Surly Moonlander 4.5" vs 3.7" Narrower Fat Bikes- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 108 of 108
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100

    Surly Moonlander 4.5" vs 3.7" Narrower Fat Bikes

    For those experienced with non-snow use of their Fat Bike...

    What will the wider Moonlander 4.5" inch tire REALISTICALLY do to improve "the ride" or your ride?

    I think snow use improvements are obvious & guaranteed, flotation too, but what about off snow?

    Ideas, comments, predictions, opinions...
    Last edited by deVries; 07-17-2011 at 04:56 PM.

  2. #2
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169
    I think if you ride trails, it's going to be worse.

    I already have a hard time in some rocky sections on my bike because the tires are too wide to fit between the rocks... and the rocks are too tall to go over top of.

    Didn't have this problem where I lived before, but this place has lots of silly tall narrow rocks.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mijstrat72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    58
    In snow, any amount of additional contact patch will have some benefit. Snow conditions vary greatly. What happens if you use the next size larger snowshoe? You'll float a bit bit, maybe not super noticeable, but it's there.

    I'm waiting for the "Surly Samsquanch" with the 8" tires! That will be some floatation worth writing home about!

  4. #4
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by mijstrat72 View Post
    In snow, any amount of additional contact patch will have some benefit. Snow conditions vary greatly. What happens if you use the next size larger snowshoe? You'll float a bit bit, maybe not super noticeable, but it's there.

    I'm waiting for the "Surly Samsquanch" with the 8" tires! That will be some floatation worth writing home about!
    Build a version of the triple rim/tire wheels of 15-20 years ago.

    The 4.5 tire in the middle and a 3.7 on each side.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  5. #5
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169

  6. #6
    PUG U!!!
    Reputation: joboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    192
    For snow the 4.5's with the 100mm clown shoe rims will be awesome.
    For the non snow riding I do, the 100mm rims would not last long under me. I'm 235#'s; and ride mostly very rocky terrain. I've been thinking about the 70-80mm rims for year round use, but would go no higher in rim width for the non snow months around my area.

    Peace

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    494
    I see these as mostly a gimmick. It reminds me of the lumen race There are some places that just aren't meant to be seen on a bike Personally I wish Schwalbe would get into the game. I'd like to see something like the Marathon Dureme, Marathon Plus HS or the tried and true XR.

    I think a 4.5 tire is going in the wrong direction for may fatbikers. We need more choices with quality tires for the bikes we already have. Maybe that's the real reason behind the 4.5 It's called product churning. It's called new and improved. It's called taking more hard earned money out of your wallet much like what the silly lumen race has done

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    First the Hype!

    Now the Letdown...

    Then the Truth?

    It seems logical to me that Surly will be offering their Black Floyd in
    two sizes; 4.5 & 3.8. Why would they 'lock out' thier own Pugs
    and other fat bikes for the use of that tread design? Everyone
    should be able to use the 3.8 size on the rear.

    Some things I do not follow, why go in the direction of increased
    frame and wheel offset; seems like Surly is going into new territory
    here. Wider hubs make for a stronger wheel, right?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    148
    I like quite a few guys (and girls) here in the UK tend to ride our fatbikes on the coast. Using the extra 'float' of Larry's and Endomorphs in the sand.

    I once managed to ride over a section of liquified sand without any problem, but when I went to walk over the same section I sank up to my knees in the sand/mud!! How much more float do we need, when we can ride over stuff we can't even walk over?

    Plus to limit the new tyres to a whole new frame-set only?! Personally I think it's a step too far. I'd rather see different tread options than new larger tyres! I love my Pug and can't see myself jumping to get a Moonlander.

  10. #10
    Lighten up.
    Reputation: mangoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,089
    The Surly blog post about the Moonlander cracked me up. Funniest post I've read in a while.

    That said, only thing I'm interested in is the Whirly double crankset. Would be great to hear it's light, too, but...I know better.

  11. #11
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,624
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    I predict the larger/stronger riders will like it just fine for everyday trails as long as it rolls as well as larry or endo. More cush and mad grip. How can you not like that? Plus it would be easy for them to toss on a pair of larry's for the better conditions.
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    runt riders like myself probably won't like the extra effort once off the sloppy stuff
    At 260lbs when it comes to tyres for sand riding, the fatter,the floatier, the better for me

    I do love my Pug but could be VERY tempted by the Moonlander as I do love the beach and love the idea of more float .
    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,126
    Im diving straight in having got a complete one on pre order,
    I dont think it will be a replacement for the pugsley which i ride over rocks and regular trails but i do have areas of soft sandy coast where even the pugsley struggles,

    I imagine it will be heavier and not as nice on regular trails and can see it as a bike i take to the beach on the car mostly if going far from home..., but i thought i would do that with the pugsley before it arrived and i cycle that everywhere ,

    For full on swamp munching and wet soft sand and powder dry dunes it should in theory rock
    I will be going daft on mine when it arrives to see what it can do
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Some things I do not follow, why go in the direction of increased frame and wheel offset; seems like Surly is going into new territory here. Wider hubs make for a stronger wheel, right?
    Pugs owners can please correct me if I'm wrong.

    It is my understanding that at the crank & BB the Pugs is NOT offset further to the right side for chain clearance. (The rear Pugs rim is "dished" or really offset about 17mm to the right to get chain clearance.)

    BUT...

    The new Moonlander will be offset at the BB/crank by some kind of "Whirly Double Crank"... mum is the word about that, right now, it's "top secret".

    My concern/question is...

    The Moonlander right-side offset is 28mm or so on the rear, so how much will the offset be on the right side of the BB/crankset too???... An inch or so 'there' too to the right of the frame/seat centerline?

    Does this mean my right leg/knee will be off-center vs left side; further to the right side than my left side when applying pedal motion, by about an inch to the right of frame/seat centerline too?

    I wonder what that will do to the mechanics of ones' hips & knees with years of wear/rotation different from left & right sides of the body???

    Or, is everything off-centered somehow "centered" with my seating vs left/right side hips, knees, feet width distances, so body, hip, knee rotation is identically spaced out & balanced from both the left & right sides too?

    Maybe the Whirly Double Crank thingy off-sets both to the left & right sides equally, so one needs wider hips to keep/maintain the same alignment (not possible) as using normally spaced apart cranks from left to right sides?

  14. #14
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,624
    I`ve had my hips upgraded in advance to `Moonlander` crank width spec
    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post
    Im diving straight in having got a complete one on pre order,
    Is pricing info available? Does your dealer get anymore new info about this bike?

    Love your vids man, awesome! In fact, your vids sold me on getting a Fat Bike. The ocean is 150+ miles away!

    With the Moonlander one can always have two sets or more of wheels... so I think I'm taking the plunge totally blind.

    I'm certain it's CRMO steel... that's all Surly does right?

    Anyone care to take a guess WHY Surly is sticking with 135mm dropouts in rear w/even fatter/wider tire?

    Save $$$ manufacturing? Still want/need to switch/interchange with front wheel? Has anyone found that useful for their Pugs front/rear switch-ups?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Feelygood ! View Post
    I`ve had my hips upgraded in advance to `Moonlander` crank width spec
    How much is your Moonlander going to be? Lol.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,155
    Quote Originally Posted by deVries View Post
    For those experienced with non-snow use of their Fat Bike...

    What will the wider Moonlander 4.5" inch tire REALISTICALLY do to improve "the ride" or your ride?
    I don't think anyone knows what will now be rideable until a bunch of 4.5" tired bikes are roaming the planet. When I got my Pugs I had to totally recalibrate for what was fun and rideable on sand/snow and dirt. The Pugs takes me further and to new places I could have never gone before, but I quickly learned that even the Pugs has a limit and there were places and conditions I didn't try riding with 3.7" tires.

    I'm not rushing out to buy a new fat tire rig, but it will be cool when the first 4.5" beasts start rolling over terrain that would stop my Pugs...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    494
    Not knocking the Moonlander for those who have a use, but seems to me this is such a small market. What's the economic incentive ? Sell new frames, forks and stuff To those who can benefit from the new fattest bike I say go for it. For me..well I'm ultra happy with my Pugs. If it can't get me there I don't need to go

    We need more tire selection for the bikes we already have. We don't need to upgrade simply because Surly hopes we'll all fall in line. One thing about fatbikes is we tend to think outside thee box. The 4.5 with it's promise of going where no fatbike has gone before is a brilliant marketing strategy. Let's not forget what we have now. If we do that market my dry up and we'll all be forced to ride 6" tires for the rest of our lives

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,604
    3.8" is 96.52mm

    4.5" is 114.3mm
    on a 135 hub that leaves 20.7mm to offset, without braking the plane of a straight line from the dropout forward.

    but we haven't put a 9/10 spd cassette on there yet. frame must be pretty odd looking to keep the chain off the tire!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    643
    My 10cents... I got rid of my Pug because 3.8's didn't make a huge amount of sense to trail ride with in my neck of the woods. Because of the weight and tire size, it was a limited platform. I don't see the Moonlander being any better other than for snow and sand.

    That said, Surly or any other company should come out with a 26x3.0 that doesn't weigh 1700gr. I've found running 2.5-2.7's on 44mm rims far more usable. Yea there isn't as much snow float, but the paths I have don't require 26x4.5 flotation in the winter.

    If anything, 3.0 needs to be explored, not 4.5.
    - The only thing that keeps me on a bike is happiness.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    For the snow conditions around here (West Virginia), we need all the float we can get. There are very few groomed trails and almost no snowmobiles, so we often have to break our own trail, or carefully ride in truck or ATV ruts. More float will definitely make snow riding around here more fun.
    Since nobody has actually seen the 4.5" tire yet, it shouldn't be assumed that it's actually going to measure out at 4.5 inches. Variance from the stated size is pretty common in the bicycle tire world. It's possible that, depending on rim width, it may fit some or all of the current production frames.

  21. #21
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,837
    My thing about riding fat bikes in on firm singletrack is that you're doing it because you like to. I too have found certain rock gardens are fat tire incompatible, but I find those sections to be an annoyance anyway (I have worse problems with derailleurs at that point).

    Saying that these new tires will be worse in summer is just an extension of that, and it boils down to air pressure tuning. Heck, maybe these tires will be better in terms of having more finite tuning from the increased volume.

    With respect to snow, I only weigh 170 and have punched the rear tire through the surface layer of semi packed snow more times than I'd like to remember. That punchy feeling is my least favorite sensation of snow biking.

    As far as market viability and profit, it's a niche of a niche, so I won't be surprised if the stuff is expensive (not to mention there is simply more raw material in the tires).

    All I know is I need to build bamboo fat MK II soon if I'm going to experiment with them =D - and that my Hammerschmidt with the stock 83mm BB isn't going to work =(

  22. #22
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by suba View Post
    Not knocking the Moonlander for those who have a use, but seems to me this is such a small market. What's the economic incentive ? Sell new frames, forks and stuff To those who can benefit from the new fattest bike I say go for it. For me..well I'm ultra happy with my Pugs. If it can't get me there I don't need to go
    Replace where you say "Pugs" with "my regular mountain bike", and you'd have the response a lot of folks had when they saw a Pugs for the first time. Or try these old complaints...

    Why have suspension when rigid works just fine?

    Why have 29"ers when 26"ers are just fine?

    See where this is going?

    While a lot of folks will grouse, and wish those resources were spent on "more for me" parts and accessories, a lot of folks actually will line up to get a Moonlander. I certainly can see the appeal after having tried riding snowmobile trails last winter.

    And finally, who said Surly isn't working on stuff you might want? (Not that I know anything, just sayin'. They did allude to having more up their sleeves, ya know.)
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    ...a lot of folks actually will line up to get a Moonlander. I certainly can see the appeal after having tried riding snowmobile trails last winter.
    I think you did this on your Salsa Mukluk? I enjoyed your Fat Bike articles, btw. Thanks.

    What solved the "which tire" quandary for me is I know I can order the Moonlander either as a complete bike or just the frame...

    Bottom line, I will have the option to start out on 4.5" tires or any other narrower size.

    My only remaining concern is this offset issue with the Twirly Double Cranks & how this will affect hip, knee, ankle rotation angles & alignment of left vs right sides. Surely, Surly, has solved this somehow, so it is a non-issue for body wear-n-tear & balanced spacing & movement on left vs right sides of our bodies, hips, knees, ankles, etc.

    Maybe Pugs will go on sale too?

  24. #24
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by deVries View Post
    I think you did this on your Salsa Mukluk? I enjoyed your Fat Bike articles, btw. Thanks.
    Thanks! I did do that on my Mukluk, which was about the last thing I did on it for a long time due to a hub problem.....

    But that is about to be put to rest soon, I hope. Soon the Snow Dog will be rumbling down the trails again, and hopefully I can re-fire the story I started back last winter.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    GT: Good to hear that Snow Dog will be on the trails again! Hope this means that everything
    worked out with PW to your satisfaction. If so, I hoped that they were able to find the cause.

    DeVries: Having the right side crank offset does not make any sense, IMO. Perhaps by
    offset they are refering to a wider BB spindle, therefore the crank is 'offset' from normal? Should
    we expect Surly not to choose their words carefully, and have their own fun at our expense?

    What would you do if you were Surly? Have some fun, and so it is.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    113
    I was always assuming that the offset simply meant the crank spider was different (not the crank) and that the small and mid ring were moved out where the mid and large ring on a triple would be. (or even further out.)

    I always wished somebody would make such a crank or even just the spider (for those cranks with replaceable spiders).

    It is a simple solution for those running 100 mm rims that still want to have 9 usable gears or even me running an 83 mm bottom bracket on my old Evingson frame (or apparently someone running 4.5" tires on "clownshoe" rims).

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    473
    ......
    Last edited by FTMN; 07-18-2011 at 08:33 PM.

  28. #28
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    GT: Good to hear that Snow Dog will be on the trails again! Hope this means that everything
    worked out with PW to your satisfaction. If so, I hoped that they were able to find the cause.

    .
    Actually, they finally decided to replace the entire hub and build my wheel again. Their head engineer made the decision, I guess. I just wish they would have taken my advice and done just that five months ago.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Why would they 'lock out' thier own Pugs
    and other fat bikes for the use of that tread design? Everyone
    should be able to use the 3.8 size on the rear.
    Quote Originally Posted by suba View Post
    We need more tire selection for the bikes we already have.
    Maybe I'm not completely understanding the above quoted statements, but the only info that I've seen regarding the new Black Floyd says it's a 3.8" tire.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    473
    I agree with other clydes that have posted here that the fatter tire is appreciated and will be an improvement for sand and snow riding.

    Also, for those that care about it, apparently the Q factor on the Moonlander is about 15mm wider.

    I think Surly builds stuff they'd like to ride, stuff that is cool and useful for the kinds of riding they do, then they sell it if they think people will buy it. I can see a fatter fatbike, with more float for snow, being something they'd find useful and like to ride.
    Last edited by FTMN; 07-18-2011 at 08:56 PM.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100

    2011 Study About Q Factors or That Surly Crank Offset Thing

    Quote Originally Posted by FTMN View Post
    Also, for those that care about it, apparently the Q factor on the Moonlander is about 15mm wider.
    Yeah, the "Twirly Whirly Double Crank Offset" probably is "balanced" (left-right crank sides) by extending the Q Factor outward on "both" sides equally for an extended offset to get chain clearance for the wider Moonlander 4.5".

    Here is an interesting abstract about a recent study regarding the efficiency of pedaling at different Q factors. ALL cyclists had the subjective feel that pedaling at narrower Q factors FELT BETTER or was more comfortable when pedaling. The wider Q factor causes a loss of efficiency of 19%, so this is a significant loss for those that race or want maximum endurance/performance gains.

    My concern is mainly with the wider Q factor, as not being as comfortable to ride on...

    Title of the paper: THE EFFECT OF Q FACTOR ON CYCLING PERFORMANCE
    Authors: Disley, B.X., Li, F.X.
    Institution: University of Birmingham
    Department: School of Sport and Exercise Sciences
    Country: United Kingdom
    Abstract text Introduction The term Q Factor on a bicycle describes the horizontal width between pedals, measured from the outside face of the crank, to the corresponding outside face on the opposite crank. The Q Factor of a crank determines where the foot is laterally positioned throughout the pedal stroke. Due to manufacturing constraints, no production bicycle has a Q Factor lower than 135mm and a typical Q Factor ranges from ~150mm for a road bicycle, up to ~180mm for a mountain bicycle. In the past, a number of world champion cyclists have used custom made bicycles with narrow Q Factors in order to improve performance. One of the rationales for this strategy is that the pedaling action would be more efficient, as force to the pedal would be applied closer to the plane of the crank. To date, there have been no scientific studies that explore the effect of manipulating Q Factor and its effect upon the cyclist. The aim of this study is to determine whether narrowing the Q Factor has a beneficial effect upon cycling performance variables and muscular activation. Methods 13 trained cyclists (6 male, 7 female; Age 22.5 ± 5.2; VO2max 56.7ml.kg.min-1 ± 5.0) volunteered for the study. Subjects pedaled at 60% of peak power output (PPO) for periods of 5min at 90 revolutions per minute (rpm), using Q Factors of 90, 120, 150 and 180mm (q90, q120, q150, q180). Each Q Factor was used twice for a total of 8 stages. Power output and expired gas data were collected and muscular activity data of the gastrocnemius (GM), tibialis anterior (TA), vastus medialis (VM) and vastus lateralis (VL) were measured using surface EMG sensors. Gross mechanical efficiency (GME) was calculated from the expired gas and power output data, and root mean square (RMS) muscular activity data were calculated over a time period of 30 pedal cycles during each stage. Results There was an overall significant difference for GME (F(1,3)=9.19, p=.001, effect size =.43). Post hoc comparison showed that GME for q90 was significantly higher (19.5%) than q150 and q180 (18.9 and 19.0%). All subjects reported a dislike of q180, and preferred either q120 or q90. There was no significant difference in RMS muscular activity of the GM, TA, VM and VL between the different Q Factors. Discussion The aim of this study was to explore the effect of Q Factor on cycling performance at submaximal intensity. The data show that narrower Q Factors (q90 and q120) result in higher GME than wider Q factors (q150 and q180), supporting the hypothesis. However, the level of muscular activation between Q Factors in the muscles analysed (GM, TA, VM and VL) did not change. Therefore, the increase in GME with narrower Q Factors may be due to a) a change in activation of stabilising muscles (besides those measured in this experiment), and/or b) a more optimal application of force during the pedal stroke.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Actually, they finally decided to replace the entire hub and build my wheel again. Their head engineer made the decision, I guess. I just wish they would have taken my advice and done just that five months ago.
    Can you inform us with likely possibilities as to what happened when the hub failed or probable cause or if there was a way to prevent that failure?

    Thanks!

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    349
    Since I do not have a fat bike yet I am wondering if I should wait for this or just grab a Mukluk.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by yakkoTDI View Post
    Since I do not have a fat bike yet I am wondering if I should wait for this or just grab a Mukluk.
    Well let's assume the Moonlander and Mukluk2 arrive at the same time (guessing october). Both will probably be over $2100 (again a guess).

    You'll be able to buy used Mukluk1s and Pugsleys for $1200-1500.

    Is ultimate fattness worth a $600 to $900 premium? To some, absolutely. To the rest of us, the Mukluk/Pugsley/fatback/etc is doing just fine. There will certainly be trade-offs. It will depend on your budget and riding conditions.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  35. #35
    M8 M12 M15 deez nuts
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    8,163
    It things wind up being possible such that this new wide-ass tire can fit within the confines of a stock Pugsley front fork when mounted on a “skinny” Large Marge rim, then I will strongly consider upgrading the front tire from a Larry to this new fandangled wide-ass-mutha tire option.
    Don’t frail and blow if you’re going to Braille and Flow.

  36. #36
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,697
    Hrmm, I wonder if this tire will fit in an Enabler fork when mounted to a Large Marge???

    Looks like a good time to be getting into fatness!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    For those who can't see the point in the wider tyres - lift up your eyes from what you're riding on. Look to the side.

    See all those boggy bits? All those bits with deep sand or gravel?

    You know, the bits you can't ride on? They're everywhere.

    That's why you need a fatterbike. Quadruples your riding area.

    As for the Q factor. That really applies to road type cycling and not much to riding a bike through difficult terrain. There's not many occasions I spend sitting on the saddle putting in any significant effort. If there's effort involved, I'm usually out of the saddle.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,126
    Hurry up surly!!!! itchin for this...
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  39. #39
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post

    That's why you need a fatterbike.

    New genre name discovered!
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  40. #40
    Just Ride!
    Reputation: Pigtire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    806
    If this bike/tire will be the answer to the deep sand around here that stops Larry & Endo on it's tracks I'll be doing the " Eeny Meeny Min Moe which bike has to go" dance.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    New genre name discovered!
    OK, FatterBike ™

    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  42. #42
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Pigtire View Post
    If this bike/tire will be the answer to the deep sand around here that stops Larry & Endo on it's tracks I'll be doing the " Eeny Meeny Min Moe which bike has to go" dance.
    Fie fy fo fum, wich bike is the next to come ?

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    As for the Q factor. That really applies to road type cycling and not much to riding a bike through difficult terrain. There's not many occasions I spend sitting on the saddle putting in any significant effort. If there's effort involved, I'm usually out of the saddle.
    But, there are two aspects to the Q Factor, and you are addressing one of these: That the 19% loss in efficiency is no big deal for off road.

    The other subjective & "bad" aspect may be a real negative "feel" about riding a wider Q Factor. ALL the participants in that study did not like the wide Q Factor position, so this means there is some level of discomfort or something not feeling right compared to normal width Q Factors. For some people this will obviously be or become an issue of not feeling right IF Moonlander has a significantly wider Q Factor than Pugs, etc.

  44. #44
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by deVries View Post
    But, there are two aspects to the Q Factor, and you are addressing one of these: That the 19% loss in efficiency is no big deal for off road.

    The other subjective & "bad" aspect may be a real negative "feel" about riding a wider Q Factor. ALL the participants in that study did not like the wide Q Factor position, so this means there is some level of discomfort or something not feeling right compared to normal width Q Factors. For some people this will obviously be or become an issue of not feeling right IF Moonlander has a significantly wider Q Factor than Pugs, etc.
    If you read the specs for the study, you may note that the cyclists that were tested were all avid riders - and I infer road cyclists. Their practice would all be with a narrow Q factor, and any deviation from their "norm" would be less comfortable and less efficient.

    Biomechanically, your best Q should be based on the geometry of your hips and legs. The same can be said for crank length, and yet many folks "run with they got", and don't like anything different - at least at first..
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    Good point, Wadester!

    As for myself, I have always resolved it this way: What is your natural stance?
    That is, how far do your feet stand apart with a relaxed stance? I measure about
    7 1/2" or 190mm.

    Until I read about the matter, I had never concerned myself with it.

    If someone naturaly stands with their feet very close together, then I could see a
    reason for concern until tried and proven one way or the other. Perhaps if someone
    who has had problems could report back as to how they naturaly stand?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    When I'm out of the saddle, I'm stomping straight down because the bike is angled from side to side. Which probably gives an effective Q factor of zero

    I know I don't spend much time in the saddle because I can do a 24hour on an I-Fly I-beam saddle (and I don't used padded knicks), but a few hours on the road with the same saddle and it's agony.

    With a wide Q factor, there's probably a lot to be said for not clipping in.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    If you read the specs for the study, you may note that the cyclists that were tested were all avid riders - and I infer road cyclists. Their practice would all be with a narrow Q factor, and any deviation from their "norm" would be less comfortable and less efficient.

    Biomechanically, your best Q should be based on the geometry of your hips and legs. The same can be said for crank length, and yet many folks "run with they got", and don't like anything different - at least at first..
    Scientifically, the study provides evidence cyclists are more efficient with a narrower Q Factor, period imo, and this is a verification as to why "racers in the know" go with a narrower Q Factor.

    Since this efficiency factor appears to be true & this is NOT subjective or what someone is used to, that is approximately 19% more efficient with narrower Q, then your logic does not hold true, IMO . Why?

    It has more to do with the rotation AND the fact you step & walk with feet much closer together (narrower Q) when walking vs stance/standing. Walking is more akin to pedaling -which has a much narrower "Q Factor" vs stance or hip width geometry.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    686
    The Q Factor is probably significant to some riders, though I did not really notice it when I got my Pugsley. Having long legs should help in this matter. Still, the one on the Pugsley is probably at the limit of what is reasonable.

    Does anyone know for sure that the Q Factor of the Moonlander is higher? One rumour said that the new crank does away with the big ring and places the corresponding granny ring and middle ring outwards, which would make sense at least to me. It should correct for the ~10 mm larger offset of the rear. Another matter is of course why Surly chose to go with the offset thing. It made perfect sense on the Pugsley, but 28 mm on the Moonlander? Doesn't this affect the wheel strength more than marginally?
    My outdoor blog: www.yetirides.com

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Outsider View Post
    Does anyone know for sure that the Q Factor of the Moonlander is higher? One rumour said that the new crank does away with the big ring and places the corresponding granny ring and middle ring outwards, which would make sense at least to me. It should correct for the ~10 mm larger offset of the rear. Another matter is of course why Surly chose to go with the offset thing. It made perfect sense on the Pugsley, but 28 mm on the Moonlander? Doesn't this affect the wheel strength more than marginally?
    Quoting from the blog: "The frame’s 28mm offset and the Whirly Offset Double crank allow room for such big rubber without chain rub. You’ll also be pleased to know that the fork (symmetrical blades, no offset) operates using a 135mm hub but unlike the Pug fork will use a front disc caliper adapter. The rear dropouts are the same as the Pug."

    So, Surly changed the FF to have NO offset. AND, the rear dropouts are the same as Pugs. Are Pugs rear dropouts offset -or- is it just the rim holes for spokes that are offset? IF it is the latter for Pugs, just spoke holes offset -not dropouts too, then there's going to be a 28mm offset to get chain clearance I would assume from the spoke hole offset.

    How is it done on the Pugs with rear dropouts? Are the frame rear dropouts also offset too?

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,604
    I'm assuming they are keeping the ability to swap front and rear wheels, so if the front fork no longer has the offset built in, this should clue us in to whats happening in the rear, no?

    But, my geometry skills are failing me this morning. Spent all my neurons pushing pixels around last night.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    686
    The Pugsley dropouts are offset 17.5 mm to the right, to make the chain clear the tire. The wheel is offset back to the left to sit in the middle of the frame and the rims have the spoke holes offset to avoid to bad spoke angles. This applies both front and back.

    I would think that the fatter rubber really means that the offset had to be increased (to 28 mm) and the new crank also supports this. A symmetrical 135 mm front means that the ability to swap front and rear wheels is no longer supported.

    This is how I understood it, without much knowledge or even interest in bike technology.
    My outdoor blog: www.yetirides.com

  52. #52
    It aint gonna ride itself
    Reputation: MauricioB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by bmike View Post
    I'm assuming they are keeping the ability to swap front and rear wheels, so if the front fork no longer has the offset built in, this should clue us in to whats happening in the rear, no?
    No, it sounds like the rear is offset 28mm and the front is symmetrical, so the wheels will be front- and rear-specific.

    FWIW, I've never thought that was such a big advantage for most of us anyway. I thought they made the front 135 OLD primarily to make it easier to get the wheel past a disk caliper and that the wheel-swapping thing was an afterthought.

    Also, I would tend to agree with other posters who think the Moonlander crank will shift the rings to the outer position and not increase the spindle length or bias the crank to the drive side.

  53. #53
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    The offset of the rear DO's to allow a 135mm OLD hub to be used was a great boon to early adopters - clearance of a 170 symmetrical hub w/o the cost or scarcity. Now Surly's doing the same thing for the equivalent of a 190mm OLD sym - but still using the common 135 hub. Great for cost, but the spoke drilling of the rim will have to be offset - which hasn't been a problem with current LargeMarge and some other redrillers of wider rims.

    The front/rear interchange thing wasn't a bad idea, but I haven't really heard anyone talk about using it. They offer Pugs forks in 135 offset, 135 sym, and 100 sym. Both the sym forks use "front" caliper mounting - so they're just pairing the Moonlander with the 135 sym fork.

    I also agree with other posters who think the Moonlander crank will shift the rings to the outer position and not increase the spindle length or bias the crank to the drive side. We've heard the conservative outcry against a wider Q - what would be said about UNEVEN Q? Horrors!
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  54. #54
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,624
    I keep finding myself in the garage,looking at the Pugs rear spacing .......and thinking "what if I bolt the rear dropouts in place at 135mm and insert a car jack between the stays, just where the max width of BFL would be and crank gently ???

    After all `steel is real`
    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  55. #55
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,624
    And for those interested, there IS enough clearance for the chain if running an Alfine on Large Marge.........IF I can persuade BFL to fit !!!

    May have to grease the stays
    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jfkbike2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by OmaHaq View Post

    If anything, 3.0 needs to be explored, not 4.5.
    +1. I also would like to see a reasonably light 3.0 or at least a 2.7+ which I think would be a great rigid tire for most folks. Not snow or "beach" sand but for everything in between. Or better yet a 29" x 3.0 tire....and some nice strong 48 - 52mm rims.

  57. #57
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jfkbike2 View Post
    Or better yet a 29" x 3.0 tire....and some nice strong 48 - 52mm rims.
    Kris Holm 47mm 29er rim comes in 32h.

    A 29x3 would be awesome, but it that going to fit in the current Fat frames?

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Feelygood ! View Post
    ....and thinking "what if I bolt the rear dropouts in place at 135mm and insert a car jack between the stays, just where the max width of BFL would be and crank gently ???...
    That's my sort of thinking

    Just make sure there's enough vertical height clearance too. The diameter is sure to be bigger, and the wide point may be higher.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by jfkbike2 View Post
    I also would like to see a reasonably light 3.0 or at least a 2.7+ which I think would be a great rigid tire for most folks. Not snow or "beach" sand but for everything in between.
    Two currently available options for something along those lines are the Black Panther and Bull Lock from Vredestein. Both are high volume 2.35" tires and weigh less than 700 grams.

    They aren't as fat as true 3.0s and don't give you typical "fat bike" fatness, but they measure out to about 2.95" (72mm) on Large Marges. If you are running 70mm rims or narrower they might be worth checking out.

    The Black Panther has a narrow, continuous tread running down the center and rolls very nicely. The Bull Lock is much knobbier. Not sure how well they'd hold up to trails with sharp rocks... the sidewalls are somewhat exposed.

    I bought some after reading this thread.


    Not the best pics of the tires, but here they are mounted on Large Marges (on the rear)...

    Black Panther:


    Bull Lock:

  60. #60
    M8 M12 M15 deez nuts
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    8,163
    It would be nice to found out how wide (outer sidewall to outer sidewall) the new 4.5" wide tire is when mounted to a “skinny” 65mm wide Large Marge rim. I am curious if this would clear on my 2010 Pugsley’s front fork.
    Don’t frail and blow if you’re going to Braille and Flow.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopold Porkstacker View Post
    It would be nice to found out how wide (outer sidewall to outer sidewall) the new 4.5" wide tire is when mounted to a “skinny” 65mm wide Large Marge rim. I am curious if this would clear on my 2010 Pugsley’s front fork.
    I assure you, you are not the only one anxious awaiting an answer that.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  62. #62
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by deVries View Post
    Scientifically, the study provides evidence cyclists are more efficient with a narrower Q Factor, period imo, and this is a verification as to why "racers in the know" go with a narrower Q Factor.

    Since this efficiency factor appears to be true & this is NOT subjective or what someone is used to, that is approximately 19% more efficient with narrower Q, then your logic does not hold true, IMO . Why?

    It has more to do with the rotation AND the fact you step & walk with feet much closer together (narrower Q) when walking vs stance/standing. Walking is more akin to pedaling -which has a much narrower "Q Factor" vs stance or hip width geometry.
    Though Specialized's biomech expert (Pruitt) adjusted Mark Cavendish's position by WIDENING his drivetrain's Q-factor.
    http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...ialized_183644
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    We've heard the conservative outcry against a wider Q - what would be said about UNEVEN Q? Horrors!
    My incline shaft drive bike has a fairly pronounced uneven Q factor (due to the bevel gear housing that replaces the chainrings). I don't really notice it, but I generally ride the bike no more than five miles at a time, and varying Q factor has never bothered me much anyway.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13
    I belive that you missunderstud science article.
    They measured how much of energy you spent is transformend into kinetic energy on pedals. With q factor of 90mm 19.5% of overal spent energy trasfered to pedals. With q factor of 150 you got 18.9%, And with 180mm yo got 19%. This results are within normal errors, so in my opinion it showed nothing. It said that you got more efficiency with q factor of 180 than 150. Minimal theoreticaly possible q factor on MTB being around 150 so you can comfortably interpret to yourself that posible real values of q factor (being 150-200mm) is irrelevant to efficiency.
    They had good idea for study, but they didn't make it too well. They didn't get any (good) conclusion.
    I like my q factor low, but I didn't found any difference in speed having 150 or 180mm q factor cranks.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    52
    Back to 4.5" tyres, it seems to me it's 20% wider, probably 20% taller, hence 44% more volume & possibilty of 31% lower pressures.

    Initially I thought the extra 20% wouldn't make a huge difference but the (empirical) figures and calculations above suggest it would be significant.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alaskairhog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    143
    It's funny to see so many people's opinion that there is no use for a 4.5" tire. I wasn't into biking yet when the fat bike craze first started, but I imagine the same was said about our current 3.7/3.8 inch tires. I definately have similar thoughts about how will this handle in certain situations but then I also think about my experience with snowmachines. I've had a 162" track mountain sled. It wasn't long ago that 144" was a LONG track and anything longer people swore it wouldn't be able to turn and it was just too long. My snowmachine handles and carves turns amazingly and it will climb and ride through deep power further than any 144" track. That being said, there are different types of sleds built for different purposes. Just like bikes, there are many types out there to suit different styles or riding and terrian.
    4.5" will be awesome in the snow I assume!

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskairhog View Post
    It's funny to see so many people's opinion that there is no use for a 4.5" tire....
    Luckily no-one will be forced to buy them.

    Which leaves them for those of us who will have a use for them.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,243
    Quote Originally Posted by janbo View Post
    I belive that you missunderstud science article.
    They measured how much of energy you spent is transformend into kinetic energy on pedals. With q factor of 90mm 19.5% of overal spent energy trasfered to pedals. With q factor of 150 you got 18.9%, And with 180mm yo got 19%. This results are within normal errors, so in my opinion it showed nothing. It said that you got more efficiency with q factor of 180 than 150. Minimal theoreticaly possible q factor on MTB being around 150 so you can comfortably interpret to yourself that posible real values of q factor (being 150-200mm) is irrelevant to efficiency.
    They had good idea for study, but they didn't make it too well. They didn't get any (good) conclusion.
    I like my q factor low, but I didn't found any difference in speed having 150 or 180mm q factor cranks.
    I wonder how much they spent on the study? I am also a bit troubled that an institute devoted to sports study and research could talk about "significant" improvement in energy between two test results that are in fact not even statistically different.
    Their data may be good. Unfortunately the way they report their conclusions leads people (several in this thread alone) to totally misinterpret their results.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DOOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    33
    protect yourself

    Can we never use Q factor and pugsley in the same, anything... Again?!

  70. #70
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    Any new moonlander news or rumors? I've resisted the fat in the past but have a standing order a the LBS....Moonlander XL Complete...don't call with a price, just ORDER! I have fat fever. Fever of the fat. And I'm a vegetarian. Weird.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    The Surly website was updated with all the juicy details and full specs.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  72. #72
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy View Post
    Any new moonlander news or rumors? I've resisted the fat in the past but have a standing order a the LBS....Moonlander XL Complete...don't call with a price, just ORDER! I have fat fever. Fever of the fat. And I'm a vegetarian. Weird.
    I ordered a moonlander, and paid upfront, £1,999 for a complete bike.

    (£700 if you just want the frame)

    Been told late December, early January delivery.
    2014 milage so far - 2,485
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  73. #73
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by saltyman View Post
    I ordered a moonlander, and paid upfront, £1,999 for a complete bike.

    (£700 if you just want the frame)

    Been told late December, early January delivery.
    Do you have both a moonlander and a pugs on order?

  74. #74
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy View Post
    Do you have both a moonlander and a pugs on order?
    Yes but both orders are with different uk dealers.
    2014 milage so far - 2,485
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  75. #75
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    Now you've got to expand on that a bit....two fat bikes on order? What is up with that?

  76. #76
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy View Post
    Now you've got to expand on that a bit....two fat bikes on order? What is up with that?
    One for my home, one to keep at the girlfriends.
    2014 milage so far - 2,485
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  77. #77
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    One at home, one at the girlfriends, sounds good!

    But hey I need some rumors! Sightings in the wild! A ride report for cripes sake!

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13
    I wasn't sure where to post this.

    An interesting comparison on 3.8" (actually 3.7" no?) vs. 4.8" (actually 4.7" no?) volume comparisons.

    I'm not numerically inclined but I wasn't expecting a 1.6x(ish) increase in tire volume.

    Edit: this isn't my graph - I found it elsewhere.

    Last edited by hawss; 09-19-2011 at 02:53 PM.

  79. #79
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    24L of volume? Damn!

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Desert Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    372

    Thats ridiculous

    24 liters? No way.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Volume of a torus:


    I get approx 26 litres
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    582
    I've been thinking about this Q factor thing... years ago, when I first went on a snowshoeing trek I woke up the day afterwards with sore muscles and knees. Never mind that I was extremely fit at the time, working 6 months in a row with almost no days off as a mountain and canyoneering guide. I thought I'd never be able to complete that week long snowshoe trek... I was just forcing musles, ligaments, whatever... tendinitis loomes ahead... After a few days the soreness was gone and I was trotting along as happy as before .

    I've always kept this in mind when people started to ***** about Q factors and efficiency loss: as a cyclist/biker you've adapated your body muscles and position through many, ma thousands of cyclic movements. OFCOURSE you're going to notice it when you switch positions, ofcourse you'll experience a loss in efficiency and feel some discomfort. That's perfectly normal. You'll even run into health trouble if you overdo it right away.
    But it's nothing a ,little training can sort out.

    Recently a friend wanted to participate in a race on a Sandman fatbike, but he was very hesitant because he's a really short guy with delicate knees. He's been racing road and mountainbikes for as long as he can remember (he's 37 now), on a quite high level having participated in world cup races. He knows everything about position calculation, crank lengths and yes... Q factors...

    I told him to take it easy, to start the week with an easy spin, maybe 20 k's and gradually build it up. In the next weekend, only 5 days later, he succesfully participated in a 3-day marathonbike race , wondering afterwards why he had ever been worried about his knees and Q factors

    I'm wondering too... if you'd repeat Q factor tests with people really accustomed to wide BB's ? Would they feel narrower crank setups "uncomfortable" ?
    Would their bodies experience a slight drop in output efficiency ?

    Or if you'd let confirmed "narrow Q factor" cyclists train a few weeks with a wider Q factor, if their efficiency would still be slightly lower ?

    Aren't we doing something wrong when asking a cyclist whose whole body, joints and muscles are accustomed to a very repetitive movement, to suddenly switch position and then ask what he/she feels like ? And on top of that start measuring the efficiency of the new movement without any training ?

    I've never, ever heard a novice cyclist complain about a too wide a Q factor. I've never heard my kids complain about wide Q factors (if we would copy their cycling stance as adults, we'd have to install BB's a foot wide !).

    Just food for thought...

  83. #83
    100+ wheel-build club
    Reputation: johnny settle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    Fatter tires, hell yeah! I ride in Wisconsin. I bought my Pugsley last year so I would NEVER have to ride a trainer again! (I mean how many times can a guy watch VHS re-runs of the '98 Liege-Bastogne-Liege and stay sane?! I ride in snow, BIG, FAT, WISCONSIN SNOW! The first thing I noticed about the Pugs, (besides how amazingly fun it is!), (ok I guess that makes it the second thing), is that it needed fatter tires to loft over the really deep stuff-like lake snow and drifts in the woods. What do you know, POW-fatter tires this year! Thank you Surly, a 5" tire and 100mm rim will be going on the front as soon as available. Also, YES-more tire mfg's. need to get in the game. Schwalbe, Michelin, Hutchinson. They will catch on soon as fat bikes are here to stay. How great would a 5" small block 8 be-although it might need to be a small block 16! My guess is that Surly will eventually begin producing their own front and REAR hubs and go to a non-offset frame. Anyone who owns a Pugsley knows how strange they handle on the tight singletrack. Surly rocks and the fat bikes will continue to evolve and improve. How about that Ogre? Ogre fat bike? Big Dummy fat bike? FAT, FAT, FAT!!! (Bikes). PS- I encourage everyone to attend next years Gnome Fest at Levis Mounds, WI. Fat bike oriented party in the woods surrounded by great trails. Ride, drink, party, repeat. (GNOME-FEST OCHO - September 9 - 11). Ride on!
    Last edited by johnny settle; 09-20-2011 at 11:03 AM.
    "Go that way REAL FAST, if something gets in your way... turn".

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    65
    Here's the math, assuming that the average diameter of the torus is 27.5 inches. It comes to 24.5 liters.

    http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=(4.7inches+%2F2)+^2+*+pi+*+27.5inches+*+pi

  85. #85
    100+ wheel-build club
    Reputation: johnny settle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    Surly, no B.S. unless you deserve it.
    "Go that way REAL FAST, if something gets in your way... turn".

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    "Thats ridiculous"

    do some math...it's actually quite impressive
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  87. #87
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny settle View Post
    Fatter tires, hell yeah! I ride in Wisconsin. I bought my Pugsley last year so I would NEVER have to ride a trainer again! (I mean how many times can a guy watch VHS re-runs of the '98 Liege-Bastogne-Liege and stay sane?! I ride in snow, BIG, FAT, WISCONSIN SNOW! The first thing I noticed about the Pugs, (besides how amazingly fun it is!), (ok I guess that makes it the second thing), is that it needed fatter tires to loft over the really deep stuff-like lake snow and drifts in the woods. What do you know, POW-fatter tires this year! Thank you Surly, a 5" tire and 100mm rim will be going on the front as soon as available. Also, YES-more tire mfg's. need to get in the game. Schwalbe, Michelin, Hutchinson. They will catch on soon as fat bikes are here to stay. How great would a 5" small block 8 be-although it might need to be a small block 16! My guess is that Surly will eventually begin producing their own front and REAR hubs and go to a non-offset frame. Anyone who owns a Pugsley knows how strange they handle on the tight singletrack. Surly rocks and the fat bikes will continue to evolve and improve. How about that Ogre? Ogre fat bike? Big Dummy fat bike? FAT, FAT, FAT!!! (Bikes). PS- I encourage everyone to attend next years Gnome Fest at Levis Mounds, WI. Fat bike oriented party in the woods surrounded by great trails. Ride, drink, party, repeat. (GNOME-FEST OCHO - September 9 - 11). Ride on!
    This is great, an enthusiastic post that goes off on some tangents. In the absence of any real rumors, I appreciate this post!

    Joe

  88. #88
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,686
    Quote Originally Posted by saltyman View Post
    One for my home, one to keep at the girlfriends.
    Get more girlfriends=get more bikes

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Looking at that graph again, I can see why almost fat (3") tyres don't work so well.

    3" = abt 9 litres, 3.7" = abt 14 litres, and 4.5" = 24 litres.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  90. #90
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by empire_builder View Post
    Here's the math, assuming that the average diameter of the torus is 27.5 inches. It comes to 24.5 liters.

    http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=(4.7inches+%2F2)+^2+*+pi+*+27.5inches+*+pi
    And a point of reference: A two liter pop bottle is ~110mm in diameter.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  91. #91
    no dabs
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic-al View Post
    Back to 4.5" tyres, it seems to me it's 20% wider, probably 20% taller, hence 44% more volume & possibilty of 31% lower pressures.

    Initially I thought the extra 20% wouldn't make a huge difference but the (empirical) figures and calculations above suggest it would be significant.
    I got really excited when I read this, but it isn't really all that... well... correct. The 3.8" casing is ~4.25" wide at low pressure on a 100mm rim. The 4.5" tire measures 4.7" on a 100 mm rim at high pressure. That's maybe 8% wider, less than 2% taller, ~16% more volume (really roughly). Depending on the situation, more air volume means we will need HIGHER pressure to prevent pinch flats. The greater width and diameter do allow lower pressure on soft surfaces, but the greater air volume means less insulation against bottoming the rim over the occasional submerged rock or log.

    Still excited... I guess i should go mount one up and try it out instead of pondering....

  92. #92
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    If you're buying a fat bike...you might as well get the moonlander over the pugs, right? Because you could always run the more narrow tire on the ML but you couldn't run the wider tire on the pugs. Other than expense is there any disadvantage?

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jfkbike2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,046
    [QUOTE=rocwandrer;8494761 The greater width and diameter do allow lower pressure on soft surfaces, but the greater air volume means less insulation against bottoming the rim over the occasional submerged rock or log.
    [/QUOTE]

    Think you are missing something there in your equation.... not an engineer but it seems they can run lower pressures due to distributing the load/force over a larger area...

  94. #94
    no dabs
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by jfkbike2 View Post
    Think you are missing something there in your equation.... not an engineer but it seems they can run lower pressures due to distributing the load/force over a larger area...
    As it happens, I am an engineer. Your statement is correct, so I think maybe you just misunderstood me. The larger tire has a great deal more flat resistance at the same pressure over flat-ish obstacles than a smaller tire because as loads increase, the higher volume tire spreads out a lot for a small percentage decrease in the distance from the contact patch to the rim. This implies we can run lower pressures, which is true. But, as the area increases/pressure decreases, it also becomes easier for a point load, such as a rock, to intrude into the tire without having to deform the entire tire contact patch to do so. You could think of it like this: as the obstacle becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the contact patch area, and the pressure per unit area is lower, the tire is less able to resist intrusion over a small area.

    When you ride your fat bike off a 4" curb, it is a little smoother than it would be on an otherwise similar skinny tired bike, right? But the same comparison over a 4" log (or even perhaps up the 4" curb) shows the fat bike has a lot better suspension. It is this same mechanism that means we don't get linear decreases in minimum pressure for increases in air volume.

    I'm north of 250 lb and I was running ~3 psi in endos on 100mm rims with success in soft snow. At that point, the only thing I'm concerned about in a bigger tire is the widest point in the casing moving further from the bead seat, as that is what will let me run lower pressures. If I could somehow have reduced air volume (perhaps a rim insert or something) without changing the tire casing, that would let me run less air pressure by itself. I guess I was a bit nit picking, but more air volume is not the solution for running lower pressures, it is an undesirable consequence of the positive changes that let us run lower pressures. Go back to ~2" wide tires, and none of the above really applies.

  95. #95
    100+ wheel-build club
    Reputation: johnny settle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    You CAN fit the new Big Fat Larry on a Pugsley with Large Marge 65mm rims. You can also fit a Big Fat Larry on a Clown Shoe 100mm, which significantly increases the footprint for max float, IF you get a Moonlander fork. So us Pug owners have options to improve floatation on existing rigs without replacing. The price difference is big though. Pug @ $1550 and Moonlander @ $2350. The moonlander has the sweet Mr Whirly and better rims-otherwise the same specs. I am going to start with putting a Big Fat on the front and test that out. ($140). If that's not enough float then I am going to replace the whole front end-front wheel, tire, and fork and go for it all. I think that conversion would run about $500. See, nothing wrong with my Pug! Does anyone else dislike the "space" moonlander paint scheme?
    "Go that way REAL FAST, if something gets in your way... turn".

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jfkbike2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by rocwandrer View Post
    But, as the area increases/pressure decreases, it also becomes easier for a point load, such as a rock, to intrude into the tire without having to deform the entire tire contact patch to do so.
    Understood.... but in my simple way of looking at things.... I would think that with a BFL vs. a Larry even with a sharp point load impact, that the deflection it would cause in the tire casing would be a steeper "V" (cone actually) for the Larry and the BFL would be somewhat less steep, thus transferring the impact force over an effective larger area... I may be wrong!

  97. #97
    100+ wheel-build club
    Reputation: johnny settle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by jfkbike2 View Post
    Understood.... but in my simple way of looking at things.... I would think that with a BFL vs. a Larry even with a sharp point load impact, that the deflection it would cause in the tire casing would be a steeper "V" (cone actually) for the Larry and the BFL would be somewhat less steep, thus transferring the impact force over an effective larger area... I may be wrong!

    Yes, but 98.763125% of the time, the object which punctures a Larry will also get his big fat brother too! Hope for the best and expect the worse!
    "Go that way REAL FAST, if something gets in your way... turn".

  98. #98
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny settle View Post
    Does anyone else dislike the "space" moonlander paint scheme?
    You don't like metalflake black? Beats that babypoo mustard color they had on the Pugs by a mile. I could think of better colors (Chumbucket Red, Methteeth Green) in their own palette, but not bad.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  99. #99
    100+ wheel-build club
    Reputation: johnny settle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    "Grandpa's jammies". The Black Ops Pug is nice 'n blk.
    "Go that way REAL FAST, if something gets in your way... turn".

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    52
    I have to say jfkbike2's arguments are holding greater sway to me, engineer or no.

  101. #101
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny settle View Post
    You CAN fit the new Big Fat Larry on a Pugsley with Large Marge 65mm rims. You can also fit a Big Fat Larry on a Clown Shoe 100mm, which significantly increases the footprint for max float, IF you get a Moonlander fork. So us Pug owners have options to improve floatation on existing rigs without replacing. The price difference is big though. Pug @ $1550 and Moonlander @ $2350. The moonlander has the sweet Mr Whirly and better rims-otherwise the same specs. I am going to start with putting a Big Fat on the front and test that out. ($140). If that's not enough float then I am going to replace the whole front end-front wheel, tire, and fork and go for it all. I think that conversion would run about $500. See, nothing wrong with my Pug! Does anyone else dislike the "space" moonlander paint scheme?
    How big can you go on the back of a pugs? big fat larry on a 65mm rim?

    And that price difference is really just crank and rims? Ouch!

  102. #102
    100+ wheel-build club
    Reputation: johnny settle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    Surly says the Big Fat's will fit front and rear on stock Pugs. I have not tried that yet but it looks awfully close. There is no way a Big Fat will fit WITH a 100mm rim though-going that fat would require the new frame. I am only concerned with getting more float up front since that seems where I had most trouble in the snow last year, the 4" seems fine for rear...for now...
    "Go that way REAL FAST, if something gets in your way... turn".

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny settle View Post
    Surly says the Big Fat's will fit front and rear on stock Pugs. I have not tried that yet but it looks awfully close. There is no way a Big Fat will fit WITH a 100mm rim though-going that fat would require the new frame. I am only concerned with getting more float up front since that seems where I had most trouble in the snow last year, the 4" seems fine for rear...for now...
    same here, when i wear out my rear endo, i'll swap the larry to the back, and get a bfl and muffin top it up front on the stock rims.

    would love to dump $$ and get some wider rims for winter... but the bike budget is busted for now.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    I'm running BFL's front and rear on my Pugs with the 65mm large marge rims and I think its perfect so far. Great mix of volume, footprint, and a bulletproof rim. I cant wait for snow to see if there's any actual improvement vs. The regular Larry tires.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  105. #105
    100+ wheel-build club
    Reputation: johnny settle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by JAGI410 View Post
    I'm running BFL's front and rear on my Pugs with the 65mm large marge rims and I think its perfect so far. Great mix of volume, footprint, and a bulletproof rim. I cant wait for snow to see if there's any actual improvement vs. The regular Larry tires.
    Sounds good. I'm going to go that way fast and if something gets in my way...turn.
    "Go that way REAL FAST, if something gets in your way... turn".

  106. #106
    no dabs
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by jfkbike2 View Post
    Understood.... but in my simple way of looking at things.... I would think that with a BFL vs. a Larry even with a sharp point load impact, that the deflection it would cause in the tire casing would be a steeper "V" (cone actually) for the Larry and the BFL would be somewhat less steep, thus transferring the impact force over an effective larger area... I may be wrong!
    I think it depends on the type of crap you are running over. If the shape is one that the tire is conforming to (right up until it snake bikes), then the angle is driven by the obstacle, not the tire geometry. In that case, you can think of the tire a bit like a preloaded spring. The load is the same on both tires, but the bigger volume tire is like a softer spring with more preload, meaning it takes less additional force to deflect it the same distance.

    If you actually had a steeper "V" with the narrower tire due to the smaller contact patch, then this would, as you said, have less area, but it would also have a greater component of the membrane tension in the tire casing in the correct direction to resist loads. I honestly don't know, and am too lazy to do the math to figure out which would be better in that case.

    If you live somewhere with a ton of snow cover, this is less of an issue. Where I ride, there is often only 6" of snow, with drifts and bare spots, crust and soup or powder, etc. Notice I bought a BFL? I'm not saying it isn't better, just that it isn't anywhere near "31% better", even in deep, softly packed conditions, and especially in the conditions where I ride..

Similar Threads

  1. Surly Bikes Film Thread
    By coastkid71 in forum Surly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-24-2011, 07:09 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 01:24 AM
  3. Lander
    By jbt11string in forum Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-16-2009, 09:36 AM
  4. Trails in Lander, WY
    By dauwalt in forum Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 10:04 PM
  5. Surly or Transition Bikes
    By fsdjer in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-19-2004, 02:11 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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.