on folks that know less about what they are doing than I do. So I just buy my own tools and where I don't feel competent enough [wheel building and suspension tuning] I seek out real professionals. I have come across some great LBS on my travels, but sadly none where I live.

    We may reach peak e-bike in 5 years in the sense of most people who want them have them, but I think they'll remain as the dominant form of singletrack machine over mountain bikes in the long-term. As with all other motorsports they'll get faster/lighter/better range/more reliable/etc... I think we'll just see the end of the last era where humans moved themselves around without motors. The powered electric exoskeleton e-hiker/e-runner is next so kids will just assume it's normal to always have power assist to move around and when you tell some youngster that people walked/ran or biked many miles across the planet without power assist they'll think you are crazy. That's just not possible.

    Specifically in terms of fatbikes the one change I would like to see personally is that I am aiming to buy my retirement home up island in Cumberland where they have some snow for part of the year and I'd have a reason to add a fatbike back into the fleet. I've got my GF 38% convinced! I'll keep working on her.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  17. #17
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    I'd forgotten about one thing: On both of my fatbikes (one for snow, one for the rest of the year) I always have to choose between a dropper post or a suspension post. And whichever one I choose I always miss the other.

    No more: https://www.pnwcomponents.com/collec...28488424587341

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,186
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I'd forgotten about one thing: On both of my fatbikes (one for snow, one for the rest of the year) I always have to choose between a dropper post or a suspension post. And whichever one I choose I always miss the other.

    No more: https://www.pnwcomponents.com/collec...28488424587341
    Wow! If it works as good as their other droppers....it will be a nice post.

  19. #19
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    ^ That's fantastic. I'd try it. I've been riding a PNW post for about a month and it is really well sorted out. There's a bit of play in the "yaw" direction, but it is not at all noticeable on the bike, only noticed in the shop/exam scenario. It has a fine response at the lever, almost too responsive so I introduced a little slack in the cable on purpose. The return speed is just right, quick but not kick-you-in-the-goods quick. I have no cold weather experience on it.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,391
    I'd like to see more Bfat options with 83mm BBs like the Otso Voytek or RMB SuziQ.... and of course an easy fit for 29+.

    That suspension dropper just came at me like an idea long thought and discussed to be the holy grail of seatposts just comin' in the back door like "Hey guys, what you thinkin' 'bout?" ... Wow is my vote too Mayor.

    27.2 as an option is nice, price seems reasonable.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  21. #21
    rth009
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    -Bigger tires with light tubeless casings and tread apropos to soft snow digging and floating. 26 x 5.6" or 27.5 x 5" at minimum. 120mm wide rims for the former, 105mm for the latter.

    and

    -Gearboxes with a decent range, that work well in the cold, that are sealed against moisture intrusion (so that they can be used in the way fatbikes beg to be used -- off piste) and that don't feel as though one is pedaling them underwater.

    I second these, particularly more float for more deep, unconsolidated snow. Getting the rear derailleur out of the way would be swell too, and might help with those fatter, knobby tires too, but less critical as 1x works well and I dont care about wide q factor.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I'd forgotten about one thing: On both of my fatbikes (one for snow, one for the rest of the year) I always have to choose between a dropper post or a suspension post. And whichever one I choose I always miss the other.

    No more: https://www.pnwcomponents.com/collec...28488424587341

    How long have you been running that? Best of both worlds?

  23. #23
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemusher View Post
    How long have you been running that? Best of both worlds?

    Haven't even seen one yet -- it was just released today.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I'd forgotten about one thing: On both of my fatbikes (one for snow, one for the rest of the year) I always have to choose between a dropper post or a suspension post. And whichever one I choose I always miss the other.

    No more: https://www.pnwcomponents.com/collec...28488424587341
    Talk about a game changer.
    MJ
    14 Farley,Bluto,i9-27.5FatBNimbles
    16 Farley5,CarbonFork,27.5x4.5Barbegazi
    16 Farley9.6,Bluto,Onyx-26JumboJims

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    134
    Lets hope that PNW post proves out!

    Improved changes for fat bikes?

    At 72 the market for bikes in general is not keeping up with my age; too long mostly.

    If I was going custom, short CS, upright position, and not too slack for a full rigid, (maybe Lauf).

    Hi BB, maybe no drop at all, (ocean shore riding)

    A true 29 X 4.0" tire to give good float and a reasonable Q.

    It might be interesting to see a comparison of equal contact areas, differing in shape. I would think that the long and narrow one would show some advantage due to the approach and departure angles smoothing the ride that way. The advantage of short and fat seems to me, being more limited.
    "Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway" John Wayne

  26. #26
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by rth009 View Post
    I second these, particularly more float for more deep, unconsolidated snow. Getting the rear derailleur out of the way would be swell too, and might help with those fatter, knobby tires too, but less critical as 1x works well and I dont care about wide q factor.
    So, question for ya. First, some context. As I've gone very, very far down the gearbox rabbit hole (many thousands of dollars invested), it is clear to me that people are polarized for or against it -- which is fine.

    Initially I experimented with internally geared cranks that just plug right in to a normal frame set design. In order: Hammerschmidt (two speeds), FSA Patterson (two speeds), Efneo (three speeds).

    The Hammerschmidt was well sealed -- perhaps too well, the sheer diameter of the outer bearings and sleeves was significant. It is hard to manufacture something perfectly round of that size and still have it be remotely affordable. The efficiency penalty and lack of range was not worth the price, however the unit was durable beyond any doubt. It was a beast.

    The Patterson was good, affordable, serviceable, but limited to 68mm BB shells.

    The Efneo... uhhh... deeply flawed execution details, that's putting it kindly.

    The bearing size is really what it comes down to. No way to make it small, so geared cranks are off the table.

    Price was a factor to me, I wanted to offer a good deal if I were to make my own. So, I started evaluating "chains in a box". Just like a regular car transmission, but with chains instead of meshing involute gears. Problem was, most people I talked to, they didn't like the idea of pulling the gearbox apart when the chains eventually wore out, even if the wear rate was 3x longer in an ultra clean sealed lubrication bath. They wanted much longer service intervals.

    Okay, then. Meshing gears it is, they last so friggin long it is ridiculous. But... those are expensive. I found myself making an "elite only" type of product. @#$* ...Well, okay, not everyone needs it, and for those who do, shell it out. Bummer, but it is what it is. That's what I'm near completion on.

    Still, the price thing nags at me. Could I do anything that relies on the ol cassette and derailleur that is just... more durable, or as you say, "out of the way"?

    What would you be willing to live with? If I put a cassette into a big, sealed case in a custom, wild looking chainstay, you'd be forced into having a non-standard rear wheel interface. Very heavy handed, as noted with the design constraints of the heavy handed Hammerschmidt.

    Alternatively, if I did something less heavy handed, like rearrange the location of the individual components of a conventional 1x derailleur along the length of the chain stay, I could make it semi-sealed and affordable. It would still be exposed to dirt intrusion in certain places, but the sensitive bits would be out of the way and you could grind the chainstay along an object as if you were riding a skateboard along that object. The main gripe here is that if you had a chainsuck moment, you'd have to fish out the chain in an extra awkward way, like removing a little guard plate. Perhaps I could make said guard easy (but not too easy) to remove.

    So, it comes down to what you'd be willing to live with in terms of function v cost v hassle. I can make something "out of the way" that would use a regular cassette sourced from anywhere. It is an idea I am going to evaluate after my mid-drive high end gearbox is completed.

    I'd love any input on this one. I do not see it as a patentable idea, it would require some unusual frame design at the chainstay area, which other manufacturers are not interested in, so I'm not gonna profit off it much. The good news is that I recently measured how much chain throw needs to be taken up on a 50-10 cassette, and it's not very much, perhaps something that could be accomplished in a straight line along the chainstay under a guard, if you get my meaning.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,186
    Damn you Mikesee!
    I just spent my grocery money on the PNW post.
    I'll be dumpster diving for dinner this week.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: roughster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    719
    Great question!

    1) I would like to see a mid-travel (~140 - 150mm front and rear) Full Suspension Fatbike with semi-slack / slack geometry.

    2) Standard hub spacing (150/190) so that I can go 29 x 3.0 plus in summer for trail riding and 27.5 x 3.8/4 for the shoulder / mud season, and 26 x 4/5 for winter and/or sand riding.

    3) Standardized component and specs so I don't have to cobble it together myself or pay someone else to customize it. Nothing proprietary. Yes, you can read this as I am cheap.

    To me this makes the most sense for this market. We all agree we are not the masses, BUT, if we had a universal spec and standards that allowed us to use a fat bike as a reasonable "one bike quiver" for all seasons and all types of riding, I bet it would boost sales. At least I would be psyched

    Right now I am riding my Farley Ex8 as basically an All Mtn / Enduro trail bike in 29x3 and I am not sure how long it is going to hold up if I keep riding it like that. I routinely have both the front and rear suspension rings showing I bottom'ed out at least once (most likely multiple) time(s) during the ride. And yes, I have the shocks set up correctly for my weight and expected ride style. In order to avoid bottoming them out, I basically have to almost go to max pressure which just then increases the impact since it almost makes the bike feel like it's a rigid... conundrum!

    BUT I don't want to give up fat either. I really like riding it in fat mode as well.

    Give me everything damn it!

    2019 fatbike state of the union.-img_8477.jpg
    2018 Trek Farley Ex 8 - One bike to rule them all!
    2015 Salsa Bucksaw 2 - Also pretty frickiní sweet!

  29. #29
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,130
    Suspension dropper.....
    Almost every reverb out there goes squishy.....lol

  30. #30
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    So, question for ya. First, some context. As I've gone very, very far down the gearbox rabbit hole (many thousands of dollars invested), it is clear to me that people are polarized for or against it -- which is fine.

    Initially I experimented with internally geared cranks that just plug right in to a normal frame set design. In order: Hammerschmidt (two speeds), FSA Patterson (two speeds), Efneo (three speeds).

    The Hammerschmidt was well sealed -- perhaps too well, the sheer diameter of the outer bearings and sleeves was significant. It is hard to manufacture something perfectly round of that size and still have it be remotely affordable. The efficiency penalty and lack of range was not worth the price, however the unit was durable beyond any doubt. It was a beast.

    The Patterson was good, affordable, serviceable, but limited to 68mm BB shells.

    The Efneo... uhhh... deeply flawed execution details, that's putting it kindly.

    The bearing size is really what it comes down to. No way to make it small, so geared cranks are off the table.

    Price was a factor to me, I wanted to offer a good deal if I were to make my own. So, I started evaluating "chains in a box". Just like a regular car transmission, but with chains instead of meshing involute gears. Problem was, most people I talked to, they didn't like the idea of pulling the gearbox apart when the chains eventually wore out, even if the wear rate was 3x longer in an ultra clean sealed lubrication bath. They wanted much longer service intervals.

    Okay, then. Meshing gears it is, they last so friggin long it is ridiculous. But... those are expensive. I found myself making an "elite only" type of product. @#$* ...Well, okay, not everyone needs it, and for those who do, shell it out. Bummer, but it is what it is. That's what I'm near completion on.

    Still, the price thing nags at me. Could I do anything that relies on the ol cassette and derailleur that is just... more durable, or as you say, "out of the way"?

    What would you be willing to live with? If I put a cassette into a big, sealed case in a custom, wild looking chainstay, you'd be forced into having a non-standard rear wheel interface. Very heavy handed, as noted with the design constraints of the heavy handed Hammerschmidt.

    Alternatively, if I did something less heavy handed, like rearrange the location of the individual components of a conventional 1x derailleur along the length of the chain stay, I could make it semi-sealed and affordable. It would still be exposed to dirt intrusion in certain places, but the sensitive bits would be out of the way and you could grind the chainstay along an object as if you were riding a skateboard along that object. The main gripe here is that if you had a chainsuck moment, you'd have to fish out the chain in an extra awkward way, like removing a little guard plate. Perhaps I could make said guard easy (but not too easy) to remove.

    So, it comes down to what you'd be willing to live with in terms of function v cost v hassle. I can make something "out of the way" that would use a regular cassette sourced from anywhere. It is an idea I am going to evaluate after my mid-drive high end gearbox is completed.

    I'd love any input on this one. I do not see it as a patentable idea, it would require some unusual frame design at the chainstay area, which other manufacturers are not interested in, so I'm not gonna profit off it much. The good news is that I recently measured how much chain throw needs to be taken up on a 50-10 cassette, and it's not very much, perhaps something that could be accomplished in a straight line along the chainstay under a guard, if you get my meaning.
    I could see something like the honda DH bikes of old being the best idea for cold conditions. A sealed standard drivetrain outputing to propshaft then either belt or chain to rear cog. Fix the cog on the hub and have the freewheeling in the gearbox. Not sure how expensive that would be but it seems the best option for cold weather vs. meshing gears and lubricants. Though as you noted chain wear, etc.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  31. #31
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    I could see something like the honda DH bikes of old being the best idea for cold conditions. A sealed standard drivetrain outputing to propshaft then either belt or chain to rear cog. Fix the cog on the hub and have the freewheeling in the gearbox. Not sure how expensive that would be but it seems the best option for cold weather vs. meshing gears and lubricants. Though as you noted chain wear, etc.
    I'm familiar, it wasn't a bad idea, just lack of range. The problem with increasing range to something useful (440% to 500%) is that you have a lot of chain throw in the fastest / tallest gear. That has to go somewhere, it won't fit in a box in the middle. One thought I had was to allow the throw to travel along the down tube area toward the head tube. The "box" would look like a smoking pipe, a large node with a thin neck poking out.

    This is doable, but would require a seriously odd frame design (which I'm okay with), and would interrupt some frame bag space (which I'm not super enthused about). Perhaps this is a worthwhile task regardless of the consequences.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I'm familiar, it wasn't a bad idea, just lack of range. The problem with increasing range to something useful (440% to 500%) is that you have a lot of chain throw in the fastest / tallest gear. That has to go somewhere, it won't fit in a box in the middle. One thought I had was to allow the throw to travel along the down tube area toward the head tube. The "box" would look like a smoking pipe, a large node with a thin neck poking out.

    This is doable, but would require a seriously odd frame design (which I'm okay with), and would interrupt some frame bag space (which I'm not super enthused about). Perhaps this is a worthwhile task regardless of the consequences.
    Iím hoping for a lighter IGH similar to a Rohloff Speedhub. That would open up options for tire width and decrease complexity/maintenance. It currently has a range of 526%, but is a boat anchor.

  33. #33
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Skookum1 View Post
    Iím hoping for a lighter IGH similar to a Rohloff Speedhub. That would open up options for tire width and decrease complexity/maintenance. It currently has a range of 526%, but is a boat anchor.
    The problem with lighter is about distribution. With a chain and sprocket system, you're dividing load among available teeth in contact. With meshing involute gears you're placing all load on one tooth per gear (an overturning pattern of levers), which is why meshing gears are thick and heavy so the teeth do not break right off.

    It sucks.

    One way to address this would be to make extremely high end gears. This is done in extreme performance helicopters and stuff. You make the body out of a composite material, and fashion the biting edges of the teeth out of metal. Pretty involved and expensive. Cutting the weight out of a Rohloff would be very, very hard. I'm not saying impossible, "just" hard.

    The trouble with chains is you have polygon chaos as thin surfaces wear out. Which also sucks.

    Perhaps you recall that prototype shown by CeramicSpeed (which, I must emphasize, they have not shown a video of it being ridden up a hill, no torque situations, or shifting). What is interesting about the concept is that it has very few contact points. It could be of some value, if it didn't have so many practical problems (deflection, dirt intrusion, rear hub interface).

    If I sound pessimistic, this crap is complicated to sort out. NSFW Ice skating uphill and all that.

    There are fancy workarounds to borrow from the high end motorsport world, but those involve computers and sensors. For their purposes, they are trying to reduce shock load and shift time at high RPM. For our purposes, I'm trying to reduce contact points as close to "one" as possible. This will eventually get explored because I have a software background and I can bridge the gap, but there will be implicit distrust from many riders who are experienced with capacitors and batteries going bad in extreme cold.

    Ice skating uphill.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,513
    Many of us in the BC Rockies/Kootenays really want a modern geo fatty, 65 head, 76+ seat, designed around a 130+ fork that fits a 5"+ tire. We are riding the same stuff on our fattys that we ride our Chromag Rootdown BA's and Doctahawks on and find pretty much all the current fat bikes aren't up to it. Lots of guys are looking into customs or building their own.
    Simple request that no manufacturer is doing.

  35. #35
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Are there yet any 120mm rims? My position against making rims (flooded market) has softened with time. I could be talked into making some.

    There are a handful of decent carbon options at 105mm.

    Then there's a 132mm monstrosity that weighs in the range of an average american child.

  36. #36
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by roughster View Post
    And yes, I have the shocks set up correctly for my weight and expected ride style. In order to avoid bottoming them out, I basically have to almost go to max pressure which just then increases the impact since it almost makes the bike feel like it's a rigid... conundrum!

    The latter statement implies that the former cannot be true.

  37. #37
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinS View Post
    Many of us in the BC Rockies/Kootenays really want a modern geo fatty, 65 head, 76+ seat, designed around a 130+ fork that fits a 5"+ tire. We are riding the same stuff on our fattys that we ride our Chromag Rootdown BA's and Doctahawks on and find pretty much all the current fat bikes aren't up to it. Lots of guys are looking into customs or building their own.
    Simple request that no manufacturer is doing.

    If they saw a market (read: $$$$) in it, they'd be doing it.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,331
    Bike companies will develop what sells. My money for the short term is on e-bikes. Wheel and Sprocket, the largest shop in Wisconsin, is marketing the heck out of e-bikes.

  39. #39
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I'm familiar, it wasn't a bad idea, just lack of range. The problem with increasing range to something useful (440% to 500%) is that you have a lot of chain throw in the fastest / tallest gear. That has to go somewhere, it won't fit in a box in the middle. One thought I had was to allow the throw to travel along the down tube area toward the head tube. The "box" would look like a smoking pipe, a large node with a thin neck poking out.

    This is doable, but would require a seriously odd frame design (which I'm okay with), and would interrupt some frame bag space (which I'm not super enthused about). Perhaps this is a worthwhile task regardless of the consequences.

    Hmm guess i didn't think about that part. Works fine for the limitations imposed by DH but not quite the range for actual hills and such. I always though the nuvinci transmission would be a future that would be explored by bike companies with its infinite ratios and abilities to work with out lubrication (excluding the traction compound). Seems like a bike specific CVT would be a good option, similar to the nuvinci but without the difficulty of the size perhaps. Though I suspect the loss to friction would be considerable, probably just as bad as an IGH. Lubrication would probably preclude cold weather too.

    I grew up in the canadian prairies riding my bike all winter and distinctly remember BB's and headsets that were frozen solid until the grease cycled a bunch of times and chains that would take a few rotations to loosen and tires with flat spots.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  40. #40
    Hybrid Leftys aren't real Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,915
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    weighs in the range of an average american child.
    Are we talking outdoor active, healthy diet, child, or video game obsessed, drool cup installed, cheeto's and koolaid, obese, child?
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    257
    "I grew up in the canadian prairies riding my bike all winter and distinctly remember BB's and headsets that were frozen solid until the grease cycled a bunch of times and chains that would take a few rotations to loosen and tires with flat spots."

    Aah! Square tires. Had a few rides on those.

  42. #42
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    Hmm guess i didn't think about that part. Works fine for the limitations imposed by DH but not quite the range for actual hills and such. I always though the nuvinci transmission would be a future that would be explored by bike companies with its infinite ratios and abilities to work with out lubrication (excluding the traction compound). Seems like a bike specific CVT would be a good option, similar to the nuvinci but without the difficulty of the size perhaps. Though I suspect the loss to friction would be considerable, probably just as bad as an IGH. Lubrication would probably preclude cold weather too.

    I grew up in the canadian prairies riding my bike all winter and distinctly remember BB's and headsets that were frozen solid until the grease cycled a bunch of times and chains that would take a few rotations to loosen and tires with flat spots.
    The NuVinci was a heart breaker situation to my eyes. Such potential. It was good in the higher ranges, and it shifted *really* nice, often under high torque (just not peak torque up a hill). Unfortunately the low end had this swishy kind of feeling. It would survive being pushed past recommended torque but I think it would slip in very small amounts. I say this as a not-very-powerful-legs rider. When it comes to efficiency nothing compares with elements that directly push (gears) or pull (chain/sprocket). NuVinci (or its successor, I forget the name) is now seeing success in the E-bike specialty.

    I forgot to mention with the Honda style chains-cassette-box approach, there is a way to shorten the tension throw on the tallest gear, which is to use a third idler pulley to reduce the throw by half. Attempting that would not really save frame bag space (50T granny ring on a 1x cassette is rather large and whatnot), but it would save the reach toward the head tube a bit.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  43. #43
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,193
    Drew uses too many words and not enough cat pics.

    I'm hoping we see better ergonomics/q factors. Like if a Voytek and a tumbleweed prospector had a carbon baby.

    Also I'm tired of slacker HTAs. Most of my riding is in icy conditions and having too much weight off the front is dangerous.
    You change your own flats? Support your LBS and pay them to instead.

  44. #44
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    I'm hoping we see better ergonomics/q factors. Like if a Voytek and a tumbleweed prospector had a carbon baby.
    Man! That is SPECIFICALLY what I'm working on!! C'mon. You wound me, friend.

    Sad face.

    2019 fatbike state of the union.-20190618_220829.jpg
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    If they saw a market (read: $$$$) in it, they'd be doing it.
    I find the fat bike industry to be pretty slow to advance, look how long it took to ditch 1 1/8 headsets.
    The trails up here are progressing ahead of the industry, we have an immaculately groomed flow trail with gaps and big rollers and 1300' of descent. Nelson is starting to groom some pretty steep trails with rock drops, and Rossland has been doing some pretty sweet grooming.
    There is definitely $$ to be made away from the current clone bikes that are out there for the right small company.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    Drew uses too many words and not enough cat pics.

    I'm hoping we see better ergonomics/q factors. Like if a Voytek and a tumbleweed prospector had a carbon baby.

    Also I'm tired of slacker HTAs. Most of my riding is in icy conditions and having too much weight off the front is dangerous.
    Slack head angles are fine when combined with a steeper seat tube angle that shifts your weight forward, the main problem is companies throwing a slack head angle on a bike and not compensating for the difference. A buddy of mine has one of those Doctahawks and it is a very weird machine, but the combination works. He has no issue climbing steep tech singletrack on a 63 HA with a 180-mm fork, and hauls on the DH's. No front wheel wash.

  47. #47
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinS View Post
    I find the fat bike industry to be pretty slow to advance, look how long it took to ditch 1 1/8 headsets.
    The trails up here are progressing ahead of the industry, we have an immaculately groomed flow trail with gaps and big rollers and 1300' of descent. Nelson is starting to groom some pretty steep trails with rock drops, and Rossland has been doing some pretty sweet grooming.
    There is definitely $$ to be made away from the current clone bikes that are out there for the right small company.

    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how many industries get things right, on time, every time?

    And when they don't, they get crucified from every angle. Think about this in terms of the new standards that every bike nerd likes to whine about these days. See?

  48. #48
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,193
    Drew you clearly have a favorite cat. More Tortie pics.

    Edit- Martin weird seat tube angles mess with my old man knees. After 5 surgeries I cant mess around with that stuff.
    You change your own flats? Support your LBS and pay them to instead.

  49. #49
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    Drew you clearly have a favorite cat. More Tortie pics.

    Edit- Martin weird seat tube angles mess with my old man knees. After 5 surgeries I cant mess around with that stuff.
    ARE YOU SURE? She is evil incarnate, you don't want to know what goes on in that little brain of hers.

    2019 fatbike state of the union.-20190606_221427.jpg
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  50. #50
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    923
    Fat tall bikes and Fat bike trucks like the Crust Clydesdale or a fat Soma Tradesmen. Sidecars, AWD, Subaru and Volvo colabs, paniers that are also packrafts, more fabric spoke brands, integrated jetboils and pour over coffee cones. You know stuff like the pubes mobile.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2019 fatbike state of the union.-nahbs-2019-day04-63.jpg  

    ptarmigan hardcore

  51. #51
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Are we talking outdoor active, healthy diet, child, or video game obsessed, drool cup installed, cheeto's and koolaid, obese, child?
    it's been so long since i've seen one of the former that i assumed they were defunct. or outlawed.

  52. #52
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinS View Post
    Many of us in the BC Rockies/Kootenays really want a modern geo fatty, 65 head, 76+ seat, designed around a 130+ fork that fits a 5"+ tire. We are riding the same stuff on our fattys that we ride our Chromag Rootdown BA's and Doctahawks on and find pretty much all the current fat bikes aren't up to it. Lots of guys are looking into customs or building their own.
    Simple request that no manufacturer is doing.
    +1, I'd buy one also! Probably the closest thing to that currently is the RSD Mayor V4, I picked on of those frames to build up for my steep/rough terrain geared bike.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,863
    I'd love to see another tread pattern by Schwalbe. Though I do not anticipate the big players to make any new tires and fully expect that they will actually cut back in the short term.

    A Bud 26x3.8-4.0 would be interesting.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    799
    a lot of this is state of the bike industry type stuff.

    for fat bike specific stuff I would like to see Schwalbe get into the 27.5 fat game. I hear so many good things about the jumbo jim and want to try one but they don't make it in 27.5.

    I view fat bikes a lot like my road bike. I have a road bike from 2011 and it doesn't bother me in the least. my fatbike is from 2017 but is a rigid hartail setup so I don't see any huge leaps in tech on it really happening for awhile.

    I think hardtail fatbikes that are versatile will start to be the norm. Something you can run 26 fat, 29+, 27.5 fat, etc. which I think means manufacturers messing around with different dropout ideas and how to move them around. I love the idea that I can make my one bike change its personality with just a wheel change.

    This last one probably sounds silly but maybe 29 fat? I don't know how all the engineering works but I am always impressed with the ways they figure out how to work around certain problems. I am sure the tire would be a mile high but maybe if they chop out a bunch of the sidewall it might ride good.

  55. #55
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31,550
    I just want it to snow so I can ride it in the snow. I gives a damn about the state of the lizards.
    "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.

  56. #56
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,157
    Never involve yourself in the politics of chickens.

    Constantly searching for the "next big thing" makes us leave behind what was great while discovering what is good.

  57. #57
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,357
    I would love it if Surly would make a 27.5 Edna. Also come back with an improved Rabbit Hole. They're still making Pugslies but no rim to make a Krampug.
    I like turtles

  58. #58
    Stayin' Puft
    Reputation: canyonrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,241
    Iíd like to see a multi-wheel-Size frame like the Otso Voytek but sized for 29x3 and 27.5x4 to 4.5. (ďRealĒ 27.5 like a VanHelga not the low profile stuff). It would be metal, preferably Aluminum, with threaded bb.

    It would have swingout dropout to allow adjustment and singlespeed use (not chips) and they would be designed to help lower the bb as wheel size grows. Love that the Voytek stayed with 177 rear axle, thatís about as big as I want to see when running SS.

    Considering the old Surly 1x1 with 26x2.75 tires I used to use for snow riding, even todayís fat bike landscape is like a dream sequence. Hope the industry does not cut back too much on the segment.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    37
    Would like to see more flex-style suspension options. Lauf is very interesting, but this is just one fork and why stop with simple fiberglass spring? The ski industry has almost six decades of different designs from fiberglass to all kinds of resins, high-tech fibers, and metal layers. It's possible to make such spring with a right rebound damping built into the spring itself.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,572
    Name:  33631585948_c46f196094.jpg
Views: 77
Size:  151.5 KB

    talking of wheel size and multi surface adaptability .... I've had my Vertigo Cycles 'Snow Job' for a few years now and regularly swap it between 26x4/4.6 to 27.5x3/3.8 to 27.5x3/29x3 depending on expected conditions and it does an excellent job of being ace in every way. the front centre is relatively long, the rear centre pretty short (410 ish) and the low bb and slack front end with big offset rigid fork is sweet. it isn't zeitgeist/chromag type geo, but its definitely 'trail' orientated rather than old school numbers.

    Name:  47615993391_7051f0cd1f.jpg
Views: 85
Size:  149.2 KB

    Name:  48038419467_c228843bdc.jpg
Views: 73
Size:  133.0 KB

    it has a 120mm press fit (170mm equivalent) bb with a 197 rear to keep the chainline sweet.

    Name:  48044502718_aa852a2644.jpg
Views: 84
Size:  94.8 KB

    reckon Sean got it bang on with this one. wouldn't change anything...

    Name:  48080501763_8dd0bd8a7e.jpg
Views: 78
Size:  145.7 KB

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: roughster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    719
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    The latter statement implies that the former cannot be true.
    Cool story! Iím glad you know my weight, the bikes weight, and how I ride / where I ride! Hella skillful!
    2018 Trek Farley Ex 8 - One bike to rule them all!
    2015 Salsa Bucksaw 2 - Also pretty frickiní sweet!

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hobine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    345
    I agree with the above posters on wanting a Schwalbe 27.5 Jumbo Jim. 4 & 5Ē would be cool. The last couple of years, when the snow is gone and the 4.0 JJís replace the Dillingers or Johnny 5ís, I feel like Lance when he was still on drugs. I know folks love the 27.5 x3.8 Hodags, which Iím currently running, but the ride quality just isnít in the same league.

    Iíd also like a full suspension fatty with a quality rear suspension design like DW link. Iíd empty my savings account for a Carbon Tuner King Khan with 5Ē front and rear travel, 27.5 x 4 tires, modern reach, and about a 66d head angle. (my incoming Fatillac hopefully fills this wish in alloy)

    People that have never ridden a full suspension fatty donít know how capable, comfortable and fast they can be. Itíd be a shame if they disappear.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    No secret that fatbikes have faded back to a more realistic place within most bike shops. That surge a few years ago represented manufacturers wanting to get into the game to sell units, and didn't accurately reflect the number of consumers truly interested in the niche. ...
    I'm not sure that's entirely correct. To me it looked like: as the demand for Fat was being answered, a meaningful (significant? major?) portion of that demand was taken over by wider 29 and 27.5 where they did a better job at some riding where people had been using/going-to 26 Fat.
    Last edited by Canoe; 1 Week Ago at 02:58 AM.
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    ...
    The real change I see coming, is the death of brick and mortar, and leading the charge will be the industry itself, seeking ever increasing profits, in a shrinking market. Consumer direct sales will kill all mid sized shops. Gigantic stores propped up by singular brands will continue to underwhelm with low paid staff and generally no one over the age of 23 working there (except the owner). Small/tiny shops will continue to exist to serve the function of installing parts and doing adjustments that need to be done. ...
    I hope your gloomy predictions of the future of the LBS are wrong. I don't think you're wrong, but I hope you're wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    ...
    E Bikes are the new darling. Give it 5 years, we'll be at Peak E, and wondering where to go from there.....
    I believe the points above will be closely related. Some factors that I believe will influence the above, over time:
    • significantly more bikes being used for commuting,
    • significantly more e-bikes being used for commuting,
    • e-bikes are attracting new riders and getting former riders back on bicycles, both for commuting and for recreation,
    • e-bikes are turning out to being a gateway-bike to a surprising number of e-bike riders subsequently moving to or getting an additional pure human-powered bicycle,
      - usually rather expensive and ridden by those who, upon various riding experiences or when fielding questions, will in a micro second display a grin from ear-to-ear,
    • limited market for e-MTB that are actually being used for mountain bike riding?,
    • manufacturers will respond to sell units,
    • someone needs to service those units.

    So where will the balance be?
    Will quality LBSs be needed for the demand of those wanting quality bikes (and service) or will the manufacturers and volume produced meet what portion of that need?
    Will LBSs make the switch to servicing e-bikes or will the model be specialty e-bike stores/service?
    Last edited by Canoe; 1 Week Ago at 02:56 AM.
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: roughster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    719
    2019 fatbike state of the union.-0d8c858d-d909-4e67-b3a2-a1c7b55dd2bb.jpeg

    Fat e-bikes are pretty fun too
    2018 Trek Farley Ex 8 - One bike to rule them all!
    2015 Salsa Bucksaw 2 - Also pretty frickiní sweet!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stopbreakindown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    870
    I <3 dRjOn's pics when they get posted!

    Nice bike

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    Perhaps less carbon. More and more in other circles they're claiming it can't be recycled.
    Anyone run into that with their carbon bike that's reached its end-of-life?

    Surely there's better ferrous or non-ferrous alloys that can come closer to carbon's strength-to-weight ratio?
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  68. #68
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Canoe View Post
    Perhaps less carbon. More and more in other circles they're claiming it can't be recycled.
    Anyone run into that with their carbon bike that's reached its end-of-life?

    Surely there's better ferrous or non-ferrous alloys that can come closer to carbon's strength-to-weight ratio?
    I accidentally hit the chainstay of my carbon bike, delaminating it, but the awesome part about carbon is it can be repaired much easier than aluminum for the most part, so I sanded it down, added some helical strips of carbon, some finishing layers, resin and hardener, then let it cure, re-sanded it down, added some clear-coat, and good to go again. Friend had her bike damaged in the earthquake when a machine fell on the bike, but got it was repaired by Calfee. In many ways, it's a much more durable product that can last longer than aluminum.
    "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.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Stopbreakindown View Post
    I <3 dRjOn's pics when they get posted!

    Nice bike
    thanks dude!

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    slight drift...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    ... chainstay of my carbon bike, delaminating it,... resin and hardener,...
    I'm curious. Which resin?

    That may keeps it away from end-of-life longer, but there's still the issue of how to recycle at end-of-life.
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    973
    In comparison to the aerospace industry, cycling components are a drop in the bucket.

    I'd also venture a guess that a large part of the carbon components out there are being used and get resold due to the high cost of the product. No one wants to throw away a $400 stem because it's not short enough anymore. I believe that component failures are fairly uncommon in comparison to the sheer number of carbon product out there. Yes, I've seen the pictures of all of the Chinese frames out in the ocean.

    And when it comes to aluminum bike parts, it still comes down to the end user to get that product recycled. If you throw it in a landfill rather than recycling, are you coming out any better?

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinkers View Post
    ... And when it comes to aluminum bike parts, it still comes down to the end user to get that product recycled. If you throw it in a landfill rather than recycling, are you coming out any better?
    Around here, it's impossible to throw an Al or Fe frame into the landfill. Set out for garbage pickup, someone grabs it and sells the metal to a scrap yard.
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  73. #73
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Canoe View Post
    slight drift...
    I'm curious. Which resin?

    That may keeps it away from end-of-life longer, but there's still the issue of how to recycle at end-of-life.
    West system 105 and 106 I believe.
    "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.

  74. #74
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by canyonrat View Post
    Iíd like to see a multi-wheel-Size frame like the Otso Voytek but sized for 29x3 and 27.5x4 to 4.5. (ďRealĒ 27.5 like a VanHelga not the low profile stuff). It would be metal, preferably Aluminum, with threaded bb.

    It would have swingout dropout to allow adjustment and singlespeed use (not chips) and they would be designed to help lower the bb as wheel size grows. Love that the Voytek stayed with 177 rear axle, thatís about as big as I want to see when running SS.

    Considering the old Surly 1x1 with 26x2.75 tires I used to use for snow riding, even todayís fat bike landscape is like a dream sequence. Hope the industry does not cut back too much on the segment.

    Current Farley ticks most of your boxes.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,391
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Current Farley ticks most of your boxes.
    Except the low q factor....
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Canoe View Post
    slight drift...
    I'm curious. Which resin?

    That may keeps it away from end-of-life longer, but there's still the issue of how to recycle at end-of-life.
    I have 3 carbon bikes, born in 2006, 2013 and 2016. I don't see the need to recycle any of them in the near future. Of the things that get thrown out and not recycled, carbon bicycle frames are pretty insignificant. Then again, plastic straws that comprise .025% of plastics in the ocean seem to draw huge press while the other 99.975% is largely ignored.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Some of my wish list are realistic. Many are not...
    - Sort-of-like-a-pogie glove. I call it "the claw". Thin insulation palm side of glove, absurd insulation / spaciousness toward the outside world. Have your heat, let go of bars in crash situation.
    ...
    Should be fairly straight-forward for DIY?
    • Start with a glove suitable to insulate hand from grips in winter.
      (and cork grips?)
    • Make an upper and lower clam-shell from a flexible waterproof fabric.
      (Consider if it needs to be breathable on the inner surface).
    • Fill each clam-shell with hollowfil or other insulation.
    • Cover the outer surface of the clam-shells with Reflectix (rubber/contact cement?), with the top shell's (on back of hand) Reflectix edge (and extended shell material?) folded and overhanging the lower shell's edge to block wind (snow, rain, rabid squirrels).
    • Attach the clam-shells to the glove with velcro? Other?
      - Allows for swapping different gloves (or mitts).
    • Draw string or velcro straps to seal the clam-shells to the "wrists" (forearms).
    • The "close" of the two clam-shells' Reflectix covers against wind can be held with a series of very small magnets, which will release easily. (velcro ~= too strong?)

    yes? no?
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    Given avialable materials, limited market and the width of fat hubs, what's the chance of getting decent hubs that don't feel like you're making a mortgage payment.
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    I have 3 carbon bikes, born in 2006, 2013 and 2016. I don't see the need to recycle any of them in the near future. Of the things that get thrown out and not recycled, carbon bicycle frames are pretty insignificant. Then again, plastic straws that comprise .025% of plastics in the ocean seem to draw huge press while the other 99.975% is largely ignored.
    Your probably correct on the mass ratios. But straws kill animals much easier and are easy to avoid.

    While we shouldn't avoid thinking about end of life impact of bike, bikes are nothing compared to cars, boats, or the land use of golfing.

    On topic: I hope close to 5" tire is the end of the line and there shouldn't be a reason to move away from 197mm TA and 100mm BB. I don't see much gain in anything except very fringe cases to benefit from even wider tires.
    2018 Motobecane Sturgis NX
    2016 Giant Toughroad SLR1

  80. #80
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Canoe View Post
    Given avialable materials, limited market and the width of fat hubs, what's the chance of getting decent hubs that don't feel like you're making a mortgage payment.

    I believe the DT Big Ride hubs have this covered. In spades.

  81. #81
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Canoe View Post
    Should be fairly straight-forward for DIY?
    • Start with a glove suitable to insulate hand from grips in winter.
      (and cork grips?)
    • Make an upper and lower clam-shell from a flexible waterproof fabric.
      (Consider if it needs to be breathable on the inner surface).
    • Fill each clam-shell with hollowfil or other insulation.
    • Cover the outer surface of the clam-shells with Reflectix (rubber/contact cement?), with the top shell's (on back of hand) Reflectix edge (and extended shell material?) folded and overhanging the lower shell's edge to block wind (snow, rain, rabid squirrels).
    • Attach the clam-shells to the glove with velcro? Other?
      - Allows for swapping different gloves (or mitts).
    • Draw string or velcro straps to seal the clam-shells to the "wrists" (forearms).
    • The "close" of the two clam-shells' Reflectix covers against wind can be held with a series of very small magnets, which will release easily. (velcro ~= too strong?)

    yes? no?
    Yes, you are likely on to something there. Conveniently, I know a guy who is making glove prototypes for a different purpose - winter time goose hunting - and there is a fair amount of feature overlap. So hopefully I won't have to add this one to my long list, someone else might get it done regardless.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,909
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I believe the DT Big Ride hubs have this covered. In spades.
    That's what I thought when I read that, too. Not exactly cheap, but reasonable.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    901
    Quote Originally Posted by Canoe View Post
    Perhaps less carbon. More and more in other circles they're claiming it can't be recycled.
    Anyone run into that with their carbon bike that's reached its end-of-life?

    Surely there's better ferrous or non-ferrous alloys that can come closer to carbon's strength-to-weight ratio?
    Really not sure why recycling ever even entered this discussion. Recycling is a tremendous waste of energy. Things should be built to last, not made to throw away and "recycle."

  84. #84
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,157
    I think now that the fatbike as a replacement for "my full sus, ss, hardtail dh'er, roadbike" desire has passed. We may be looking at them as an adventure or overlander style bike (see Pugsley V2.o). The true use of the fatbike may appeal to the niche market again.

  85. #85
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    - Fine-adjust dropper posts that work subzero F. Some sort of inverted collet, or multiple-tooth array like how Echo trials freewheels work, but in a linear fashion. Just please no more hydraulics.
    Bestill my foolish heart! Could this new USE post be a step in the right direction??
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    347
    Tubeless Surly Bud in B fat size, with stud pockets.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shaquille_o'wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    67
    29 x 3.8 , since it hasn't been done, someone will be crazy enough to be the first

  88. #88
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,274
    Quote Originally Posted by shaquille_o'wheel View Post
    29 x 3.8 , since it hasn't been done, someone will be crazy enough to be the first

    I could see some benefits to that, in some places.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,572
    id like to try 29x3.8. - i could see it as a potential good option for off piste style riding...- i guess as snow is generally not really rideable that often in scotland, my fat bike has been priamrily used for iffy trail or boggy ground. generally, i have some overlap on the b fat and fat bike tyres for this, even 29x3, but 29x3.8 would be very interesting.

    ive also been 'reverse mullet'ting' my bikes for a few years now...that way i can keep the shortest back end (lots of reasons for me to like this) and still gain the roll over up front (stops the bike diving into holes with a wee bit of a hoppity if needed) - for hardtails or rigids.

    i basically have no idea on snow riding but definitely like the fatter wheels for 'barelytrack'

  90. #90
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by shaquille_o'wheel View Post
    29 x 3.8 , since it hasn't been done, someone will be crazy enough to be the first
    I'd be down for that!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by tmbrown View Post
    Tubeless Surly Bud in B fat size, with stud pockets.
    This also! I've asked Surly for 27.5 tires and so far they keep showing no interest.

    I'd also like to see a Bontrager XR4 27.5x3.8 tire.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobine View Post
    I agree with the above posters on wanting a Schwalbe 27.5 Jumbo Jim. 4 & 5Ē would be cool. The last couple of years, when the snow is gone and the 4.0 JJís replace the Dillingers or Johnny 5ís, I feel like Lance when he was still on drugs. I know folks love the 27.5 x3.8 Hodags, which Iím currently running, but the ride quality just isnít in the same league.

    Iíd also like a full suspension fatty with a quality rear suspension design like DW link. Iíd empty my savings account for a Carbon Tuner King Khan with 5Ē front and rear travel, 27.5 x 4 tires, modern reach, and about a 66d head angle. (my incoming Fatillac hopefully fills this wish in alloy)

    People that have never ridden a full suspension fatty donít know how capable, comfortable and fast they can be. Itíd be a shame if they disappear.
    That's why I'm hoping for a revised Bucksaw; otherwise if mine breaks I will replacing with a Mutz or Fatillac, or maybe a Dopamine

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,875
    I think the majority of us use them on snow and on groomed trails. Tried to ride as summer bike once, but soon gave that up. Too rough of a ride. Mines been sitting in the garage collecting dust since April. Carbon frames and wheels, a good selection of ~5" tires and head tube angles between 68 and 70 degrees. Pretty much covers all we need right now in my opinion and I don't see much advancement. At least not any advancement that the general public will gobble up that will generate sales.

    That ship has sailed already within the last 2 years.

  93. #93
    rth009
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by rcracer2 View Post
    That's why I'm hoping for a revised Bucksaw
    new salsa fatbikes being announced on July 24 . . .

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by rth009 View Post
    new salsa fatbikes being announced on July 24 . . .
    OOOOOOHHH....AHHHHHHH....

    Will it be betterer than all fat bikes before it?!! Longer, slacker, meaner, more stifferer!!!

  95. #95
    roots, rocks, rhythm
    Reputation: Dawgprimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    I feel like we'll not see too much change to fatties now. Just like 29ers when fat and 650B came along, they've languished since the big brands don't feel like they are the prime target for leveraging the foisting off of the maximum number of units.

    What I want? the return of standards.

    One THREADED bottom bracket standard.

    One headset/headtube diameter standard (I'm fine with tapered or 44mm, but do we need both, and then variations within tapered?).

    One freehub body standard (impossible, but a guy can dream).

    The end of internal cable routing.

    Complete cessation of the circle jerk surrounding stiffness. Bikes are stiff enough, parts are stiff enough, stop trying to convince the Joe SixPack average rider that stiffer everything, every year, actually improves their lives.

    Rest of it is basically the same as any other segment in the industry.

    The real change I see coming, is the death of brick and mortar, and leading the charge will be the industry itself, seeking ever increasing profits, in a shrinking market. Consumer direct sales will kill all mid sized shops. Gigantic stores propped up by singular brands will continue to underwhelm with low paid staff and generally no one over the age of 23 working there (except the owner). Small/tiny shops will continue to exist to serve the function of installing parts and doing adjustments that need to be done.

    I was happy with bikes 10 years ago, the ensuing decade brought little to make me think more was needed. Plus bikes was about it, and the industries obsession with putting racer boy types on them, and lapping up their input like hungry cats at a milk bowl, has ruined them with ever shrinking tire volumes, so I have little hope for really interesting stuff moving forward.

    E Bikes are the new darling. Give it 5 years, we'll be at Peak E, and wondering where to go from there.....
    Can't argue with that list either!

    I would add the list a better choice of a decent fork for Fat bikes would be amazing but
    I can always dream............................................. ......................................

    I agree that the LBS is dying which is sad due to a lot of factors.
    I have always supported a good LBS and will do as long as I find one that I like.
    But for the record I do a lot of my own maintenance because it keeps my skills sharp and I know what to do when something goes wrong in the middle of no where.......

    As for E bikes.......there is good and bad.

    This coming from a guy that still rides 26 inch tires............but 27.5 plus is looking like a nice up grade.
    97' Brodie Expresso
    00' Turner RFX
    08' Turner RFX
    13' Surly Troll
    15' Surly ICT

  96. #96
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Bestill my foolish heart! Could this new USE post be a step in the right direction??
    Better pics of the leadscrew and interference clutch here.

    I love it. Take my money. EDIT - and wave springs as well. Oh man. So many nerd buttons pushed at once.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Better pics of the leadscrew and interference clutch here.

    I love it. Take my money. EDIT - and wave springs as well. Oh man. So many nerd buttons pushed at once.
    So when adjusting the height of the cheap Chinese knock-off, to get to the new height it will spin the seat like helicopter blades?
    Crazy on this ship of fools...

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    949
    Am I a big giant freaking weenie for thinking something like a front and rear ISO Speed would be nice? Something to take the edge off, without the weight, cost, or maintenance of "real" suspension.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Am I a big giant freaking weenie for thinking something like a front and rear ISO Speed would be nice? Something to take the edge off, without the weight, cost, or maintenance of "real" suspension.
    Isn't that what fat tires do already?
    Latitude 61

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Isn't that what fat tires do already?
    Well I guess I can see why somebody might say that, and yes, to a point...but if larger tires were enough nobody would ever put on a front fork or buy a full boinger fattie. I'm not suggesting it would be for everyone, but I'd love to see it.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    591
    KS calls a post like that "out of warranty"

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Well I guess I can see why somebody might say that, and yes, to a point...but if larger tires were enough nobody would ever put on a front fork or buy a full boinger fattie. I'm not suggesting it would be for everyone, but I'd love to see it.
    I get forks or full suspension, that is adding something to the equation. ISO Speed seems like it wouldn't do anything the tires don't already do. I would love for someone else to try it and report back. It's not like I haven't been totally wrong many times in the past.
    Latitude 61

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sherwin24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    431
    Having just dipped into the fat game a couple of years ago, my knowledge of where the trends have been, and come to is limited in experience. However after trying 26fat, Bfat, and 29+ they all have a place and they do it well. So much so that I even ride rail trail with 27.5x4.5 and enjoy not caring about gopher holes or sandy washouts. So I think the market is maturing, but with potential to continue to grow the more people try fat outside of snow or sand. What I see now is you have the racer market, trail, and touring/expedition/bikepacking. With smaller brands filling in the nuanced gaps making it possible to find a really great bike. The geometries are pretty dialed for the most part, or you can find something to your liking in a more boutique brand. With many bikes having adjustable dropouts, trying new setups is easy to get a feel for what works, and then one can start looking into the details of a bike that really suits what they want. If anything, fatbikes offer a much wider possiblility in setup in that regard than most of the mtb market.

    I would however like to see wider rims and 27.5 by 5" or wider for really soft conditions be available. So possible tire and rim/wheel tech will be where the most improvement will come from in that regard. Rollover really does make a difference, but pushing a lot of rotating mass does too. There is work to be done to make it possible, but it will be awesome when/if we see it.

    An evolution on f/s trailbike geo to a more modern take would be an interesting thing to see. It seems most f/s fatties are fairly conservative in that regard with a few exceptions. It is probably too niche to produce more than small scale, but I would like to see it. For what I ride and how I like my setups, something like a Fatillac would be all I need, but I do think there is a market for those wanting to push geometries.

    As I said earlier. The market is maturing, and so are all of us. I find myself riding fat more and more for things outside of snow. I know more than a few who bought fatbikes for snow, only to find the snow here can really suck, and skiing is better at those times, so they sold the bike. Now they are looking at fat again as they see people riding them on dirt and having a blast. The older I get, flying down a trail and potentially being out of work for 2 months keeps me grounded. I have learned that rock crawling and exploring are my preferred mode some days. Fat is a blast doing that kind of stuff. So I see the trail/dirt/exploring side pushing the fat market forward on one end, and getting more float for actually riding in more snow conditions growing the other end. Or at least I hope to see that.

Similar Threads

  1. Travis Brown on the State of the Union.
    By mikesee in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-07-2015, 04:34 PM
  2. XPost: State of the Union from SDMBA President Rod Simmons
    By badkittyjing in forum California - Socal
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-31-2012, 07:36 PM
  3. SDMBA State of the Union from President Rod Simmons
    By badkittyjing in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-31-2012, 07:34 PM

Members who have read this thread: 285

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.