Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 40 of 40
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    443

    Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims

    I am getting more serious about going fat. 200 lbs, planning on exploring areas with plenty of deep, loose sand. Not as interested in snow since we don't have packed trails here, but I am sure I will give it a try.

    Will 90mm vs 100mm rims be noticeable?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    I've ran both for a few years now and I am back to 90's this year just due to the weight and the tubeless ready of the carbon rims. Without running them back to back on the exact same snow I couldn't really tell ya. Sand we don't get much of that here. In theory yes the hundies as you know should be better but in real life is it going to be enough to make the difference between riding and pushing, don't know? Sorry wish I could be more help. I do know I will take tubeless light 90's over non tubeless heavy hundies any day.

  3. #3
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,196
    My bike has 100mm rims and it floats great over sand. I've also ridden bikes with 82mm rims and 4" tires and I also float over sand. My bike has 5" tires.
    I've only ever ridden my bike with Bud and Lou for long distances. It's a lot of work. My friends with Big Fat Larry on Clownshoes and Husker Dus on Darryls roll faster on sand than I do.
    I like turtles

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    443

    Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims

    Thanks. I really like the Fatboy, and I can buy it locally, but in the back of my mind I wonder if I should go 100mm with a Moonlander or black borrow since I am buying this specifically for off the beaten path rides and the rare day there is 3-4 inches of powder on the trail. May just come down to price and availability....I can get a 10% credit back on the base model fatboy, making it quite a bit cheaper.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    889
    90mm for the Fatboy and 5plus size possibility, best of both worlds

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toothpuller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    213
    My vote is for the moonie. I can easily glide across Long Island sugar sand with the tires at 4 psi. It's a porker of a bike, but on the flip side. You're riding a bike on the beach!!!

  7. #7
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,196
    Any of those bikes are great on sand. Pick the one you like best.
    I like turtles

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Twimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    296
    BFL on clownshoe and GC on Spec 90mm rim
    Not much in it, go about the same in the sand
    Sand is what we do, no snow here
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims-p3300103-1400x1050-.jpg  


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by cadoretteboat View Post
    90mm for the Fatboy and 5plus size possibility, best of both worlds
    Second that...
    Last edited by Max24; 03-02-2015 at 05:23 PM.

  10. #10
    GoCyco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    354
    When people say "no sand here" or "no snow here", I also wonder where "here" is...

  11. #11
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,350
    Interesting thread.
    --Peace

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    443

    Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims

    So what I'm hearing is the 90mm will offer plenty of float, but will probably be a bit nicer to ride when not so much float is needed due to lighter weight. I already have a Specialized Carve SL and love the geometry, and I thought I read somewhere that the Fatboy borrows the same design.

    As far as where "here" is.....southeastern PA, with intent to explore central and southern Jersey, which is often miles upon miles of sugar sand. We do get snow but not enough for snow mobiles, so snow riding would likely be 3-6 inches unpacked across fields and such. And, when its been muddy and sloppy, I guess I can ride trails with a little less guilt since I would think the fat tires are less damaging.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Twimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    296
    My here is West Australia. Enough sand to fill in the Grand Canyon
    and turn it into the Himalayas

  14. #14
    Custom User Title
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    154
    I went Fatboy, I am an hour to the Pacific here in Oregon with miles and miles of beaches, and plenty of dunes. And also about 2 hours to reach snow...my thinking was 90s with 4.6 will give me enough float for the dry sand, easy pedalling on the wet sand and packed snow. and so far they run great on fall leaf covered, damp/wet trails around the house.

  15. #15
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,196
    I'd have to believe that anyone who says they notice a difference in float between Clownshoes and Specialized's 90mm rim is suffering from placebo effect.
    I rode a shop bike with Marge Lites and Husker Dus over a very sandy trail that I never would have made across on my 29er and I did it with ease. That was actually the ride that sold me on fat bikes.
    I like turtles

  16. #16
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    I'd have to believe that anyone who says they notice a difference in float between Clownshoes and Specialized's 90mm rim is suffering from placebo effect.
    Agreed^^^^^

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    741
    A bigger difference I think would be tire profile compared to the rim. I like having 90mm wide rims because they are narrower than 4.8" tires. When plowing through rocks, you are less likely to bash the sidewall of the rim.
    Last edited by dfiler; 11-22-2014 at 05:47 AM.

  18. #18
    Clueless Bastard
    Reputation: WA-CO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    684
    From a pure logic perspective, you're only talking 5mm each side of difference, right? Agreeing with others, can you even feel that? I know I could not.

    The tire and it's profile would make a some sense to me. But I gotta think the overall weight, especially if you're trying to whip the bike around or plow up some sand rollers, I think is a huge consideration and a top priority for your selection.

    Regardless of rim width as many have said (even with fat bikes)
    -Buy the bike that fits.
    -Buy the bike you can afford.
    -Buy the bike you LIKE. (Seems like the fatboy is the winner?)

  19. #19
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by aizu1 View Post
    When people say "no sand here" or "no snow here", I also wonder where "here" is...
    I don't understand why people don't state their location either. It would make a lot of sense in these debates where location frequently makes a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    I'd have to believe that anyone who says they notice a difference in float between Clownshoes and Specialized's 90mm rim is suffering from placebo effect.
    I rode a shop bike with Marge Lites and Husker Dus over a very sandy trail that I never would have made across on my 29er and I did it with ease. That was actually the ride that sold me on fat bikes.
    I respectfully disagree. There is a difference in the profile and contact patch of the tire as well as how the tire moves on the rim while at lower pressures.

    As far as having a heavy 100 or a light 90 that is tubeless, those days are past. It is now possible to have a light tubeless 100 mm rim.

  20. #20
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Twimby View Post
    My here is West Australia. Enough sand to fill in the Grand Canyon
    and turn it into the Himalayas
    If it wasn't for the fact I immigrated here from Ireland 13yrs ago, I would also ask what this snow thing is

    Sand, sand and sand in oz... that's about it unless you head to the high country in a very small window of winter.

    90-100's... cant see there being a great difference in feel, were talking 4mm difference between Bud'n'lou-Lou on 90's v 100's. If you are all about float, you need to go what gives the most advantage, which is hundies, simple.

    BUT running 100's and not having your tyre pressure dialled in ??? you might as well be running 65's. Tyre pressure is the king.

    Here's the Fatbike Bible on tyre widths, cant rem the blokes name who did this but if he had put his name on it, he would just about be in the hall of fame...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims-tire-size.jpg  

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT Evil Following Trek 9.9 Superfly SL IndyFab Deluxe 29 Pivot Vault CX Cervelo R3 Disc

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    443

    Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims

    If I read that chart correctly ground controls on 90mm are exactly 10mm narrower than BudLous on 100mm. Sounds obvious, but I guess I am trying to imagine what conditions would have to be like where one rider would be able to keep riding and the 90mm riding ends up walking....and then if it gets just a touch more extreme the 100mm guy would be walking like 10 ft later. Meanwhile the 100mm rider has been working harder everywhere else....


    I guess if weights are equal, that is like 9%-10% more float with 100s. I think a large fatboy is like 31lbs and a moonie is 37? So bike plus rider is 231 vs 237 so a 3% difference in total weight. So what this would suggest is you are getting about 7% more in terms of flotation. But then there is rotational inertia of the heavier wheels....yeah whatever...the fatboy has a cooler paint job.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,103

    Re: Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims

    A 10mm difference in rim width is only a few mm difference in tire width. I'd consider 90mm vs 100mm as equivalent quantities, and choose based on other factors, such as weight, profile, probably even aesthetics.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    156
    The race that Ozzy did just recently; what tires and rims did he use, and why? Begins to make a lot of sense when you get past the power of the tide.

    All that work to just get a few feet further; instead of enjoying the ride more, and over a longer 'distance'?

    Remember, the aim of marketing is to remove your money from your pocket into theirs.
    "Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway" John Wayne

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Twimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish29er View Post
    If I read that chart correctly ground controls on 90mm are exactly 10mm narrower than BudLous on 100mm. Sounds obvious, but I guess I am trying to imagine what conditions would have to be like where one rider would be able to keep riding and the 90mm riding ends up walking....and then if it gets just a touch more extreme the 100mm guy would be walking like 10 ft later. Meanwhile the 100mm rider has been working harder everywhere else....


    I guess if weights are equal, that is like 9%-10% more float with 100s. I think a large fatboy is like 31lbs and a moonie is 37? So bike plus rider is 231 vs 237 so a 3% difference in total weight. So what this would suggest is you are getting about 7% more in terms of flotation. But then there is rotational inertia of the heavier wheels....yeah whatever...the fatboy has a cooler paint job.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Don't overthink it. The person who goes the best is the one prepared to bury himself the most. As Oz said run them low, see how you go

  25. #25
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,901
    It seems to me you are comparing apples and oranges. Ozzy's chart shows 100s will provide 3 mm wider tire compared to the same tire on 90s. I don't believe anyone could notice a difference at the same air pressure, and if they did a minor decrease in pressure would rectify it. Buy the bike you want, change the tires if you need to. Most important thing is to just ride.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Steve Balogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    823
    Let me throw a different twist to this thread - 2014 is definitely the year of the fat bike rim. I've been riding fat bikes for over 7 years and finally have faith in going tubeless with Nexties. Now there's tubeless ready fat tires, and more rims both carbon and aluminum that are tubeless compatible. Several 90MM tubeless ready rims are available, but I haven't seen any 100's, any out there? Clownshoes you are still taping over holes. Unless there's a really great 100MM rim, I'd go with a 90MM tubeless ready. This is why I started this year with a 65MM Nextie. I ride over 90% of the time all year round on fat bikes. At some point I figure I may want a wider rim. Lots of 80-85MM choices, but shooting for the middle for me would be a bit of "jack of all trades master of none" - swapping between 65 and a 90 makes more sense for how and where I ride. I might consider a second set of 80-85 aluminum that would see a lot of tubeless tire swapping, as I have a set of DIY studded tires that would make me nervous handling with carbon rims - one slip and I could possibly gouge a carbon rim with those things. Haven't decided yet on which rim to go for the second set. Like the OP, I have plenty of sand opportunities too. And so far, the Spec GC's on 65MM rims has been fantastic. The only thing I haven't tried them in yet is snow.

    So for the 100 vs 90 option, I'd say research what's out there for tubeless applications, might make the decision much easier. Just off the top of my head I believe there's more choices in 90MM brands than 100's.

  27. #27
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SADDLE TRAMP View Post
    The race that Ozzy did just recently; what tires and rims did he use, and why?
    The Simpson Desert, I ran 90mm nextie carbon rims with 940g Surly Black Floyds... complete slicks with zero tread. Figured I needed least rotating weight with max speed and low rolling resistance. There is always a stand off with any tyre or pressure, you need to make a call on what is going to work the best for any situation or race.
    Santa Cruz Hightower LT Evil Following Trek 9.9 Superfly SL IndyFab Deluxe 29 Pivot Vault CX Cervelo R3 Disc

  28. #28
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,112
    BTW, save this chart... coz you will be looking for it in a month or two...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims-tire-size.jpg  

    Santa Cruz Hightower LT Evil Following Trek 9.9 Superfly SL IndyFab Deluxe 29 Pivot Vault CX Cervelo R3 Disc

  29. #29
    Clueless Bastard
    Reputation: WA-CO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    684
    Points to Ozzy for regurgitation of fat bike "tyre" dimensions. Brah-vo....




    Fhuck....You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    The Simpson Desert, I ran 90mm nextie carbon rims with 940g Surly Black Floyds... complete slicks with zero tread. Figured I needed least rotating weight with max speed and low rolling resistance. There is always a stand off with any tyre or pressure, you need to make a call on what is going to work the best for any situation or race.
    Good to always question the latest and greatest, had you gone with 2X Bud on 100's how do you think you would have fared? Dropped out perhaps?

    For us with less than your competitive edge, following your line of reasoning can add to our enjoyment at less effort.
    "Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway" John Wayne

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,152
    Sand?, 100mm and Big Fat Larrys for sure!,
    My Moonlander rides places that defies what a bicycle can ride over, from wet sinking sand to bone dry soft fluffy dune sand, it goes where my Pugsley becomes stuck or struggles to maintain forward motion with out bursting your lungs...
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  32. #32
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SADDLE TRAMP View Post
    Good to always question the latest and greatest, had you gone with 2X Bud on 100's how do you think you would have fared? Dropped out perhaps?
    Ive never thought about it, would probably still have finished but wouldn't have finished in 2nd place, it would have taken more effort to roll 2 x 1650g Buds than 2 x 940g Floyds.
    Santa Cruz Hightower LT Evil Following Trek 9.9 Superfly SL IndyFab Deluxe 29 Pivot Vault CX Cervelo R3 Disc

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andy74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    226
    the NJ pinelands are my stomping grounds
    I went from a moony with 100s and big fat larrys to a pug with 82s and black Floyds
    Tried bud and Lou, and they sap the life right of ya
    I'd say the best for deep sand would be 100s with big fat larrys regardless of 90s or 100s
    BFL on 100s have a slight advantage over Floyds on 82s, but lower the pressure and I get through the soft stuff just fine
    And there's lots of places down there that aren't deep sugar sand
    It's all about the firecuts

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    443

    Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims

    Well, I pulled the trigger yesterday after a couple years of eyeballing these, and I have to say the hype is real. Went with a soecialized fatboy and it's awesome. We have a couple inches of crusty snow right now and this thing just climbs and goes wherever I point it. I rode the hiking trails in a nearby nature preserve which are rideable but very challenging on a normal bike, and would have been impossible with snow. I now have legit year round riding


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    443

    Definitely sand, maybe snow: 90mm vs 100mm rims

    Figured I would follow up on this after having the bike for about 2 months.....the 90s with 4.7 tires are plenty adequate for any snow, beach sand mud. Etc that I have come across. Maybe 100s would be slightly better but I have had no need for it so far and have ride through some very loose and slick terrain. Now ice, that is another matter. Fat bikes kind of lure you into thinking you can do it but then......black and blue!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  36. #36
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,196
    That's why they make studded Dillinger 5's. You credit card will be smokin' after buying two of those.
    I like turtles

  37. #37
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish29er View Post
    Figured I would follow up on this after having the bike for about 2 months.....the 90s with 4.7 tires are plenty adequate for any snow, beach sand mud. Etc that I have come across. Maybe 100s would be slightly better but I have had no need for it so far and have ride through some very loose and slick terrain.
    Not all sand is the same, just like not all snow is the same. I have attempted to ride on sand that was simply unrideable. This was using Clownshoes with tubeless Bud and Lou. So I will happily take the maximum rim width I can get.

    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cycloxer13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    334
    fwiw, i think you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a 90 and 100 mm rim. Tubeless would make a bigger difference. Tire selection would make a bigger difference. Tire pressure would make quite possibly the biggest difference.

    Full disclaimer: i ride Spec GC 4.6's on 90mm rims, tubeless, usually around 5-7 psi. Why? It works for my weight, terrain, and riding conditions.
    '15 Evil The Following
    '15 Spec Fatboy R

  39. #39
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by cycloxer13 View Post
    fwiw, i think you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a 90 and 100 mm rim. Tubeless would make a bigger difference. Tire selection would make a bigger difference. Tire pressure would make quite possibly the biggest difference.

    Full disclaimer: i ride Spec GC 4.6's on 90mm rims, tubeless, usually around 5-7 psi. Why? It works for my weight, terrain, and riding conditions.
    I run 5 to 7 psi for hardpack, soft and loose, I go lower.
    Riding Fat and still just as fast as I never was.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cycloxer13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy View Post
    I run 5 to 7 psi for hardpack, soft and loose, I go lower.
    Snow I run 3-5 psi, though I often run 4 front and a little more in the rear. Below 3 and my tires really start to mush out. They hold air fine and all, but they get real sloppy. For deep snow, I totally get it.

    Years ago I used to drive a Jeep on the sands of Cape Cod. I learned a lot of lessons about the traction increases with lower pressure, even on a 4wd vehicle. It is remarkable what you can do if you just let out a little more air.

    The same applies to fat bike tires. I totally get guys running low, low single digits in deep snow and sand on 100mm+ rims. The wider the rim/tire and the lower the pressure, the better, hands down.

    Just match the equipment to your needs. A fatty in deep snow on 100's is a lot different than one on 65's on dry trails. And they are both good! Just choose wisely.
    '15 Evil The Following
    '15 Spec Fatboy R

Similar Threads

  1. Ican bikes carbon 65 and 90mm rims?
    By Gilboy in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 08-09-2017, 04:53 AM
  2. Lefty Carbon XLR 100mm Vs 90mm
    By Steve_James in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 12:03 AM
  3. 70mm or 90mm rims for trail use?
    By DFYFZX in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-13-2012, 08:01 PM
  4. Drilled rims can take more than snow and sand?
    By pläski in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 01:36 PM
  5. Fork...80mm, 90mm or 100mm? Carbon or AL?
    By carlostruco in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 06:23 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.