Cake Eater vs Gnarwhal- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 72 of 72
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    209

    Cake Eater vs Gnarwhal

    Curious if anyone has much time on the Terrene cake eater 27.5 x 4.5 and also the Bontrager Gnarwhal 27.5 x 4.5?
    I've ridden the Gnarwhal's a bit, seemed like good soft condition tires, but wondering if the CE is close to the same grip? It seems like the CE is a bit bigger, but maybe lower profile lugs? This would be for a front tire.
    Thanks!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    209
    Seriously Nobody has tried both of these tires???

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CanuckMountainMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    122
    Search for Gnarwhal vs Cake Eater came up with this...

    Cake Eater vs Gnarwhal-gnarwhal-cake.jpg

    ...sorry.

    I only have experience with the Gnars (studded)

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    209
    Ok I don't even care anymore about the tires..that is awesome!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    I’ve got about 8 days on the Cakeater 27.5x4.5.. all of my rides on them have been glare ice or rain soaked frozen crust. They are slightly taller and a fair bit wider (mine measure [email protected] on 80mm rim) than the Gnarwhal but the lugs are shorter. For me i wanted a less agressive studded tire with more float than the gnarwhal and these so far check the boxes, obviously haven’t been able to ride any deep snow but the hookup on ice was really damn good considering they only have 180 studs.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    285
    Are you in Anchorage? All the local shops I’ve tried have told me the new Cake Eaters aren’t in yet. I really want to see that tire in person. I heard that the Cake Eater studs aren’t as tall for lower rolling resistance, but I hate the sound of that. The tire already has half as many studs as the competition. However, the reported size of this new Cake Eater is intriguing. Trying to make up my mind between the 4.5 cake eater (which would require me getting a 27.5 wheelset) and Johnny 5.

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCheesehead View Post
    I’ve got about 8 days on the Cakeater 27.5x4.5.. all of my rides on them have been glare ice or rain soaked frozen crust. They are slightly taller and a fair bit wider (mine measure [email protected] on 80mm rim) than the Gnarwhal but the lugs are shorter. For me i wanted a less agressive studded tire with more float than the gnarwhal and these so far check the boxes, obviously haven’t been able to ride any deep snow but the hookup on ice was really damn good considering they only have 180 studs.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    I’m in the valley, I preordered mine when they first became available. I chose the unstudded version and studded mine with regular concave 45Nrth studs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    Are you in Anchorage? All the local shops I’ve tried have told me the new Cake Eaters aren’t in yet. I really want to see that tire in person. I heard that the Cake Eater studs aren’t as tall for lower rolling resistance, but I hate the sound of that. The tire already has half as many studs as the competition. However, the reported size of this new Cake Eater is intriguing. Trying to make up my mind between the 4.5 cake eater (which would require me getting a 27.5 wheelset) and Johnny 5.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    71
    Willum, I've been riding the 26x4.6" CE in the rear for a year now and the traction is about on-par with a D5 in deep snow, and better on ice that a D5 with cheap rounded-tip studs (not recommended, get the concave ones!).

    I should have a 27x4.5" CE in my hands very shortly for fondling.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by AKCheesehead View Post
    I’ve got about 8 days on the Cakeater 27.5x4.5.. all of my rides on them have been glare ice or rain soaked frozen crust. They are slightly taller and a fair bit wider (mine measure [email protected] on 80mm rim) than the Gnarwhal but the lugs are shorter. For me i wanted a less agressive studded tire with more float than the gnarwhal and these so far check the boxes, obviously haven’t been able to ride any deep snow but the hookup on ice was really damn good considering they only have 180 studs.
    What bike? Any pics?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  10. #10
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    I have both in stock but no reason to ride either yet. Probably only a few weeks away.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    Fatback Corvus, no pics at the moment..

    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    What bike? Any pics?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    just ride
    Reputation: chequamagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,853
    Ive ridden both, but I am also extremely biased.
    Tires for real rides: www.terrenetires.com

  13. #13
    just ride
    Reputation: chequamagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    I heard that the Cake Eater studs aren’t as tall for lower rolling resistance, but I hate the sound of that. The tire already has half as many studs as the competition.
    So, one thing is that we do this on purpose. Our studs are considerably sharper than anything else on the market, so after testing, we found that we could both reduce our stud counts, and reduce our stud heights and have similar traction to tires with a greater count. We are riders and engineers, so please keep in mind that we didnt just do that for the sake of it, but actually tested it against the other primary studded tires out there, and found that by shortening our stud, we were able to have similar, if not better traction, but also less rolling resistance.
    Tires for real rides: www.terrenetires.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by AKCheesehead View Post
    I’m in the valley, I preordered mine when they first became available. I chose the unstudded version and studded mine with regular concave 45Nrth studs.
    I did the same thing with the Gnarwhal and the xl 45 North concave studs, pretty awesome grip on ice, better than 200 grip studs on Bud and Lou.

    -Nolan

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by chequamagon View Post
    So, one thing is that we do this on purpose. Our studs are considerably sharper than anything else on the market, so after testing, we found that we could both reduce our stud counts, and reduce our stud heights and have similar traction to tires with a greater count. We are riders and engineers, so please keep in mind that we didnt just do that for the sake of it, but actually tested it against the other primary studded tires out there, and found that by shortening our stud, we were able to have similar, if not better traction, but also less rolling resistance.
    Interested on your take of your sharper studs as compared to the new concave 45 North studs. In my head it seems like more surface area is better than a small, sharper stud. I only have experience with the grip studs and a small amount of time on the concave studs. So far the concave studs are way better for me. How do your studs differ from the others in which you feel they are superior?

    -Nolan

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by chequamagon View Post
    So, one thing is that we do this on purpose. Our studs are considerably sharper than anything else on the market, so after testing, we found that we could both reduce our stud counts, and reduce our stud heights and have similar traction to tires with a greater count. We are riders and engineers, so please keep in mind that we didnt just do that for the sake of it, but actually tested it against the other primary studded tires out there, and found that by shortening our stud, we were able to have similar, if not better traction, but also less rolling resistance.
    Do you have a stud cross section view we can use to evaluate this claim?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    71
    The Triple Cutter studs have 3 visible, sharp points. It's visible evident that they are "sharp" compared to a regular concave stud. The 45NRTH XL concave stud has a fairly "sharp" rim, but not stab-you-in-the-finger sharp. Just look at the photos:

    https://terrenetires.com/pages/studs
    https://45nrth.com/products/wrathchild
    I have 45NRTH XL studs on the shoulders of my Cake eater and they really grab. I will try Terrene TC "standard" length studs on my next set.

  18. #18
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckMountainMan View Post
    Search for Gnarwhal vs Cake Eater came up with this...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gnarwhal Cake.jpg 
Views:	207 
Size:	60.3 KB 
ID:	1226611

    ...sorry.

    I only have experience with the Gnars (studded)
    That made me laugh my balls off.
    I like turtles

  19. #19
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,222
    Quote Originally Posted by ten80 View Post
    The Triple Cutter studs have 3 visible, sharp points. It's visible evident that they are "sharp" compared to a regular concave stud. The 45NRTH XL concave stud has a fairly "sharp" rim, but not stab-you-in-the-finger sharp. Just look at the photos:

    https://terrenetires.com/pages/studs
    https://45nrth.com/products/wrathchild
    I have 45NRTH XL studs on the shoulders of my Cake eater and they really grab. I will try Terrene TC "standard" length studs on my next set.
    The bikestud studs are similar diameter and height compared to the terennes. Based on what I've experienced so far, I think it's overall surface area and height that have a lot to do with penetration and grip. The smaller the surface area and the higher the height, the better the penetration, up to a point, where things like machine screws start folding because they are sticking out too far. It'll be interesting to see if this also affects longevity, as the older 45N studs hold up for a LONG time IME. So far, it seems it's more about stud count and location, rather than triple cutter vs. not, I think those factors about overall height and diameter are probably more relevant, then if you can put down more studs in contact with the ground, the J5 is putting around twice as many down at any one time than my D5s.
    "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.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,072
    Quote Originally Posted by nolan17 View Post
    Interested on your take of your sharper studs as compared to the new concave 45 North studs. In my head it seems like more surface area is better than a small, sharper stud. I only have experience with the grip studs and a small amount of time on the concave studs. So far the concave studs are way better for me. How do your studs differ from the others in which you feel they are superior?

    -Nolan
    With studs, less surface area is better. That's why the concave studs are better than grip studs. With the concave studs, only the material on the outer diameter is in contact with the ice.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by chequamagon View Post
    So, one thing is that we do this on purpose. Our studs are considerably sharper than anything else on the market, so after testing, we found that we could both reduce our stud counts, and reduce our stud heights and have similar traction to tires with a greater count. We are riders and engineers, so please keep in mind that we didnt just do that for the sake of it, but actually tested it against the other primary studded tires out there, and found that by shortening our stud, we were able to have similar, if not better traction, but also less rolling resistance.
    Can you speak to how the pointed studs hold up compared to the alternatives? I ride a fair bit of plowed bike path to get to our groomed trails. Flat tipped studs have held up great for me, but I am slightly concerned that the blacktop will destroy my Cake Eater studs really quickly.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,458
    Quote Originally Posted by amadkins View Post
    Do you have a stud cross section view we can use to evaluate this claim?
    Are you a certified stud analyst?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by the mayor View Post
    Are you a certified stud analyst?
    Probably no more than you are.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,458
    Quote Originally Posted by amadkins View Post
    Probably no more than you are.
    I think " I know you are but what am I" would have been a bettererer reply.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    With studs, less surface area is better. That's why the concave studs are better than grip studs. With the concave studs, only the material on the outer diameter is in contact with the ice.
    That doesn't make any sense, the concave stud has a larger contact patch than a pointed stud so how does a pointed stud have more area? Yes the concave studs are thin but the entire circle is bigger than a pointed stud, like the grip studs, making the surface area bigger.

    -Nolan

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by chequamagon View Post
    So, one thing is that we do this on purpose. Our studs are considerably sharper than anything else on the market, so after testing, we found that we could both reduce our stud counts, and reduce our stud heights and have similar traction to tires with a greater count. We are riders and engineers, so please keep in mind that we didnt just do that for the sake of it, but actually tested it against the other primary studded tires out there, and found that by shortening our stud, we were able to have similar, if not better traction, but also less rolling resistance.
    Thanks for the reply. A few questions:

    Which studs are in the pre-studded cake eater 27.5x4.5 - the standard triple cutter, the low rolling resistance triple cutter, or the ultra traction triple cutter?

    Also, Same question, but for the J5 pre-studded? The “ultra traction” version of triple cutter studs look really interesting, but I don’t know if any of your tires come pre studded with them.

    If the ultra traction studs are only available in packs and not pre-studded, is there a way to get them for less than 80 cents per stud - such as by buying a larger pack? What if I buy 700 of them to stud two J5s?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    71
    Traction on ice with studs is not about larger surface area, it's about sharp edges and points to grab the ice with LESS surface area for a higher pressure per area.

    Consider how a ski pole tip grips ice much better than a frying pan. It's about penetration into the ice. Concave studs have essentially 2 edges; inner and outer, and LESS surface area, therefore increased pressure per area than a flat stud. This is beneficial. A flat stud has a flat surface that can slide on the ice with less penetration due to the larger surface area.

    A triple cutter stud has three sharp points that penetrate the ice. Whether or not this is better than the double edge of a concave stud is debatable. It's a slightly different approach; just like the difference of trying to grip ice with the point of a knife, versus using the sharp edge of the knife to dig in.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,017
    I think it's a combination of what is being said here in terms of the studs. I don't think that sharpness (like stab you sharp) is necessary, since it will bite into the surface enough with the weight of rider/bike. Most of the forces impacted on the studs would be almost a sheer force like if you were trying to accelerate or stop on ice. I'd rather have a nice square profile because it's going to basically force the side of the stud into the ice to dig in. It doesn't need to necessarily pierce the ice.

    Additionally, I think the concave would be a better shape than a smaller fine stud because when you have these forces, you basically are looking at the width of the stud. For example, the same stud design that is a larger diameter stud will have a bigger cross section to grip the ice. It's a trade off. If you want it to go deeper into the ice then it has to be narrower, which won't grip the ice as well with that side load. I think it's a bad trade off to be smaller because the the supple tire casing and the low air pressure in the tires, I don't think that a sharper stud will necessarily go in significantly deeper to offset the size difference.

    I would think the concave stud would have the best of both worlds since it has a larger size to it (diameter), but the inside is removed to focus the weight on a smaller area to go deeper.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by ten80 View Post
    Traction on ice with studs is not about larger surface area, it's about sharp edges and points to grab the ice with LESS surface area for a higher pressure per area.

    Consider how a ski pole tip grips ice much better than a frying pan. It's about penetration into the ice. Concave studs have essentially 2 edges; inner and outer, and LESS surface area, therefore increased pressure per area than a flat stud. This is beneficial. A flat stud has a flat surface that can slide on the ice with less penetration due to the larger surface area.

    A triple cutter stud has three sharp points that penetrate the ice. Whether or not this is better than the double edge of a concave stud is debatable. It's a slightly different approach; just like the difference of trying to grip ice with the point of a knife, versus using the sharp edge of the knife to dig in.
    Thanks for the explanation, I was confusing surface area with the outer diameter of the concave studs. I agree the bigger diameter combined with the less surface area and sharp rim seem like a performance upgrade compared to a grip stud.

    Just seeing the triple cutters for the first time, pretty cool, my only concern is getting cut up in a crash. Did that with the grip studs, right through my pants cut my calves up good! I guess it's a no win situation crashing with any kind of stud.

    -Nolan

  30. #30
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,222
    Very rarely do the tires fly into my legs/arms/face on any crash on any kind of bike. I can’t say I’ve ever had this happen in 5 years.
    "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.

  31. #31
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Very rarely do the tires fly into my legs/arms/face on any crash on any kind of bike. I can’t say I’ve ever had this happen in 5 years.
    No but I did rub my dog with a set of xl 45nrths, he keeps his distance now

  32. #32
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,222
    Also, the reason I'm running studs is so I DON'T crash
    "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.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Also, the reason I'm running studs is so I DON'T crash
    Agreed. I'm 6'9" with 41" inseam and +5 ape index so when I crash there are a lot of arms and legs all over the place so I'm an outlier. Actually as bdundee stated, I find I cut myself more walking around the bike in the garage or loading it up on the roof of my SUV than crashing. Still have the grip studs in my Lake 303's, safety first so there's no downtime.

    -Nolan

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    285
    I saw the factory-studded 4.5 cake eaters in person today on 27.5x80ishmm rims. I was able to compare them to 26x4.0 cake eaters as well as a J5 on a 90mm rim and a Bud with grip studs on an 80mm rim.

    The new 4.5x27.5 cake eaters have the taller “standard size” triple cutter studs, as opposed to the “low rolling resistance” studs that come on the 27.5x4 and 26” cake eaters. Note that these are NOT the “extreme traction” triple cutters that are similar to the 45nrth XL stud, just the standard triple cutter that comes on the J5 and the wazia.

    I heard multiple reports that last year’s Cake eaters, 26x4.6 and 27.5x4.0 versions, did poorly on ice compared to Dillingers (along with a couple of reports that they did okay on ice). The taller studs on the 27.5x4.5 cake eaters may help with that, but they still likely take a back seat to the Dillinger and Jonny 5 for ice traction due to having about half as many studs on lugs near the center of the tire tread.

    The 27.5x4.5 cake eater looks to be almost the same width as the Bud on an 80 or the Johnny 5 on a 90, but about an inch taller diameter. So the size is the most noteworthy thing about this new cake eater. Unfortunately you have to choose between this new size and ice traction. Maybe next year they’ll have the Johnny 5 tread and stud pattern on this new 27.5x4.5 carcass! Options pre-studded with the Terrene extreme traction XL triple cutter studs would also be cool.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    I am debating between a cake eater (27.5 X 4.5) vs the Gnarwal for a front tire. What would be the best?

  36. #36
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by manteufel View Post
    I am debating between a cake eater (27.5 X 4.5) vs the Gnarwal for a front tire. What would be the best?

    The blue one.

    You need to tell more about you, where and how you ride, etc... for anyone to have any concept of how to respond.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    I ride in Quebec Canada, mostly hardpack, but we do get a lot of snow here and I ride everyday. So there will be a mix of conditions, on some occasions a few inches of fresh snow.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    Will probably go with the cake eater in the back and a gnarwal front. Some people seems to indicate the 26 X4.6 washes out easily up front. There is not many reviews online. How easy is it to switch a tire when set up tubeless?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by manteufel View Post
    Will probably go with the cake eater in the back and a gnarwal front. Some people seems to indicate the 26 X4.6 washes out easily up front. There is not many reviews online. How easy is it to switch a tire when set up tubeless?
    Going to be weird. 4.5 CE is 4.5” true width. The gnarwhal is 4.25” wide. CE is 1/2” taller than gnarwhal.

    I would run dual CE or dual gnarwhals over a mixed batch. The gnarwhals arnt as slow as they look


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    How easy is it to switch a tire when set up tubeless? I will try the cake eater first then switch to gnarwhal if I dont like them.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CanuckMountainMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by manteufel View Post
    How easy is it to switch a tire when set up tubeless? I will try the cake eater first then switch to gnarwhal if I dont like them.
    It's probably better to try both tires with tubes first,
    then switch to tubeless once you've picked your favorite tire.

    Gnar's tall wide spaced lugs are very good for grip/traction, and studded they are AWESOME for Winter
    but there is a give&take with a bit more rolling resistance on hardpack or dry surfaces.

    I currently have my 27.5x4.5 Gnarwhals (studded) front and rear (with tubes) on 80mm MuleFut's for Winter,
    But will have my lighter Barbegazi's (same size) setup tubeless on Carbon (Lightbicycle) wheels next Summer
    ...should drop ~3-4 pounds off my Farley 7 and roll a lot quicker

    Cake Eater vs Gnarwhal-fat_farley_3.jpg Cake Eater vs Gnarwhal-fat_farley_1.jpg Cake Eater vs Gnarwhal-fat_farley_2.jpg
    Last edited by CanuckMountainMan; 12-15-2018 at 08:43 PM.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    Good idea. I will try them with the tubes first, less messy.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    I just want to confirm that the studded 27.5 x 4.5 Cake Eaters fit front and rear on a carbon Farley?

    I crashed on ice yesterday with my Barbegazis which left be banged up and my bike with a broken brake lever

    These seem to be bigger and cheaper than Gnarwhals

  44. #44
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerny View Post
    I just want to confirm that the studded 27.5 x 4.5 Cake Eaters fit front and rear on a carbon Farley?

    I crashed on ice yesterday with my Barbegazis which left be banged up and my bike with a broken brake lever

    These seem to be bigger and cheaper than Gnarwhals
    I've got one mounted on a Jacka rim in my Farley right now. Set the dropouts so that there was 5mm of clearance when I first installed it. Came back and, overnight, that clearance had shrunk to 2mm. Not even ridden yet.

    Still possible to move the dropouts back another ~5mm, so they should fit regardless.

    Also have one up front on a Mastodon. Not huge clearance -- maybe 8mm? -- but enough.

    Definitely bigger than Gnarwhals. Although if studded performance matters the Gnarwhals have more, and more aggressive knobs. I think the CE's will float better on soft but I think the Gnar's will win in an ice fight.

    Not sure about cheaper -- on my price sheets the CE's cost more.

    I have both in stock if your local dealer doesn't.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I've got one mounted on a Jacka rim in my Farley right now. Set the dropouts so that there was 5mm of clearance when I first installed it. Came back and, overnight, that clearance had shrunk to 2mm. Not even ridden yet.

    Still possible to move the dropouts back another ~5mm, so they should fit regardless.

    Also have one up front on a Mastodon. Not huge clearance -- maybe 8mm? -- but enough.

    Definitely bigger than Gnarwhals. Although if studded performance matters the Gnarwhals have more, and more aggressive knobs. I think the CE's will float better on soft but I think the Gnar's will win in an ice fight.

    Not sure about cheaper -- on my price sheets the CE's cost more.

    I have both in stock if your local dealer doesn't.
    Thanks Mike, you’re right about price

    I’m in Toronto, Canada. It seems Borealis Canada has a Boxing Day sale making them slightly cheaper than the Gnarwhals

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I've got one mounted on a Jacka rim in my Farley right now. Set the dropouts so that there was 5mm of clearance when I first installed it. Came back and, overnight, that clearance had shrunk to 2mm. Not even ridden yet.

    Still possible to move the dropouts back another ~5mm, so they should fit regardless.

    Also have one up front on a Mastodon. Not huge clearance -- maybe 8mm? -- but enough.

    Definitely bigger than Gnarwhals. Although if studded performance matters the Gnarwhals have more, and more aggressive knobs. I think the CE's will float better on soft but I think the Gnar's will win in an ice fight.

    Not sure about cheaper -- on my price sheets the CE's cost more.

    I have both in stock if your local dealer doesn't.
    I have ridden the CE for the first time last night. The conditions where hardpack/icy. They performed very well and I found they roll faster then the Gnar. I have the ultra traction studs in the front tire and the regular crown in the back.

    They did much better then the gnarwhal with flat tip (make sense, flat tip are much cheaper too).
    I am surprised how much bigger the CE 27.5 is compared to the gnarwhal.

    I have a Farley 5 alu and they fit no problem (mounted on 80mm whisky rims)

    you can get 2 CE (no stud) for 279CA - 10% at borealis bike right now.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CanuckMountainMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    122
    I bought a second set of Gnars at 20% off Bontrager Black Friday for $127 ea (CAN$)
    The Bontrager Carbide Studs were $55 per 220 pk ($110) the install tool was $12 (~$380 total)

    If you're planning to Stud the Cake Eaters, the price goes up considerably depending on your stud choice.

  48. #48
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Wanted to circle back to this on CE fit in a Farley.

    I've had my 4.5" CE's sitting at 20psi for a week+. I want 'em to stretch. I like 'em big.

    I've had to keep moving the dropouts back on my Farley as the CE has stretched. I've got maybe 2-3mm further to go before they're maxed out.

    I run a 26t ring up front, with 6mm of offset -- where the ring is pushed away from the crank and toward the frame.

    Right now the chain rubs the tire ever so lightly when in the biggest cog. Were I to swap to a 3mm or 0mm offset ring that issue would vanish.

    CE's are fast on pavement and hardpack. Too much snow in the alpine right now to bother trying to ride up high. Maybe in a week...

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,734

    Cake Eater vs Gnarwhal

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Wanted to circle back to this on CE fit in a Farley.

    I've had my 4.5" CE's sitting at 20psi for a week+. I want 'em to stretch. I like 'em big.

    I've had to keep moving the dropouts back on my Farley as the CE has stretched. I've got maybe 2-3mm further to go before they're maxed out.

    I run a 26t ring up front, with 6mm of offset -- where the ring is pushed away from the crank and toward the frame.

    Right now the chain rubs the tire ever so lightly when in the biggest cog. Were I to swap to a 3mm or 0mm offset ring that issue would vanish.

    CE's are fast on pavement and hardpack. Too much snow in the alpine right now to bother trying to ride up high. Maybe in a week...
    Im wondering how they work... this seems like they wash out from this one review haha.

    They are a bit heavy and so ill stick with my gnarwhals. I dont need the float here, i need bite to claw at icy packed pitchy hills.

    I have my fingers crossed for 27.5” dillinger 5s that measure 4.2-.3” wide and are 100-200g lighter than the gnarwhal. (Pipedream) i mean also for the 2 races i go in a winter do i really need them? Haha





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Interesting “review” but for all we know he was running 15 psi.

    I can’t believe they are worse than Barbegazis.

    Anyway, I didn’t buy the CE’s on sale, going to wait to find a used set of Gnarwhals or CE’s

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerny View Post
    Interesting “review” but for all we know he was running 15 psi.

    I can’t believe they are worse than Barbegazis.

    Anyway, I didn’t buy the CE’s on sale, going to wait to find a used set of Gnarwhals or CE’s
    Everything with a grain of salt for sure.

    I wont ride our river trails on anything but my studded gnarwhals and there is people riding them on jumbo jims i mean... they have to walk the hills, i dont so there is that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Anyone have any more info on these? User reviews?

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    nobody has updates on the 27.5 x 4.5 Cake Eater?
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  54. #54
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerny View Post
    nobody has updates on the 27.5 x 4.5 Cake Eater?

    What, specifically, do you want to know?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    What, specifically, do you want to know?
    How they ride? How they roll? How are they on ice with studs? How are they in deeper snow? How are they compared to the Gnarwhal?

    Thanks Mikesee

  56. #56
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    I haven't compared them head to head, largely because of the difference in volume. So my comparisons are mere extrapolations -- take them for what they're worth.

    CE's have so much much air volume that they out-float Gnarwhal.

    Gnarwhal's tread pattern grips loose, deep snow better.

    CE rolls faster on hard surfaces.

    Ice performance = I implicitly trust Gnarwhal to keep me upright when ice suddenly appears under my tires without warning. I don't have the same level of trust in the CE's.

    Gnarwhal is impressive, trust-inducing on off-cambers, and through ruts. CE is vague on off camber, and easily deflected by ruts.

    CE hunts for traction when there is fresh (or wind drifted) snow on top of a firm base. Requires constant steering corrections.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,734
    Thinking of possibly going to a 4.5CE on the rear of my 9.6 and leaving the gnar front. Really hoping for a 4.5 dillinger 5 that measures 4.3 ish like the gnarwhal


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Thanks Mikesee
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,186
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I haven't compared them head to head, largely because of the difference in volume. So my comparisons are mere extrapolations -- take them for what they're worth.

    CE's have so much much air volume that they out-float Gnarwhal.

    Gnarwhal's tread pattern grips loose, deep snow better.

    CE rolls faster on hard surfaces.

    Ice performance = I implicitly trust Gnarwhal to keep me upright when ice suddenly appears under my tires without warning. I don't have the same level of trust in the CE's.

    Gnarwhal is impressive, trust-inducing on off-cambers, and through ruts. CE is vague on off camber, and easily deflected by ruts.

    CE hunts for traction when there is fresh (or wind drifted) snow on top of a firm base. Requires constant steering corrections.
    Thank you. We have an older Farley with 26 x 3.8 Hodags and a 9.6 with 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags. Speed, low weight and ease always seem appealing but so does gear that watches out for you. This reads like set up the B fat bike with Gnarwhals is going to be a good idea or the solution for when I wonder why I'm riding those B diameter Hodags in winter.
    ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dilligaff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Ice performance = I implicitly trust Gnarwhal to keep me upright when ice suddenly appears under my tires without warning. I don't have the same level of trust in the CE's.

    Gnarwhal is impressive, trust-inducing on off-cambers, and through ruts. CE is vague on off camber, and easily deflected by ruts.

    CE hunts for traction when there is fresh (or wind drifted) snow on top of a firm base. Requires constant steering corrections.
    This has been my observation as well. While I don't ride either tire, I have ridden D5's, Wrathchilds, and the Johnny5's filled with XL studs and have ridden with lots of people on Gnars & CE. And I mean lots.

    The Gnar is the only tire I have seen that keeps the rider upright, all the time. I have seen too many people go down with CE's for me to give them a recommendation. For ice, the only tire that held a candle to my J5's were the Gnars and Wrathchilds.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nothing to see here, move along folks.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Dilligaff View Post
    This has been my observation as well. While I don't ride either tire, I have ridden D5's, Wrathchilds, and the Johnny5's filled with XL studs and have ridden with lots of people on Gnars & CE. And I mean lots.

    The Gnar is the only tire I have seen that keeps the rider upright, all the time. I have seen too many people go down with CE's for me to give them a recommendation. For ice, the only tire that held a candle to my J5's were the Gnars and Wrathchilds.
    Thanks for the input. 27.5 wheel diameter is my reality and I see Dillinger 5 studded is an option too. That looks like a for sure jump in width over my 17.5 x 3.8 Hodag setup and possibly a faster rolling tire than Gnarwhal.

    The gaps in my brain are knowing the good and bad of what I have, soft snow advantages of wider tires I've used on rental bikes (Barbegazzi mostly) and knowing what studs will do for my riding. I fear Gnarwhals could be the summer trail equivalent of knowing the advantage of big knobby tires but enough rides when I wish they weren't holding me back.

    There's no doubt friends with 4 and 5 Dillingers, Wrathchild and studded 17.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhal have left me struggling or at home with the Hodag in both wheel sizes.

    Thanks again.
    ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by bitflogger View Post
    Thanks for the input. 27.5 wheel diameter is my reality and I see Dillinger 5 studded is an option too. That looks like a for sure jump in width over my 17.5 x 3.8 Hodag setup and possibly a faster rolling tire than Gnarwhal.

    The gaps in my brain are knowing the good and bad of what I have, soft snow advantages of wider tires I've used on rental bikes (Barbegazzi mostly) and knowing what studs will do for my riding. I fear Gnarwhals could be the summer trail equivalent of knowing the advantage of big knobby tires but enough rides when I wish they weren't holding me back.

    There's no doubt friends with 4 and 5 Dillingers, Wrathchild and studded 17.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhal have left me struggling or at home with the Hodag in both wheel sizes.

    Thanks again.
    I would seriously consider a gnarwhal front and a dillinger rear.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    14
    Just wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare the new Wrathlorde with the Cake Eaters.

    I am trying to find a studded tires in the 26" size. I wish the Gnarwhal came in wider than 3.8" for the 26" size.

    After reading the thread my impression is that the CEs roll faster than the Gnars on hardback but Gnars are better in other conditions. And ice performance depends on the kind of studs used.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by dantae View Post
    Just wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare the new Wrathlorde with the Cake Eaters.

    I am trying to find a studded tires in the 26" size. I wish the Gnarwhal came in wider than 3.8" for the 26" size.

    After reading the thread my impression is that the CEs roll faster than the Gnars on hardback but Gnars are better in other conditions. And ice performance depends on the kind of studs used.
    I have both the CE and the Gnarwhal. My first impression of the CE last year was good, but that was on hardpack. Recently I have been really struggling with this tire when conditions are other than perfect.
    After a few falls (always the front wheel let go) and close call I went back to the Gnarwhal. I rather have more rolling resistance and know I can count on the Gnar than have a fast tire that hold me back in turns.
    Not going back to the CE.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    Im wondering how they work... this seems like they wash out from this one review haha.

    They are a bit heavy and so ill stick with my gnarwhals. I dont need the float here, i need bite to claw at icy packed pitchy hills.

    I have my fingers crossed for 27.5” dillinger 5s that measure 4.2-.3” wide and are 100-200g lighter than the gnarwhal. (Pipedream) i mean also for the 2 races i go in a winter do i really need them? Haha





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Oh my gosh! I need to take my bad review back. I'm so sorry about the bad review. I was so angry about the bad crash and hitting my face against the tree. Another bad crash happened in the same ride. I hit my face again in another tree and my wrist twisted very badly. I remember when the tire was totally new and I was running wrong air pressure (too high in the front). I had quite many bad crashes because of the tire and wrong air pressure. I was just about the sell the setup. I'm so happy that I didn't. Without the Terrene CE in 27.5'' I would go back to 26er JJ for sure. I'm running it on the second winter and it is actually proven the very best winter tire in my book! Here is short history of tires: Specialized Groud Control (26x4.6), Bontager Barbegazi (26x4.7), Barbegazi (27.5x4.5), Bontrager Gnarwhall (27.5x4.5), Schwalbe Jumbo Jim (26x4.8) and Terrene Cake Eater (27.5x4.5).

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerny View Post
    Interesting “review” but for all we know he was running 15 psi.

    I can’t believe they are worse than Barbegazis.

    Anyway, I didn’t buy the CE’s on sale, going to wait to find a used set of Gnarwhals or CE’s
    Quote Originally Posted by jpaa View Post
    Oh my gosh! I need to take my bad review back. I'm so sorry about the bad review.

    I remember when the tire was totally new and I was running wrong air pressure (too high in the front).

    I guess i was right.

    Anyway, i have since bought Gnarwhals and studded them myself. No lack of grip on anything that's for sure.
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2019 Scott Foil 10 Disc
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by manteufel View Post
    I have both the CE and the Gnarwhal. My first impression of the CE last year was good, but that was on hardpack. Recently I have been really struggling with this tire when conditions are other than perfect.
    After a few falls (always the front wheel let go) and close call I went back to the Gnarwhal. I rather have more rolling resistance and know I can count on the Gnar than have a fast tire that hold me back in turns.
    Not going back to the CE.
    Can you comment on the rolling resistance between the Gnarwhals and the CEs.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by dantae View Post
    Can you comment on the rolling resistance between the Gnarwhals and the CEs.
    Cake eater wins for less rolling resistance. Not by a huge margin but you feel the difference. That my experience anyway...

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    14
    That's good to know, thanks

  70. #70
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by manteufel View Post
    Cake eater wins for less rolling resistance. Not by a huge margin but you feel the difference. That my experience anyway...
    Agreed.

    Spent the weekend riding several variations of snow with a Gnarwhal up front, while my riding partner had a CE up front.

    We even swapped bikes a few times, in different conditions.

    I like how fast the CE rolls at a range of pressures.

    I wish it could roll fast and still have lateral control, but it really doesn't. Especially when the snow is loose or the trail is off camber.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by dantae View Post
    Can you comment on the rolling resistance between the Gnarwhals and the CEs.
    I have used both Gnar and CE on my fatbike. The Gnar is having more grip then the CE, both on ice, snow and dry conditions.

    CE rolls better, and still not able to try in loose snow, but I am pretty sure they float better then the Gnar, due to volume and width.

    The Gnar is my favourite tyre, and has for me an ideal lower profile, since I like less bouncing.

    CE will be my tyre for floating purpose.

  72. #72
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by wookieone View Post
    Curious if anyone has much time on the Terrene cake eater 27.5 x 4.5 and also the Bontrager Gnarwhal 27.5 x 4.5?
    I've ridden the Gnarwhal's a bit, seemed like good soft condition tires, but wondering if the CE is close to the same grip? It seems like the CE is a bit bigger, but maybe lower profile lugs? This would be for a front tire.
    Thanks!

    Which did you put on your new wheels?

Similar Threads

  1. 45Nrth Dillinger 4 versus Terrene Cake Eater 4.0
    By rjkowski in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-05-2020, 09:12 PM
  2. Studding cake eater 27.5x4
    By Dbllock55 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2018, 01:40 PM
  3. Bontrager Gnarwhal TLR - 27.5 studded tire review
    By the_eleven in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-01-2017, 04:43 PM
  4. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 04:11 PM
  5. Gnarwhal
    By solarplex in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-09-2015, 11:18 PM

Members who have read this thread: 153

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.