So, who will be first with new innovative fat frames???- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 51 of 51
  1. #1
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,137

    So, who will be first with new innovative fat frames???

    Now that there has been some crazy DIY such as bamboo frames, & modified full suspension rigs, when are we going to some factory built stuff????

    If there are 29er FS frames all over the place, there's no reason why there can't be a fat-friendly version right?? I mean, if these brave guys are making them at home, modifying frames & BB's & linkages, it's only a matter of time right?

    Also, where are the carbon fat frames?????

    Someone needs to take a tallboy & have it "fattened"....

    Thoughts?

    Edit...
    I was thinking it would be awesome to see a FAT Ibis Mojo!
    Last edited by Shark; 12-07-2011 at 08:37 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisgardner73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    690
    Just me dreaming....but I'd love to see Niner come out with a fat version of the AIR 9 Carbon, complete with an RDO fat fork, internal cable routing, CYA/Biocentric Bottom Bracket, etc. They could call it the FAT 9 or something like that...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    I would just love to see a carbon fat frame.
    The LPG

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTR2ebike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    I would just love to see a carbon fat frame.
    I think we would be the first 2 in line, it is truly a sickness.

    The next big innovation IMO will be a production suspension fork.

  5. #5
    On wuss patrol
    Reputation: Glide the Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,953
    Quote Originally Posted by GTR2ebike View Post
    The next big innovation IMO will be a production suspension fork.
    Then why have fatties with 8-10lbs of pressure? Seems to kill the spirit of fat biking.
    Sometimes, you need to go fast enough that the trail is a blur to find clarity. -- Wild Bill

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisgardner73 View Post
    Just me dreaming....but I'd love to see Niner come out with a fat version of the AIR 9 Carbon, complete with an RDO fat fork, internal cable routing, CYA/Biocentric Bottom Bracket, etc. They could call it the FAT 9 or something like that...
    Drool....
    CRAMBA Chairman

  7. #7
    4.0" fully suspended
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    402
    carbon nice light, I'm not a materials engineer but I would just think the cold would make the resin/epoxy even more brittle, not that there would be a lot of rocks poking through to incur such damage.Throw in the plasticizer for the cold temps. and then flexy bike in summer for year round use. Some experimentation required?

  8. #8
    4.0" fully suspended
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    402
    I am going to toot my own horn but as far as factory built full suspension bikes go mine is pretty damn close. The geometry of the 2009 turner sultan was maintained, chainstay length, 70 deg. HA, etc. Samsara cycle did an impressive job. I've done ski joring jumps 4 feet to flat with speed several times and the bike takes it.I've ridden gnarly sections of trail no second thoughts. Bike really rides nice for the purpose. In terms of factory builtness... the only cons I see is I have 1X9 (not such a bad thing in snow) and I am using 50mm umas, so I don't get the flotation (hmm so I may hike a bike <5% more, just my swag). The FS is probably overkill for snow, but damn it's fun. FS fatbike has it's limitations though on technical turny sections IMO. I just don't think a good portion of riders would dig how slow the bike is to turn (due to greater rotational mass) and how wide a 100mm bottom bracket is. Of course I am taking into account full year use here, and for straight steep shots down the fall line look out fs fatbike rolls over almost anything and is super stable.

  9. #9
    Moon Child
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtydoug View Post
    carbon nice light, I'm not a materials engineer but I would just think the cold would make the resin/epoxy even more brittle, not that there would be a lot of rocks poking through to incur such damage.Throw in the plasticizer for the cold temps. and then flexy bike in summer for year round use. Some experimentation required?
    CF is a proven tech for aircraft. At altitude, temps 80-90 below do not cause CF problems.

  10. #10
    Front Range Cyclist
    Reputation: juansevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    941
    i have a few ideas I'm saving for 2013 NAHBS myself that will make your head spin. Meantime. Allow me to interject on what's going on now:

    "Innovative Fat Frame"-IMHO 9:Zero:7 is there already. Frame weight of a bit over 3.5lbs, a nice aluminum fork that dollar to pound ratio is the best. They got White Bro's to offer a carbon fork. The 2012 frames exhibit some great little tweaks and I'd say is the nicest production frame out there (Salsa didn't do too bad either).

    Carbon Frames-Expoxy has no issues with cold in the sense of the application. Keep in mind that at least the same carbon that people like ENVE use in their rims (and tubing they make for others) is aerospace grade...and in even applications that never break the atmosphere are subject to much greater cold than any fat bike would endure.

    That said, a carbon frame wouldn't be worth it. You'd be lucky to shave a full pound off a 9:Zero:7. And even if you could, titanium frames would make more sense for price...and you could get a custom ti frame for that.

    Suspension-Jeff Jones has proved (and if you talk to him he'll get into to details, or just buy the MIT Bicycle Science book...I did both) that the big tires are great for providing cush. It is a bit redid to suggest adding suspension really to these machines....though there is a fork in the works by a big name, I'm not sure it's necessary from my time on one. It's juts not the place. Kinda makes as much sense as suspension on a road bike. Carbon or ti posts and handlebars (as well as forks) is a great place for finding more cush in the ride...or drop the PSI some more.

    That said, if one looks at suspension in a different way than we've been taught there is then room for such that makes sense.

    Another thing, for now, is that though we've seen a huge jump in demand (almost every company is out of stock of L and XL frames for instance) and new players coming to the tire side of the game as well as new offerings from leader in all things fat....Surly. Expect to see rims/tire offerings grow as well as budget bikes ($800-$900 by next year). Expect to see new cranks offered. And Expect to see new forks.

    However, don't expect carbon frames or suspension anytime soon. If you do see carbon, it'll be in rims...the fat rim opens up possibilities that small road/mtb rims find difficult in lay up. Thing to remember is that fat bikes are still pretty cost prohibitive.....a Surly Pusgley build retails for $1500 with components you see typically at $500-$600. Get into a bit, like my 9:Zero:7 I just built up and you get close to $2500 pretty quick....and that's with 27tpi tires and a 30lb ish bike. For most, this is a 3rd or 4th or 5th bike...not the #1 bike or #2 bike in the stable. Carbon or suspension fames alone would beg $2500 price points alone. If justifiable at all.
    In the immortal words of Socrates..."I drank what?"

    Facebook.com/monstercrosser
    Twitter: @monstercrosser

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    128
    I would care to guess a Niner fatbike is not too far down the line. I would love to see a Niner fat fork.
    I do like the idea of internal cable routing.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    I would be interested in how a carbon frame would feel with fat wheels. I've owned bikes made out of every material imaginable except beryllium and I always prefer the ride and feel of carbon. Even if it weighed more I would still prefer it. For now I am totally stoked on my '12 907.
    The LPG

  13. #13
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,836
    Hey now, my DIY crap is NOT crazy.

    Some bamboo grows up out of the ground, gets chopped down, sits in the sun for a while, travels a few thousand miles to my basement, whereupon I lash it together (clumsily, so far) with a substance that makes up about a 1/5th of the human body.

    One thing I do love about bikes is that they are built and ridden unnecessarily.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yxan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    396
    I echo the carbon wishes.
    To me a bigger problem is the chainlines for truly monster tires, I feel tires should get even bigger for even better performance in loose snow, So how about some trick shaft driven contraption to minmize chainline issues.

  15. #15
    4.0" fully suspended
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    402
    how much lighter is the 907 over the AL fatback? 2012 Fatback scores more points for having the exchangable clip rear end, that's pretty cool when it comes out. Plus they've been doing the 170 hub for awhile. (although they wouldn't sell me one for my project)
    As far as cost, I'd just add to support your local framebuilder and you might be surprised on cost and results.

  16. #16
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    my small 907 frame is 4.5 lbs
    don't know where you are getting your numbers
    I want 80mm wide 500gm carbon rims

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  17. #17
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,836
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    I want 80mm wide 500gm carbon rims

    Sj
    Dude this is why people have a fear of carbon being flimsy. It's a strong material, not a magic one.

    Oh **** I'm getting sucked in to this one, run awaaaaaaaayyyyyy!

    EDIT: Hey that was a bit rude of me, I should have pointed out that I've been riding on 47mm wide rims that are heavier than 500 grams (somewhere less than 700 grams), and I have dinged them up quite a bit.
    Last edited by Drew Diller; 12-07-2011 at 11:22 PM.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lamard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    176
    my carbon mtb is great. a carbon fatbike would be great. and a production carbon fatbike would probably be cheaper than a custom made Ti frame, i think there is probably a reason why mtbs are going the carbon route...
    your 29er may float over roots and rocks, but my superlight 26 just plain floats

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    I've got the materials for a cf frame, but every time I go to start I think there may be a better way*.

    I'd agree that cf rims would be the biggest advance. Gets rid of the weight from where it causes the biggest performance loss. Next would be a tubeless system that didn't weigh more than a tyre and tube or require a tube to be carried in case of puncture.

    * actually I mean more fun way. Drew is to blame - after seeing his concoctions I can't settle for something predictable.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Surlynot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    67
    From a UK perspective i'd like to think that these people will deliver a Full Suss Fat Bike...

    Orange

    ... i just wonder if they have thought about it yet? they have made a 29er version of the '5'

    Low maintenance on the pivot front as well.
    Leave nothing but footprints & take nothing but photographs.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Carbon requires a mold. Once you get enough product coming out of that mold. Things start getting economical.

    I'm not sure how many fat frames of each size you could hope to shift. But thats where crunch lies.

    Most of the big MTB innovations are already on their way into the fatbike world. Tubeless tires, belt-drive, adjustable head tube angles etc. etc. Those companys moving things forward have my respect and appreciation.

    Me. I want a quality, 170mm OLD, IGH. With a big range, and a massive chainline.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,134
    I'm pretty impressed with the continual stream of new products and tweaks to existing products in Fatlandia.

    If we are sending letters to Santa: I'd like to see Jeff Jones tweak his spaceframe so you can fit a 4" tire on an 82mm rim in the rear.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'd like to see Jeff Jones tweak his spaceframe so you can fit a 4" tire on an 82mm rim in the rear.
    That would be a hit.
    The LPG

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,134
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    That would be a hit.
    Yes it would. I'd probably be forced to own one...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  25. #25
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    I based my 500 gm on my roval wheels
    They are 370 gm rims
    If you built a single walled rim with cutouts I think 500gm is possible
    I still refuse to ride carbon frames and bars....because of my tire addiction

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    461

    Soft Tail

    Forget carbon, a decent soft tail - with an air shock and lock out - will be the ticket. When the trails are full of frozen foot/hoof/whatever prints it can be very unpleasant. My old Turner snow bike really smooths things out, but the weight penalty is too much. Bring it on . . .

  27. #27
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfurry View Post
    Carbon requires a mold. Once you get enough product coming out of that mold. Things start getting economical.

    I'm not sure how many fat frames of each size you could hope to shift. But thats where crunch lies.

    Most of the big MTB innovations are already on their way into the fatbike world. Tubeless tires, belt-drive, adjustable head tube angles etc. etc. Those companys moving things forward have my respect and appreciation.

    Me. I want a quality, 170mm OLD, IGH. With a big range, and a massive chainline.
    Yes please

    This would solve ALOT of issues

    BUT... may kill my wallet
    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ozmosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    If we are sending letters to Santa: I'd like to see Jeff Jones tweak his spaceframe so you can fit a 4" tire on an 82mm rim in the rear.
    I took my steel diamond jones out in the snow for the first time last weekend, and a full fat jones is all I can think about now. (not that I could afford it...)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails So, who will be first with new innovative fat frames???-snojones.jpg  


  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    One note on the FS or front suspended fatty...

    I agree that tire cush on a fat bike is a great substitute for suspension...and low pressure makes perfect sense under a lot of conditions...

    But low pressure can also induce pretty significant undamped bobbing of the bike. If you want a fat bike that was more versatile for non-mud/snow riding, running the tires at a slightly higher pressure (20ish) with suspension would give great traction + lots of compliance in the ride, without bob.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ozmosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    287



  31. #31
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,623
    Is it wrong to think.......

    I look at the steel Jones Spaceframe......

    And think "it's STEEL".....

    How hard would it be to WIDEN the rear end........

    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    I'd like to see a simple hard tail, ft. suspended, XC version of the fat bike... like my custom. Built "around" the Maverick w/ higher BB, Quiker angles (not to steep though). Having this bike and a Fatback to compare, The XC version doesn't compare in true sand & snow riding... but it does circles around snow bike GEO on everything else and, like I've said, around here we often ride dirt & trails then snow for a while on a ridge (or the other side of a ridge) then back to XCish riding on the way back. I can tweak the saddle & bar possition and make it a little more "like" a snow/sand specific bike, but the high BB and steeper angles force too much weight on the ft. end to mach what they do. What this is, is a XC 29er w/ Floatation capabilities. An XC bike that can ride snow & sand & etc... on the same ride. Because of it's versatility, this bike has become my "go too" bike all year round... probably not going to win any races, but it CAN do it all.

    <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6454355555/" title="S1020085 by wardee61, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6454355555_54a59660fb_z.jpg" width="640" height="427" alt="S1020085"></a>

    <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6454369995/" title="S1020090 by wardee61, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6454369995_43efefce58_z.jpg" width="640" height="427" alt="S1020090"></a>

    For sand & snow specific rides, it's going to be hard to beat the ridged fat and super fat bike choices we've got now. Not sure if I want to deal w/ full susp. out in the sand & snow.
    Last edited by ward; 12-08-2011 at 01:42 PM.

  33. #33
    Hybrid Leftys aren't real Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,944
    A few thoughts.

    Of the brands mentioned, I think most will be several years off in terms of FS development. The smaller ones, like say, Lenz or Turner would be the guys to put pressure on. They build in small batches, and Lenz in particular has been known to think pretty far outside the box. The big boys want to see dollar signs before they will spend any time with R+D on something like this.

    Suspension. Yes, I have a bias here as I'm having clamps built to fit Leftys. That being said though, I'd like to politely disagree with juansevo that they don't have a place. They most certainly may not for him, where he rides, or the conditions he takes a fatty into, and that's cool.

    But, as these bikes become increasingly mainstream, riders will be taking them into more and more different environments. Much of this is really a porked up version of the rigid vs squish argument really. Since not all of us have wonderful soft, fresh packed powder, walked on exclusively by folks with snow shoes, we can end up with trails that while root, rock and obstacle free, are a ridiculous inverted version of the pave that they race Paris Roubaix on. Try 10 miles of up and down on frozen foot prints, and you'll appreciate some squish.

    Then, there's what suspension does, when added to a tire at say 8psi. Whole different beast. I'm doing stuff now in the dirt that either on skinny tired squishy bikes, or fat and rigid, that would have been done at a much slower pace. The confidence factor increase is just amazing.

    Kudos to all the thinkers, tinkerers and innovators out there, thanks for finally putting these things on the map in a big way. The next few years will now be exciting, I was really starting to dread the industries *innovation*, as it has simply become "hey, we dropped 28 grams off our frme this year", or "hey look, we added another gear this year"...
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  34. #34
    Bad cat!
    Reputation: montana_ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    357
    I'm having lots of fun on my Mukluk, but I'm with those who say suspension, a good front fork if nothing else. The simplicity of rigid is nice, no doubt about it, but if you spend much time riding around on chewed up, consolidated snow, it's clear damped suspension is so. Much. Better. Can't wait to rob the lefty off of of my prophet...

    Oh and a studded BFNate! The power and the glory...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hand/of/Midas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo View Post
    i have a few ideas I'm saving for 2013 NAHBS myself that will make your head spin. Meantime. Allow me to interject on what's going on now:

    "Innovative Fat Frame"-IMHO 9:Zero:7 is there already. Frame weight of a bit over 3.5lbs, a nice aluminum fork that dollar to pound ratio is the best. They got White Bro's to offer a carbon fork. The 2012 frames exhibit some great little tweaks and I'd say is the nicest production frame out there (Salsa didn't do too bad either).

    Carbon Frames-Expoxy has no issues with cold in the sense of the application. Keep in mind that at least the same carbon that people like ENVE use in their rims (and tubing they make for others) is aerospace grade...and in even applications that never break the atmosphere are subject to much greater cold than any fat bike would endure.

    That said, a carbon frame wouldn't be worth it. You'd be lucky to shave a full pound off a 9:Zero:7. And even if you could, titanium frames would make more sense for price...and you could get a custom ti frame for that.

    Suspension-Jeff Jones has proved (and if you talk to him he'll get into to details, or just buy the MIT Bicycle Science book...I did both) that the big tires are great for providing cush. It is a bit redid to suggest adding suspension really to these machines....though there is a fork in the works by a big name, I'm not sure it's necessary from my time on one. It's juts not the place. Kinda makes as much sense as suspension on a road bike. Carbon or ti posts and handlebars (as well as forks) is a great place for finding more cush in the ride...or drop the PSI some more.

    That said, if one looks at suspension in a different way than we've been taught there is then room for such that makes sense.

    Another thing, for now, is that though we've seen a huge jump in demand (almost every company is out of stock of L and XL frames for instance) and new players coming to the tire side of the game as well as new offerings from leader in all things fat....Surly. Expect to see rims/tire offerings grow as well as budget bikes ($800-$900 by next year). Expect to see new cranks offered. And Expect to see new forks.

    However, don't expect carbon frames or suspension anytime soon. If you do see carbon, it'll be in rims...the fat rim opens up possibilities that small road/mtb rims find difficult in lay up. Thing to remember is that fat bikes are still pretty cost prohibitive.....a Surly Pusgley build retails for $1500 with components you see typically at $500-$600. Get into a bit, like my 9:Zero:7 I just built up and you get close to $2500 pretty quick....and that's with 27tpi tires and a 30lb ish bike. For most, this is a 3rd or 4th or 5th bike...not the #1 bike or #2 bike in the stable. Carbon or suspension fames alone would beg $2500 price points alone. If justifiable at all.

    I agree with everything you said, well written. IMO Titanium is the perfect material for most cycling applications, it is the material that will be just as sexy in two decades as today, and just as durable.

    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo View Post
    Another thing, for now, is that though we've seen a huge jump in demand (almost every company is out of stock of L and XL frames for instance)

    .
    Except this, i still have so many XL bikes and frames! Are there no tall people in the midwest? LOL.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfurry View Post
    ...Me. I want a quality, 170mm OLD, IGH. With a big range, and a massive chainline.
    Me too, but then I realised that something that specialised will cost a fortune unless I built it on my CNC machine in the basement, and then I realised I don't have a basement or a CNC machine.

    In the meantime, how about a rear 177% range



    and a front that has a 250% range

    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Me too, but then I realised that something that specialised will cost a fortune unless I built it on my CNC machine in the basement, and then I realised I don't have a basement or a CNC machine.

    In the meantime, how about a rear 177% range
    I have looked at that. But for all the conditions, variations in load, and terrain. I hope to experiance I feel I need more range. Does appeal to the fixed roadie, and singlespeed XC'r in me though.

    Looks like I'm getting a custom fatbike frame made (still sinking in). I'm going 1x10, but will include sliders, just in case
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  38. #38
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,137
    I have to comment on a couple things....

    Cold + carbon parts = OK....It's not plastic here folks....no need to worry. If carbon handlebars & seatposts hold, up, a carbon frame will be fine. For those wanting to run full rigid, this may add some better feeling to all the bumps. (Yes, I know, the tires are FAT, but if you ride stuff other than snow & sand, you still feel it if you go out for a good 40 mile ride).

    Also, Full suspension, I think it definitely has a place here. Again, if you only ride in snow or sand, hey, rigid is fine! But these bikes are capable of riding all season in dirt as well, so why not? It is fun, I've been doing it all year

    I'm very happy with my bike, but if a FS version pops out guess what I'll be saving for? heh.

  39. #39
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,597
    My .02
    And seconding a few folks already:

    170mm IGH.

    And I like my rapidfire/thumbshifters so no dual cable or grip shift goofiness...And it has to use a lube that will play efficiently at -40....And not weigh 10lb...


    And a Big Fat Endomorph

    And GOOD SPD compatible boots. Nothing like spending a few hundred bucks on Lakes knowing they are just the best available......not super awesome. I can't give my wife $hit about buying shoes when I spend that kind of cash on a compromise.

    *edit* Was distracted by the Jones awesomeness and though this was an all encompassing Fatty-wishlist. And while I'm going that direction, tires that beef up the rim bead a bit. I have yet to see a fat tire with lots of low pressure miles that has a bead in better shape than the tread.

    My POV being that frames are easy since I have ZERO desire to add suspension, it's parts that need some evolution/innovation.
    Last edited by G-reg; 12-08-2011 at 08:29 PM.
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimhazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    300
    Maybe not innovative, but I want a frame set with:

    - 170mm symmetrical rear spacing
    - Surly Ogre/Troll dropouts
    - Rear disc brake inside the rear triangle
    - Clearance for BFLs in 100mm rims (I'll give up a cog or two, and 2xX is fine...)
    - Non- E-type derailleur options (like the Salsa/Problem Solvers mount)
    - Salsa Anything Cage triple bottle boss mounts on the inside downtube
    - 3rd bottle mounts under downtube
    - Regular seat tube bottle bosses
    - Bosses for mini-pump on seat stay
    - Barrel rack mounts on upper seat stays
    - Threaded fender boss on seat stay bridge
    - Spare spoke holder from Surly Disc Trucker, under both seat stays
    - Tall head tube, like the Chain Reaction 9:Zero:7
    - Standover balanced with larger main triangle area for a frame bag

    Fork:
    - Fork A-to-C to support 80mm 29er squishy fork (~468mm)
    - 135mm fork spacing, rear hub, front brake
    - Fork mounts for:
    - Anything Cages - 1 per side, at 135 and 225 degree angles from forward
    - Double (mid-low) through-blade threaded rack mounts
    - Barrel rack mounts, high by fork crown
    - Fender mounts - one on each dropout, threaded boss in crown

    Almost everything is already offered by someone, but not all in the same frame!
    Yes, I'm picky...

  41. #41
    Chad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    58
    Not un-reasonable....

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13
    Um, did anyone notice that the picture of the Jones bike had a fat front and a fat rear!

  43. #43
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,623
    YES !

    When did THAT appear !

    BUT ......it's NOT a SPACEFRAME
    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Feelygood ! View Post
    YES !

    When did THAT appear !

    BUT ......it's NOT a SPACEFRAME
    It's Jeff's personal rig and Sheila told me has no interest in selling it (to me at least)
    Ridin ridin ridin..... raw ti!

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Interesting use of braces at the BB on the Jones fattie. Also looks like it has tons of clearance because of it. Nice Job!
    The LPG

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozmosis View Post
    A spaceframe Ti Jones would be artistically sweeter, but I'd take that rig with no issues...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    What's goin' on with the OnOne "Rock Crawler" project?

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    I'd like to see a lot more inexpensive 170mm OLD hubs before I say I'd like a 170mm spaced frame. I'd love a 135mm dynamo hub.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    136
    I think something like a Pinion P1.18 gearbox and belt drive would be great, nearly maintence free drive train. Really expensive, but the usable 600% gear range is hard to beat.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    I think the companies hit pretty innovative this year from frames that fit the BFL's to the swoopy 907's. The new Fatbacks with the tapered steerer and direct mount fd and all the different tires offered.
    Totally! I'm happy to see the amount of progression from last year. Especially in the frame and tire department.
    The LPG

  51. #51
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,678
    I think the companies hit pretty innovative this year from frames that fit the BFL's to the swoopy 907's. The new Fatbacks with the tapered steerer and direct mount fd and all the different tires offered.

Similar Threads

  1. Truly Innovative Thinking
    By sopwithcamel in forum Titus
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 01:31 AM
  2. Innovative Bike Stuff
    By big_sur in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2007, 12:01 PM
  3. Innovative use of disc brakes!
    By Racer9 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-15-2004, 01:35 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.