Fatback vs 907 vs pugs- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 67 of 67
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25

    Fatback vs 907 vs pugs

    I am going to buy a winter bike and looksl like my choices are the Pugsley, aluminum fatback and aluminum 907 and need to know the basic pros and cons of each bike. A couple concerns I have heard (may not be true) is that the fatback you cannot make into a 29nr in the summer but you can make a pugs and 907 into a 29nr with regular hubs, is this correct?

    I have $2,000 to spend and want the best and lightest bike for my money so would that be the 907 or fatback as I heard that for about $2,000 the pugs would weigh about 34 pounds and the 907 and fatback would weigh around 29 pounds, do you think this is correct?

    I also heard that with the pugs and 907 you have to remove the rear brake in order to get the tire off (if you get a flat) but the fatback you do not have to remove the rear brake, is this correct?

    I have heard that riding the pugs is like riding a tank but the fatback and 907 feel more like a regular mtn. bike ride, opinions on this one?

    I also heard that you can get the 907 for about $500 less than the fatback with the exact components on?

    I am new to winter riding, male 5'6 and weighs only 135 pounds so I am thinking that the 70mm rims would be sufficient. Someone told me that since I am so small that a pugs would be too big for me? I have long legs with a shorter torso so I am thinking that maybe the small frame in the fatback and 907 fit me or the medium?

    I just wanted some of your opinions before I head out to the bike shops in a couple weeks to buy one. Thank you for your time.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juxtaposition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    49

    A bird told me....

    Your friend is wrong about the conversion to a 29'er, the Fatback would actually be better than the pugs and the Aluminum 9:zero:7 (Ti 907 would work though). The Fatback uses a 165mm rear hub with no offset, the pugs and the Al 907 use a 135mm and 17.5mm offset, which is fine on a super wide snow rim, but not great on a normal rim. It still can be done, but isn't ideal.

    Pricing is going to be fairly similiar (i think)
    Aluminum 9:zero:7 = $499 (until dec 1st) Frame + ~$166 pugsley fork.
    Al Fatback ~ $600 frame and fork.
    Pugs ~ $575
    Although, you'll have to pay a little more for a 165mm hub if you go with the fatback.

    Weight is going to be (probably) similar between the 907 and the fatback, but you're only going to be saving ~3.5 pounds over the Pugsley, not 5.

    70mm rims should be fine, if you're worried about weight, this is a good way to go.

    The Pugsley is the only frame which you need to loosen (not remove) the rear brake to get out the wheel.

    I ride a pugs, it doesn't feel like a tank.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    482
    Since you are starting from scratch the Fatback would be the way to go IMO. The Fatback is an aluminum version of their flagship ti bikes - same non-offset design, just not ti.

    The aluminum 907 is a better version of the pugs, but does not enjoy benefits of the non-offset 907 flagship or the fatback.

    The alu 907 is a great option if you will be swapping parts over from a pugs.

    However, since you are not doing a swap, you may as well take advantage of the non-offset design of the alu fatback, particiarly since the costs and weight of the alu 907 and the alu fatback will be very close.

  4. #4
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    Has anyone seen this mythical Alu Fatback? I am also teetering on the edge of (maybe) getting a frame, but I would like to lay eyes on the thing before getting excited about it.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    487
    tet cycles can build a steel that feels like mnt bike not that heavy

  6. #6
    Wood chips are stupid
    Reputation: akdeluxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    779

    Lots of choices

    Lots of choices out there.It is a good thing. Whats really cool, is all of them are good. They all will do what they were built for.Buy the one that will fit your needs the best.
    others...
    Wildfire
    Vicious
    Retro Tech
    just about any hippy builder
    Have fun!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-getattachment.jpg  

    "Trust me,you don't want a big baby."

    JT

  7. #7
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Has anyone seen this mythical Alu Fatback? I am also teetering on the edge of (maybe) getting a frame, but I would like to lay eyes on the thing before getting excited about it.
    Here are a couple of teasers. Should have more to post in another day or two. Clearance is huge, just like the ti version. 120mm plus at the chainstays.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-alloy-drop-outs-2.jpg  

    Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-alloy-stays-2.jpg  

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  8. #8
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork
    Here are a couple of teasers. Should have more to post in another day or two. Clearance is huge, just like the ti version. 120mm plus at the chainstays.
    trick looking dropouts. how will a disc brake get mounted?

  9. #9
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    120mm????? Dayum! Any reason to think the seat stays would be different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Monte
    trick looking dropouts. how will a disc brake get mounted?
    Looks to me like the 51mm ISO disc brake caliper mounting holes are integrated in the piece. Freaking SEKSY!

    Last edited by tscheezy; 11-08-2009 at 10:31 AM.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    692
    The pug and the aluminum 907 are built with a 135mm hub offset 17.5mm. This means they effectively use a 170mm rear hub. This will give more chain to tire clearance than the symmetrical bikes (Ti 907 and Fatbacks) that are based on 160mm and 165mm rear hubs.
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  11. #11
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti
    The pug and the aluminum 907 are built with a 135mm hub offset 17.5mm. This means they effectively use a 170mm rear hub. This will give more chain to tire clearance than the symmetrical bikes (Ti 907 and Fatbacks) that are based on 160mm and 165mm rear hubs.
    i don't have an example off hand, but it seems all i've read is that you can't run a 100mm rim/Endo combo on a pugs with 9 speeds on the cassette. i thought you had to remove a couple cogs when running the 100mm rims on a pugsley.

  12. #12
    runs with scissors
    Reputation: dosbugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork
    Here are a couple of teasers. Should have more to post in another day or two. Clearance is huge, just like the ti version. 120mm plus at the chainstays.
    Who’s building the frame for you?
    Will the disk caliper require additional shimming?
    How the chain line alignment with 3x9 drive and 100mm rims /Endo?
    Last edited by dosbugs; 11-08-2009 at 03:10 PM.

  13. #13
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    120mm????? Dayum! Any reason to think the seat stays would be different?


    Looks to me like the 51mm ISO disc brake caliper mounting holes are integrated in the piece. Freaking SEKSY!
    if that's so, then cool idea. sort of looks like a funky angle, but i guess we'll see.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti
    The pug and the aluminum 907 are built with a 135mm hub offset 17.5mm. This means they effectively use a 170mm rear hub. This will give more chain to tire clearance than the symmetrical bikes (Ti 907 and Fatbacks) that are based on 160mm and 165mm rear hubs.
    Not sure I follow your logic. Since the left side is fixed, doesn't the wider hub move the cassette outboard by 30mm, whereas the pugs gains its additional 17.5mm by moving the rim inboard relative to the cassette? If so, wouldn't the effective width of a pugs hub be 152.5, not 170? And wouldn't this explain the tighter clearance on the pugs? What am I missing?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,498
    hmmm...we may have a winner, but the devil is in the details.

    how do you use a 160mm king hub in there? 10mm bolts to get it snugged up. i am guessing that it is 165mm as it sits with no wheel in it.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  16. #16
    'Calm Down'
    Reputation: GrumpyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    849
    - Hadley and a few others make 165mm hubs. Don't think using a 160mm hub would be a good idea. YMMV

    jw


    Quote Originally Posted by bighit
    hmmm...we may have a winner, but the devil is in the details.

    how do you use a 160mm king hub in there? 10mm bolts to get it snugged up. i am guessing that it is 165mm as it sits with no wheel in it.
    -

    "And single-speeding 29ers are mountain biking's equivalent of Scientologists..." - Captain Dondo

  17. #17
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    I'm sure it would be relatively easy, though slightly expensive to get custom spacers/axle made for a 160 king to fit the Fatback 165+ design...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,498
    i got a call into the man lets see what he says. i have a king hub already for my pug. they may have a 160mm axle kit i can convert mine and have two wheels sets like with my pug. fat. 29er and maybe super fat
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,261
    Strogonof I'll try to answer your question. When you move the hub over 17.5 mm to the right it moves the right dropout over 17.5mm to the right. To make the hub symmetrical you would have to move the left drop out back 17.5mm back get to its original location and then another 17.5 to make up for moving the right dropout. Adding the offset and what it takes to get symmetry gets one up to 170 mm. The tighter clearance on the Pugs is stay to tire clearance not chain to tire clearance. As far as chain clearance goes the offset 135 should be better than the non-offset 165 or 160. It does come with compromises The wheels are harder to build without a dishing tool and if you want to build 29R wheels they may be less strong. But fat wheels are so much fun why would you want to do that. In the interest of full disclosure I ride a 165 symmetrical and used to ride a Pugs. They are all FUN.

  20. #20
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak
    As far as chain clearance goes the offset 135 should be better than the non-offset 165 or 160....
    In the interest of full disclosure I ride a 165 symmetrical and used to ride a Pugs....
    What rim do you have on your "165 symmetrical"? Any chain/tire rub?


    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee
    -Running the ISIS 148 DH BB with some cheapo Bontrager cranks I could get 8 of 9 cogs out back without rub. In the granny ring/big cog there was chain/tire rub. Ditch one of the smaller cogs (like they get used anyway!) and space the whole cassette ~3mm outboard, adjust the limit screw, then you're set

  21. #21
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroganof
    Not sure I follow your logic. Since the left side is fixed, doesn't the wider hub move the cassette outboard by 30mm, whereas the pugs gains its additional 17.5mm by moving the rim inboard relative to the cassette? If so, wouldn't the effective width of a pugs hub be 152.5, not 170? And wouldn't this explain the tighter clearance on the pugs? What am I missing?
    It is wider by 17.5mm per side. So the total effective axle width is 170 (135mm plus 35mm). If you look at the wheel build spacer Surly includes with the Pugs frame you will see that it adds 35mm to the hub width for the wheel build, and yet the rim stays centered, so the extra width is split between the two sides.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,261
    Monte, I have a Fat Sheba. No rub on the stand, there is a couple of mm of space on the lower run of chain, but I suspect when it is bouncing around during a ride it hits occasionaly. So far no noticable wear. I am using a low Q factor crank. It would be possible to get more room out of a different crank.

  23. #23
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak
    Monte, I have a Fat Sheba. No rub on the stand, there is a couple of mm of space on the lower run of chain, but I suspect when it is bouncing around during a ride it hits occasionaly. So far no noticable wear. I am using a low Q factor crank. It would be possible to get more room out of a different crank.
    pardon my ignorance, what frame are you riding? the Fat Sheba is an 80mm rim, right?

  24. #24
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Monte
    pardon my ignorance, what frame are you riding? the Fat Sheba is an 80mm rim, right?
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak
    Isn't the chain to tire clearance more of a problem then tire to frame? I've had a Pugs and now have a Fatback. Both have plenty of frame clearance with 80 mm rims but the tire and lower chain have hardly any clearance in low gear.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  25. #25
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    ...
    many thanks

  26. #26
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    974

    Wildfire Specs

    I'll chime in though not included in the thread title:

    2010 Wildfire FatBike chromoly frames have symmetrical 162.5 spaced dropouts which, through the ductility of steel, can be safely cold set for either 160 or 165 mm hubs.

    Tire clearance at 320 mm radius (point of maximum width of tire) from the axle is 111 mm on the chain stays and 116 mm at the seat stays. The frame was designed to accomodate 82 mm rims with full gearing and 2 mm of chain/tire clearance when the chain is on the inboard gears. That's with a 160 mm rear hub.

    If using 100 mm rims, to avoid the chain rubbing on the tire, cog spacers are required to convert to a 6 speed rear cassette when using 160 mm hubs or 7 speed cassette when using a 165 mm hub.

    We also build the frames to accomodate a 465 mm 100 mm-spaced fork so you can swap with a 29er suspension fork for summer 29er riding mode.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-2010-fatbike-black.jpg  

    Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-2010-fatbike-oblique.jpg  

    Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-mark-woodward-fatbike-004.jpg  

    Owner, Trailwerx Trails Contracting
    Palmer, Alaska
    www.trailwerx.com

  27. #27
    MTB aficionado
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit
    i got a call into the man lets see what he says. i have a king hub already for my pug. they may have a 160mm axle kit i can convert mine and have two wheels sets like with my pug. fat. 29er and maybe super fat
    I'm running a 160mm CK Tandum Hub on my Ti 907.....it's very different than their 135mm ISO hub. A straight axle swap will not likely work. The tandam hub is built using their wider SS universal hub shell. The hub shell is wider and it uses a bolt on disc rotor adaptor.

    Regards,

    EndUser
    My advice and $3 will buy you nothing more than a tunafish sandwich

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    482

    Not Adding Up

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire
    I'll chime in though not included in the thread title:

    2010 Wildfire FatBike chromoly frames have symmetrical 162.5 spaced dropouts which, through the ductility of steel, can be safely cold set for either 160 or 165 mm hubs.

    Tire clearance at 320 mm radius (point of maximum width of tire) from the axle is 111 mm on the chain stays and 116 mm at the seat stays. The frame was designed to accomodate 82 mm rims with full gearing and 2 mm of chain/tire clearance when the chain is on the inboard gears. That's with a 160 mm rear hub.

    If using 100 mm rims, to avoid the chain rubbing on the tire, cog spacers are required to convert to a 6 speed rear cassette when using 160 mm hubs or 7 speed cassette when using a 165 mm hub.

    We also build the frames to accomodate a 465 mm 100 mm-spaced fork so you can swap with a 29er suspension fork for summer 29er riding mode.
    Okay, I'm still not getting this alignment / effective hub issue. It seems that, one way or another, the 165mm moves the cassette far enough outboard that you can run 100mm rims/endos and not get any chain/tire rub (or have the tire rub on the frame). Posts from other users (Mikesee among them) state that on a pugs one has to lose a cog or two and put a spacer in there to move the cassette further outboard to prevent chain tire rub. If indeed this is the case, then why would the pugs have chain rub if the "effective hub" width is 170, when the true 165mm does not have this same issue? thx.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,498
    thanks, i might as well buy the right hub if i go that route.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  30. #30
    MTB aficionado
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,022

    More 907 content here.

    These are the Ti 907s.... it's worth a look-see.

    http://akspokes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1723

    Regards,

    EndUser
    Last edited by EndUser; 11-09-2009 at 01:40 PM.
    My advice and $3 will buy you nothing more than a tunafish sandwich

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,498
    i love the cheap aspect of these three frames. this way i can get a new one every year.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,498
    i think we need to start a list of 165mm hubs.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  33. #33
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Mark's(Wildfire) new frames are looking good. I've been over to his shop a couple of times.

  34. #34
    MTB aficionado
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,022

    Contact Greg at Speedway

    Quote Originally Posted by bighit
    i think we need to start a list of 165mm hubs.
    Give Greg a call at Speedway..... I'm sure he could give you the complete list.

    Regards,

    EndUser
    My advice and $3 will buy you nothing more than a tunafish sandwich

  35. #35
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    974

    Question:

    It doesn't seem possible does it.

    How about it... anyone out there running 100mm rims: are you truly able to use a full 9 speed cassette on the rear with no chain rub on any frame?

    My older frames used an 18 mm offset 135 mm rear spacing. This equates to an effective hub width of 171 mm. I could run a 9 speed cassette with 82 mm rims and 3.7 tires with no chain rub but anything wider then that required spacers behind the cassette and diminished gears. That's with a 100 mm outboard bearing crankset.

    My take: if you want to use really wide rims, something has to be sacrificed, like at least a couple cogs. Or maybe I wasn't sacrificing the correct offerings, virgins being scarce around here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroganof
    Okay, I'm still not getting this alignment / effective hub issue. It seems that, one way or another, the 165mm moves the cassette far enough outboard that you can run 100mm rims/endos and not get any chain/tire rub (or have the tire rub on the frame). Posts from other users (Mikesee among them) state that on a pugs one has to lose a cog or two and put a spacer in there to move the cassette further outboard to prevent chain tire rub. If indeed this is the case, then why would the pugs have chain rub if the "effective hub" width is 170, when the true 165mm does not have this same issue? thx.
    Owner, Trailwerx Trails Contracting
    Palmer, Alaska
    www.trailwerx.com

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pbasinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire
    It doesn't seem possible does it.

    How about it... anyone out there running 100mm rims: are you truly able to use a full 9 speed cassette on the rear with no chain rub on any frame?

    My older frames used an 18 mm offset 135 mm rear spacing. This equates to an effective hub width of 171 mm. I could run a 9 speed cassette with 82 mm rims and 3.7 tires with no chain rub but anything wider then that required spacers behind the cassette and diminished gears. That's with a 100 mm outboard bearing crankset.

    My take: if you want to use really wide rims, something has to be sacrificed, like at least a couple cogs. Or maybe I wasn't sacrificing the correct offerings, virgins being scarce around here.
    Correct.
    With the 100s on the 165 rear hub you have to drop 1 to 2 cogs for no chain/ tire rub.
    Depends on crank and bb width.
    Pretty easily done, works fine, minor sacrifice, but with the stuff that is/ was currently available, its the best solution for a non offset design.

    Couple of notes on this. It is pretty easy on most cassettes to drop one of the smaller cogs and keep the 34.

    Derailleur limit screws can be adjusted to lock it out to 8 or 7 speeds.

    You can, as jamber suggested on another thread, space out the drive side of the crank some. I don't like this solution because 1 I think light chain rub on the casing of the tire is a minor problem (see below) and 2 I want my pedals to be centered underneath the rest of my body especially if I'm spending hours in the saddle and 3 it's not a great chainline.

    Last winter I rode my Fatback with 100s and a full 9 speed cassette just to try it out. The chain would rub on the tire casing while in the inner cog and small chainring. I don't spend a ton of time in that combo and the endo looked pretty worked after a winter, but after 1000 + miles there was no discernible mark from the chain on the casing. To me its just not a big issue.

    With the new fatbacks, Aluminum and ti, the design has been tweeked some to gain a few more mm of clearance so you should be able to run a full 9 speed cassette with clearance. Again, crank and bb differences may require dropping a cog from the cassette for the hundreds.
    Last edited by pbasinger; 11-09-2009 at 11:00 PM.

  37. #37
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    974

    Hmmm....

    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger

    With the new fatbacks, Aluminum and ti, the design has been tweeked some to gain a few more mm of clearance so you should be able to run a full 9 speed cassette with clearance. Again, crank and bb differences may require dropping a cog from the cassette for the hundreds.
    You mean they have offset?

    Anyway, thanks for the explanation, Pete.
    Owner, Trailwerx Trails Contracting
    Palmer, Alaska
    www.trailwerx.com

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPA Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    591

    BB/cranks/chainline

    Thanks Pete for the info...this begs the question as to what might be done on the other end of the drivetrain--up front, that is. I was thinking of possibly running a 1x9, using an old xt crank on a phil square taper BB/spindle, using the granny as my only ring up front (hills here would suggest a 26t-28t ring with a 9sp in back). But, that puts my chainring inboard quite a bit, risking tire rub...so that brings up my other thought...going with a Middleburn crank, which seems to provide some more options for spacing the rings up front, but I'm not sure how that might work out in practice (say, running the small ring on the outboard side). And if this does address tire rub, what about chainline for shifting with a 9sp in back?

    All this would be on a fatback running 70mm rims

    Thanks much...

  39. #39
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by IPA Rider
    Thanks Pete for the info...this begs the question as to what might be done on the other end of the drivetrain--up front, that is. I was thinking of possibly running a 1x9, using an old xt crank on a phil square taper BB/spindle, using the granny as my only ring up front (hills here would suggest a 26t-28t ring with a 9sp in back). But, that puts my chainring inboard quite a bit, risking tire rub...so that brings up my other thought...going with a Middleburn crank, which seems to provide some more options for spacing the rings up front, but I'm not sure how that might work out in practice (say, running the small ring on the outboard side). And if this does address tire rub, what about chainline for shifting with a 9sp in back?

    All this would be on a fatback running 70mm rims

    Thanks much...
    Not Pete, but if you're running 70's, it sounds like you'll be able to run 3x9 no problem if I've understood correctly.

    If you want to run 1x9 with only a granny, I don't know how you would do that and gain chain/tire clearance. The granny will only fit in one place on the spider unless you did some major modification to the spider, if even possible.

    If you can get away with a 30t "granny" (5 arm 94mm bcd), then you could run that as the middle ring only and gain the chain/tire clearance.

  40. #40
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger
    Correct....
    Thanks for the explaination Pete.

  41. #41
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,588
    @IPA Rider- Depending on how much you're willing to spend, you could also go with a White Industries enO crank with a 30t chainring/bashguard combo or the 94mm bcd XT that you mentioned, and a steel Surly ring (my preference.)
    30t is the smallest you can get with a 94mm bcd.
    However, I'd agree that 3x9 seems not to be an issue if you're going to stick with 70mm rims on any of these configurations.

    Los
    Support your local trail organization.

    www.swimba.org

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pbasinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    779
    Yeah, 70s and 80s you won't have any problems.
    All those suggestions are great.

    Doesn't somebody make a 29 tooth for a 94 bcd?

  43. #43
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,588
    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger
    Yeah, 70s and 80s you won't have any problems.
    All those suggestions are great.

    Doesn't somebody make a 29 tooth for a 94 bcd?
    I think it may have been Boone- Ti, expensive, and long (maybe eternal, at this point,) wait times.

    Los
    Support your local trail organization.

    www.swimba.org

  44. #44
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger
    Yeah, 70s and 80s you won't have any problems.
    All those suggestions are great.

    Doesn't somebody make a 29 tooth for a 94 bcd?
    yeah, they're out there. not many. not cheap.

    www.carbon-ti.com


  45. #45
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    706

    Fatback clearance

    Here is a pic of a 100mm rim/Endo combo on a ti Fatback with a 3X9 drivetrain. Clearance is tight, no doubt, but it can be done, though not particularly necc. Most folks run rims narrower than the 100, and in that case, all of these bikes have enough clearance. The aluminum Fatback will have the same 120mm of tire clearance. Most Endo's have some runout ( I have seen as bad as 1/4"), which is why we get various tire widths on the same rim. This is why it's important to have extra room in the chainstays. Seat stay clearance is easy to come by.
    Mark, your new frames look good, though I think they would look even better with a 135 fork!
    The last photo is of a Fatback with sliding drops (this one is belt drive compatible). I spent a lot of time on this frame at various chainstay lengths (460 to 485, required lengths for certain belt drive gear combo's) and did not like the longer stays. It had noticeably less traction on the climbs.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-fatback-hubs-019-2.jpg  

    Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-sliding-dropouts.jpg  

    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  46. #46
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork
    Here is a pic of a 100mm rim/Endo combo on a ti Fatback with a 3X9 drivetrain. Clearance is tight, no doubt, but it can be done....
    thanks for posting the pics Greg.

    Monte

  47. #47
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by Monte
    yeah, they're out there. not many. not cheap.

    www.carbon-ti.com

    Middleburn has been testing one for awhile. I imagine it's ready for production. FSA has one also, but it's for their own 94bcd 4 arm cranks.
    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  48. #48
    MTB aficionado
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire
    You mean they have offset?

    Anyway, thanks for the explanation, Pete.
    that's what I was thinking.... or spindle length is increased.... but this has adverse effects on chainline. Clearance yes..... chainline.... no.

    Regards,

    EndUser
    My advice and $3 will buy you nothing more than a tunafish sandwich

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pbasinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by EndUser
    that's what I was thinking.... or spindle length is increased.... but this has adverse effects on chainline. Clearance yes..... chainline.... no.

    Regards,

    EndUser

    Nope & nope.

  50. #50
    MTB aficionado
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,022

    Ok.....

    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger
    Nope & nope.
    Pray tell. Otherwise I'm going to believe your dishing tool needs to be calibrated.

    End
    My advice and $3 will buy you nothing more than a tunafish sandwich

  51. #51
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    974
    Must...find...virgins.

    Curved chain?
    Owner, Trailwerx Trails Contracting
    Palmer, Alaska
    www.trailwerx.com

  52. #52
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    706
    Magnets.
    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit
    i love the cheap aspect of these three frames. this way i can get a new one every year.
    sign me up ! I'll take one of each please.

    It should be mentioned ( as if we all haven't heard it before ) that steels ductility also lends it to being easily fixed out in the middle of nowhere or on a long trek in a far off land. Good option for trekers. Also takes the beating of a heavy touring load well. personaly, doin' so much beach & dune riding, my favorite choice would be the ti...but financialy It'll take me a while to get around to that. Aluminum...what can I say... I love the stuff! Allways have and as I've said, very happy to see it making it's way into the "fat" scene . Couple Questions;

    for Speedway: what is your chainstay length?, axle to crown mesurement?

    for Wildfire; (hey Mark, we've spoke on the phone many times) Do you have plans to produce an AL vesion?

    Thanks for the pic's and the input,

    -Ward

  54. #54
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Maybe they've licensed the Christini flexible shaft drive....

  55. #55
    Alaska Turner Mafia
    Reputation: EndoRando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,117

    Hmmmmm.......

    Quote Originally Posted by pbasinger
    Doesn't somebody make a 29 tooth for a 94 bcd?
    Yes, it is a rare creature, rarely seen in the wild, but a sight to behold for the lucky few!

    Deceleration Trauma is my middle name

  56. #56
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    706

    Aluminum Fatback

    Here is a pic of the 18" Fatback with a 24" tt.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fatback vs 907 vs pugs-alloy-fatback-18.jpg  

    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockraptor5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    al fatback

    looks sweet Greg...finally a full frame pic!

    have you had any issues w/100mm forks and hydraulic calipers? i'm using a surly fork, magura martas, 80mm rims, and dt swiss 310 hub. had to dish the wheel over 1/4" to keep the spokes from hitting the caliper.

    i'm asking you b/c i've only seen bb7 on other bikes.

  58. #58
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork
    Here is a pic of the 18" Fatback with a 24" tt.
    schweet! would that be a medium or large? spec on the web site are for 17.5" (medium) and 19.5" (large).

  59. #59
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    Thirsty told me the sizing will be a bit different than for the Ti. A straight 14", 16", 18" etc. A geo chart will be forthcoming at some point, I suspect.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  60. #60
    meh....
    Reputation: Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Thirsty told me the sizing will be a bit different than for the Ti. A straight 14", 16", 18" etc. A geo chart will be forthcoming at some point, I suspect.
    well don't you know, he told me the same thing. i looked at my emails with him and found this:
    Quote Originally Posted by greg @ speedway
    In the aluminum version I did sizes 14, 16, 18, and 20. Basically they start with a 22" tt and add an inch to each size. Huge standover due to a bent tt. They are very similar to the ti bikes, just tt lengths vary a little.
    that was from a week ago, pardon my brain fade (fart). doesn't take long these days.

  61. #61
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    974

    Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by thirstywork
    Here is a pic of a 100mm rim/Endo combo on a ti Fatback with a 3X9 drivetrain. Clearance is tight, no doubt, but it can be done, though not particularly necc. Most folks run rims narrower than the 100, and in that case, all of these bikes have enough clearance. The aluminum Fatback will have the same 120mm of tire clearance. Most Endo's have some runout ( I have seen as bad as 1/4"), which is why we get various tire widths on the same rim. This is why it's important to have extra room in the chainstays. Seat stay clearance is easy to come by.

    >Yeah, the Endos can be lumpy. They also get bigger after using them for a while and when running high pressures.

    >I think I'll stick to the 82 mm rims. They offer plenty of flotation, you can still use a lightweight inner tube, they are reasonably light, you get all the gears, and they are not as prone to loading up with heavy snow in real-world conditions.

    Mark, your new frames look good, though I think they would look even better with a 135 fork!

    >Thanks, yours look great too. I'm waiting for some more hub options for 135 fork spacing. I don't think it's really necessary unless running 100 mm rims. However, if anybody needs some built at 135 spacing, let me know. I can do OEM forks for other builders with A/C lengths up to 465 mm.

    The last photo is of a Fatback with sliding drops (this one is belt drive compatible). I spent a lot of time on this frame at various chainstay lengths (460 to 485, required lengths for certain belt drive gear combo's) and did not like the longer stays. It had noticeably less traction on the climbs.
    >Yeah, agreed. I played around with chain stay length a lot too. I am expecting a sliding dropout FatBike in within a couple weeks with Paragon vertical dropouts. Also have a Rohloff-compatible version with special offset in soon.

    Hopefully, all the new builders will spur some new parts options for hubs, bb's, tires, rims, etc although parts shortages have been a bit of an issue lately.

    Hey Ward, yep, I remember you. Sorry, sticking to steel for now. It works for me, I kinda like the stuff.
    Owner, Trailwerx Trails Contracting
    Palmer, Alaska
    www.trailwerx.com

  62. #62
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by rockraptor5
    looks sweet Greg...finally a full frame pic!

    have you had any issues w/100mm forks and hydraulic calipers? i'm using a surly fork, magura martas, 80mm rims, and dt swiss 310 hub. had to dish the wheel over 1/4" to keep the spokes from hitting the caliper.

    i'm asking you b/c i've only seen bb7 on other bikes.
    I remember having to bevel the edge of the Formula caliper to make it work. I don't have any experience with the Magura's though. IF it's just close, you can flex the spokes inward and get a mm or two extra clearance.
    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by rockraptor5
    looks sweet Greg...finally a full frame pic!

    have you had any issues w/100mm forks and hydraulic calipers? i'm using a surly fork, magura martas, 80mm rims, and dt swiss 310 hub. had to dish the wheel over 1/4" to keep the spokes from hitting the caliper.

    i'm asking you b/c i've only seen bb7 on other bikes.
    What size disc are you running? I had the same problem on my 29er with a 160mm disc. Swapped that out for a 203mm and no problem any more.

  64. #64
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    I've had similar problems with my 29ers. bigger rotors solved it.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1

    soy pepe

    Hola, soy pepe

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.