Results 1 to 63 of 63

Thread: New ICT

  1. #1
    Stone Jack Baller
    Reputation: slowpoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    541

    New ICT

    Sight showing new, redesigned ICT...
    https://surlybikes.com/bikes/ice_cream_truck

    New ICT-7f6a08a4-4030-429e-b8f5-fbb0775d525b.jpg

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dfltroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,169
    Just saw that, pretty neat. I was just wondering if they'd be putting out anything new at SaddleDrive next month.
    All good expeditions should be simple in concept, difficult in their execution and satisfying to remember--Alastair Humphreys

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vto2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by slowpoker View Post
    Sight showing new, redesigned ICT...
    https://surlybikes.com/bikes/ice_cream_truck

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7F6A08A4-4030-429E-B8F5-FBB0775D525B.jpg 
Views:	220 
Size:	150.1 KB 
ID:	1207330
    Dang, makes me want a FatBike again. Ok and it's got a nice wide rear 🤤

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Stone Jack Baller
    Reputation: slowpoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    541
    Shortened chainstays, bend seat tube like Krampus and Monkey. Dropper routing. Plutoniuam Sparkle Green

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,137
    Would ride furiously.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  6. #6
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,126
    Threaded BB!!! Finally!

    Oh, and the geo updates look good.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  7. #7
    Stone Jack Baller
    Reputation: slowpoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    Would ride furiously.
    We still talking bikes, here?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    and the trumphet frame tubing out of the balls ...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by slowpoker View Post
    We still talking bikes, here?
    For now, yes.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by paisŗ View Post
    and the trumphet frame tubing out of the balls ...
    I have no idea what this means.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    Non solo Ice Cream Truck, Surly Fat Bikes | Pedal Domain

    I had read that the frame tubes of the ICT were at different thicknesses.

    I remember a break on the steering knot and I think the fault was to be found on these different thicknesses.

    That's why I got wednesday, now I hope the pipes are the same as wed as the bottom bracket box is bsa and the 44 steering box.

    sorry the slang by google translator ;-)

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    222
    I like it. The threaded BB is a nice upgrade. I'm guessing you could run the Moonlander OD crank/BB. The stock 30x42 low gear is too high for deep snow for me. I use the 22x36 gear all the time. Can't say I'm a fan of the green, but that's just my taste. I wonder if it will fit a Snowshoe 2XL on the rear. Looks like a great bike, but overall there's not enough of a difference for me to want to replace my blue ICT.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Threaded BB!!! Finally!
    Don't care about the chainstay length, but this was the best update.

    I've got my Pugsley down to about 184mm q factor, using sq taper cranks. Wonder how narrow I can get them on the ICT...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    624
    I had a fatbike 3 years ago, and got rid of it. Haven't wanted another one till I saw this...

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    378
    I keep telling myself this is the year I'll grab a fat bike... Might have found the one.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chippertheripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    990
    Framesets look to be available 8/9.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by 2:01 View Post
    Don't care about the chainstay length, but this was the best update.

    I've got my Pugsley down to about 184mm q factor, using sq taper cranks. Wonder how narrow I can get them on the ICT...
    The Surly OD Moonlander/ICT crankset has pretty snug clearance on the current ICT chainstays. It has a Q-Factor of 213mm. I doubt you could go much narrower than that if the current bike still fits 5" tires.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chippertheripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    990
    May I offer this in support of cjís point:



    What good is a 100mm B.B. if you still have to space it an inch on each side to clear both the chain stays and a 30t?
    Iíd rather that done the normal surly thing and made a new ďstandardĒ.

  19. #19
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Chippertheripper View Post

    What good is a 100mm B.B. if you still have to space it an inch on each side to clear both the chain stays and a 30t?
    Iíd rather that done the normal surly thing and made a new ďstandardĒ.
    I applaud the threaded BB decision and the LACK of a new standard. A new standard does nobody any good when there are plenty of other perfectly good designs available.

    The BB shell width is not the important factor here, it still has to have the correct chainline for a 197mm rear end. Hence the spacers. Also (according to Surly) it gives you more crank options.

    The old PF design was completely unnecessary and out of place on this type of bike. Threaded makes way more sense.

    Lastly, they increased tire clearance because fff. There's no drawback to more tire clearance on this bike. It gives you more options to run different (or multiple) wheelsets and tires. Rather impressively they managed to accomplish that and make the chainstays shorter at the same time.

    I say well done Surly.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chippertheripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    990
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    I applaud the threaded BB decision and the LACK of a new standard. A new standard does nobody any good when there are plenty of other perfectly good designs available.

    The BB shell width is not the important factor here, it still has to have the correct chainline for a 197mm rear end. Hence the spacers. Also (according to Surly) it gives you more crank options.

    The old PF design was completely unnecessary and out of place on this type of bike. Threaded makes way more sense.

    Lastly, they increased tire clearance because fff. There's no drawback to more tire clearance on this bike. It gives you more options to run different (or multiple) wheelsets and tires. Rather impressively they managed to accomplish that and make the chainstays shorter at the same time.

    I say well done Surly.
    Iím not going to argue your point and try and convince you otherwise.
    Itís just a deal-breaker for me personally. Iím looking to move away from my 9z7 and keep all my parts. It still looks like a weds and rebuilding my rear wheel with a 177 is my best option at this point.
    This came close, but if itís between a wider Q factor, and rebuilding my rear wheel Iím picking the latter. I only run 4.6ís in the winter anyways: biests.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6
    Does anyone know what hubs they sourced for the complete's?

  22. #22
    Stone Jack Baller
    Reputation: slowpoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by armedtotheteeth View Post
    Does anyone know what hubs they sourced for the complete's?
    Weird that it doesn't specify. My guess would be Salsa hubs, but don't take my word for it.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Chippertheripper View Post
    Iím not going to argue your point and try and convince you otherwise.
    Itís just a deal-breaker for me personally. Iím looking to move away from my 9z7 and keep all my parts. It still looks like a weds and rebuilding my rear wheel with a 177 is my best option at this point.
    This came close, but if itís between a wider Q factor, and rebuilding my rear wheel Iím picking the latter. I only run 4.6ís in the winter anyways: biests.
    I think they tried to introduce a new "standard" with the PF 132mm shell. Didn't catch on. What BB/cranks does your 907 have?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by cjbiker View Post
    The Surly OD Moonlander/ICT crankset has pretty snug clearance on the current ICT chainstays. It has a Q-Factor of 213mm. I doubt you could go much narrower than that if the current bike still fits 5" tires.
    Gotcha. Thanks for the info. I'll pass on this, as q factor that wide will give me knee troubles (like my Salsa did).

    Quote Originally Posted by Chippertheripper View Post
    Iím not going to argue your point and try and convince you otherwise.
    Itís just a deal-breaker for me personally. Iím looking to move away from my 9z7 and keep all my parts. It still looks like a weds and rebuilding my rear wheel with a 177 is my best option at this point.
    This came close, but if itís between a wider Q factor, and rebuilding my rear wheel Iím picking the latter. I only run 4.6ís in the winter anyways: biests.
    I'm with you. Although I only run 4". Did away with bikes that run Snowshoe XXL and Buds. If I can't ride on 4" tires at 1psi, I'm going skiing.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chippertheripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    990
    Quote Originally Posted by cjbiker View Post
    I think they tried to introduce a new "standard" with the PF 132mm shell. Didn't catch on. What BB/cranks does your 907 have?
    it has a threaded 100mm, just like this (NextSL). But I'm able to get away with the 177 spindle on that bike. No way that's happening on this frame.

  26. #26
    Chicken Master
    Reputation: ColonelSanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    46
    If someone wants a "Fat Bike", what is the difference between the ICT, the Wednesday and the Pugsley?

    As someone not familiar with Fat Bikes, I am struggling to tell the differences between them.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelSanders View Post
    If someone wants a "Fat Bike", what is the difference between the ICT, the Wednesday and the Pugsley?

    As someone not familiar with Fat Bikes, I am struggling to tell the differences between them.
    https://surlybikes.com/blog/wednesda...e_old_hump_day

    That has a pretty good breakdown of the differences between them. It's from the introduction of the Wednesday, so slightly out of date, but the bikes haven't changed too much since then.

    Sent from my Pixel C using Tapatalk

  28. #28
    Chicken Master
    Reputation: ColonelSanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeR91 View Post
    https://surlybikes.com/blog/wednesda...e_old_hump_day

    That has a pretty good breakdown of the differences between them. It's from the introduction of the Wednesday, so slightly out of date, but the bikes haven't changed too much since then.
    Thanks for that link.

    I'm still digesting how those differences would play out and which one of the three would suit me best, but I still can't shake the feeling that 3 fat bike frames with "minor" differences, won't make that big a difference in the riding experience.

    I wonder how many of the differences are just artificial and don't bring a benefit.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PDKL45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelSanders View Post
    Thanks for that link.

    I'm still digesting how those differences would play out and which one of the three would suit me best, but I still can't shake the feeling that 3 fat bike frames with "minor" differences, won't make that big a difference in the riding experience.

    I wonder how many of the differences are just artificial and don't bring a benefit.
    Pugsley: Revamped with fat touring in mind; geometry suited to offroad touring. It also uses commonly available bike parts and the front fork is spaced to accept a hub the same width as that of the rear, giving you an exchangable wheel for a bail out option if your rear freehub decides to assplode when you're a few hundred kms from civilization. Note that the frame is offset, to allow for fat tires, a 142/135 hub and a workable chainline.

    Wednesday: Trail oriented geometry, but maybe a little more neutral than the ICT, with the ability to handle expedition touring. Tire clearance less than that of the ICT. Really versatile.

    ICT: Trail oriented geometry (just look at those pretty green chainstays) with: "Shortened chainstays, bend seat tube like Krampus and Monkey. Dropper routing. Plutoniuam Sparkle Green" (to quote slowpoker) and the ability to handle thicc tires. Fat assed tires. The chunkiest big buggers available. Wide ol' mofos.

    Differences? You'd ride the Pugsley on the Birdsville Track while you'd rail Thredbo on the ICT.

    That said?

    "and the trumphet frame tubing out of the balls ..." is the coolest thing I've read all week. The world needs more trumphet.
    Last edited by PDKL45; 07-10-2018 at 11:20 PM.

  30. #30
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    I've been riding aluminum 907s since 2011. Last fall I got a Krampus, first steel frame in many years. I absolutely love it. I think this latest ICT is going to be my next purchase.
    Great looking frame.
    I like turtles

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    589
    Love the new changes, but not enough to turn mine in, but certainly if it were free to get a stealth dropper, 140mm fork, threaded bb, shorter chainstays, and perhaps even the 1x drivetrain, I'd pull the trigger on the new bike even though I like the old color better. All of the changes (besides perhaps the 1x) are improvements. None are huge improvements, but definitely they improve the bike overall. Were I in the market today, it would be really hard to choose between Wednesday and ICT. One is optimal for 4" tires, while the other is optimized for 5" tires. Having ridden both, it's really hard to choose.

  32. #32
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    Love the new changes, but not enough to turn mine in, but certainly if it were free to get a stealth dropper, 140mm fork, threaded bb, shorter chainstays, and perhaps even the 1x drivetrain, I'd pull the trigger on the new bike even though I like the old color better. All of the changes (besides perhaps the 1x) are improvements. None are huge improvements, but definitely they improve the bike overall. Were I in the market today, it would be really hard to choose between Wednesday and ICT. One is optimal for 4" tires, while the other is optimized for 5" tires. Having ridden both, it's really hard to choose.
    In my opinion, if you Q factor isn't a problem for you, you can always put 4" tires on the 5" bike. You can't go the other way around.
    I like turtles

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6
    Surly are saying OEM Novatec hubs on the complete. I gotta say, Iím pretty disappointed.

  34. #34
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,126
    Quote Originally Posted by armedtotheteeth View Post
    Surly are saying OEM Novatec hubs on the complete. I gotta say, Iím pretty disappointed.
    Why? You think the Salsa hubs they use on other models are any better?
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    In my opinion, if you Q factor isn't a problem for you, you can always put 4" tires on the 5" bike. You can't go the other way around.
    But you can put 4.6" tires on Wednesday.

    I chose an ICT but Wednesday is a great bike.

  36. #36
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    But you can put 4.6" tires on Wednesday.

    I chose an ICT but Wednesday is a great bike.
    Wednesdays are excellent. I'm just big and heavy so I always think big.
    I like turtles

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Why? You think the Salsa hubs they use on other models are any better?
    Surly changed the frame spec by no longer having the MDS chips in favor of track ends. They also trimmed the fat with other components like the handlebars and brakes. Probably saved themselves about 200 per complete sold. I was hoping they would pass those savings onto customers with a better set of hubs, but that's not the case. They actually didn't upgrade the components of the complete in anyway, hence my disappointment. It was all for profit.

  38. #38
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by armedtotheteeth View Post
    Surly changed the frame spec by no longer having the MDS chips in favor of track ends. They also trimmed the fat with other components like the handlebars and brakes. Probably saved themselves about 200 per complete sold. I was hoping they would pass those savings onto customers with a better set of hubs, but that's not the case. They actually didn't upgrade the components of the complete in anyway, hence my disappointment. It was all for profit.
    Well, I wouldn't have bought the bike as it was. I will now. Plus, I only buy framesets so their crappy hubs don't bother me.
    I like turtles

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    108
    Kind of bummed they went away with the MDS system. After having an Insigator and an Wednesday for a while, the track ends are kind of a PITA to get the axle right every single time. Plus they aren't always the same depth so you have to eyeball to get the tire centered in the chainstays. The MDS was more expensive to build, yes, but it was a proper through axle setup and never moved.

  40. #40
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    I'm sure it's like the Gnotboost dropouts like I have on my Krampus. You pull the axle out completely and the wheel drops straight down. Excellent system.
    I like turtles

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    I'm sure it's like the Gnotboost dropouts like I have on my Krampus. You pull the axle out completely and the wheel drops straight down. Excellent system.
    Yes but putting it back in, you have to align the wheel manually. I have the same dropouts on my Karate Monkey and I have to say, the rear dropouts are probably my least favorite part. I was riding on sunday and my rear axle slipped in the dropout. I had to stop and tighten it up to keep riding when I heard the tire knobs eating the frame. That's the only time it has ever happened, but that didn't render it any less annoying.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    Yes but putting it back in, you have to align the wheel manually. I have the same dropouts on my Karate Monkey and I have to say, the rear dropouts are probably my least favorite part. I was riding on sunday and my rear axle slipped in the dropout. I had to stop and tighten it up to keep riding when I heard the tire knobs eating the frame. That's the only time it has ever happened, but that didn't render it any less annoying.
    Same here on my Wednesday. I kept noticing the tire rubbing the chainstay on one side and sure enough with the axle seated all the way in the dropouts the tire was about 5mm from centered. Had to manually center tire, re-adjust brakes, and really wrench the axle down to keep it from moving.

    Plus I've noticed that the rear end is not nearly as stiff as the MDS on the 'gator 2.0. That could have more to do with the thickness of the chainstay but I suspect that without the dropout fully surrounding the axle you lose some rigidity.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    319
    I find the Wednesday to be pretty stiff on the side to side movement of the rear chainstay. Maybe you are experiening sidewall give under low air pressure or possible your allen nut was loss on the axel.

    I am 240lbs and I just haven't had any real noticable movement of the chain stays. Although it is steel and I am sure there is some sideways give.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    57
    Hey there! First post on MTBR so please bear with my noobness. So I've had an ICT for a couple years , and its been great for getting me into the fat bike game , but I bought it used and its 1 size too large for me. I have been eyeing new fat bikes for a couple months and was intent on just buying a brand spankin new ICT when the new specs were released. I love just about everything about it...except for the rear wheel dropout. Maybe its because Ive never had one that style before , but all I see when I look at it is a rear hub that'll be moving around and constantly needing adjustment , let alone the headache I'll go through if I get a flat. Am I needlessly fretting about this or is my concern justified? Much thanks in advance , and cheers!

  45. #45
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    You guys are talking about the new dropouts and not the old track ends??

    I just had the rear wheel out of my Krampus the other day for new bearings and it might have taken me 15 seconds longer than the thru axle on my 907.
    I like turtles

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    319
    AK

    If you keep the allen bolt on the skew tight, you shouldn't have any movement.

    Also, here is a picture from the Surly Wednesday FAQ sheet. When you have a flat or you are taking on/off the rear tire it is easy. You do not have to bring the tire from the rear of the horizontal dropout. There is a vertical relief on the inside that lets you pop the wheel off or on very easily with just drawing the skewer (axel) back ou a bit. Very Easy.

    https://surlybikes.com/uploads/blog/...Y_DROPOUT3.jpg

    Note: New ICT has Wednesday dropouts. If the picture doesn't show on this thread then here is the link: https://surlybikes.com/blog/wednesday_faq

    Actually, you remove the skewer(axel) when changing the wheel, but it's easy.

  47. #47
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    ^^Exactly^^.
    I like turtles

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    57
    "Ahhh , I see" , said the blind man.

    Thanks for clearing that up fellas! I see a shiny new ICT in my future.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    240
    I'm curious to see what rims NYrr496 laces up to BHS hubs. I know he's gonna like it.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5
    Has anyone got a hold of a new ICT, yet? If so, is it as awesome as I'm imagining it?

  51. #51
    Like a FirePlug
    Reputation: ErvSpanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    128
    I just got one to play with for a bit, I'll let you know.
    Keep the Rubber Side Down

  52. #52
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ETChipotle View Post
    I'm curious to see what rims NYrr496 laces up to BHS hubs. I know he's gonna like it.
    Always My Other Brother Darryls. My favorite fat rim, hands down.
    I like turtles

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    378
    Picked mine up yesterday, threw pedals on in the parking lot and did a quick 6 mile rip.

    Super fun bike. My main trail slayer is a current gen Krampus, so I was looking for the ICT to offer a similar experience in snow friendly form, and it delivers. Overall impressions are that it doesn't like to fly like the Krampus, and running rigid vs. 100mm Yari it doesn't charge through rough stuff quite the same, but the overall playful spririt, stand up and sprint personality is there, the tires do a really incredible job smoothing out terrain and have traction for days.

    It's a fat trail bike...the only thing I'm leery of is it being tooo trail bike, and compromising it's bushwhacking ability for when the weather turns foul in Chicago.

    Overall build is decent - pleasantly surprised by the bars, the stock Answer bars they weere putting on the Krampus felt awful, these Salsa bars are nice. 80mm is a long stem, but I didn't find myself thinking about it too much. Hubs are loud, not the same formula they're using on the Krampus, with better engagement. We'll see if they last. Level brakes are fine, but don't last. SLX drivetrain should be a plus... but the shifter is bumming me out, feel soft and crappy vs. the 10 spd SLX I've have on my ECR for a few years. I assumed it was Deore, but it's SLX.

  54. #54
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenngineer View Post
    Picked mine up yesterday, threw pedals on in the parking lot and did a quick 6 mile rip.

    Super fun bike. My main trail slayer is a current gen Krampus, so I was looking for the ICT to offer a similar experience in snow friendly form, and it delivers. Overall impressions are that it doesn't like to fly like the Krampus, and running rigid vs. 100mm Yari it doesn't charge through rough stuff quite the same, but the overall playful spririt, stand up and sprint personality is there, the tires do a really incredible job smoothing out terrain and have traction for days.

    It's a fat trail bike...the only thing I'm leery of is it being tooo trail bike, and compromising it's bushwhacking ability for when the weather turns foul in Chicago.

    Overall build is decent - pleasantly surprised by the bars, the stock Answer bars they weere putting on the Krampus felt awful, these Salsa bars are nice. 80mm is a long stem, but I didn't find myself thinking about it too much. Hubs are loud, not the same formula they're using on the Krampus, with better engagement. We'll see if they last. Level brakes are fine, but don't last. SLX drivetrain should be a plus... but the shifter is bumming me out, feel soft and crappy vs. the 10 spd SLX I've have on my ECR for a few years. I assumed it was Deore, but it's SLX.
    pics or it didnt happen
    always mad and usually drunk......

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vto2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    448
    Yeah What he said

    Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    378
    I can never make it work on MTBR anymore...New ICT-ict.jpg

    It's already got a shorter steerer tube, bigger frame bag, fender and a Reverb... but its been raining all day, so I'm probably off the trails this afternoon.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenngineer View Post
    I can never make it work on MTBR anymore...Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ICT.JPG 
Views:	72 
Size:	239.9 KB 
ID:	1221348

    It's already got a shorter steerer tube, bigger frame bag, fender and a Reverb... but its been raining all day, so I'm probably off the trails this afternoon.
    Glenn, if you get a chance, could you post a photo of the crank to chainstay clearance? Thanks! -Chris

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    378
    It's massive - I actually just swapped a BB spacer to improve the chain line and quiet down the bottom two cogs, and even with the drive side 2.5mm closer to the chain stay, it's still huge. More clearance than my Krampus with Canfield cranks.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenngineer View Post
    Picked mine up yesterday, threw pedals on in the parking lot
    I need to get pedals for mine, what did you put on? I have an opportunity to try some Issi Stomps and am considering those.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    378
    Spare Canfield Crampons I had laying around.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenngineer View Post
    It's massive - I actually just swapped a BB spacer to improve the chain line and quiet down the bottom two cogs, and even with the drive side 2.5mm closer to the chain stay, it's still huge. More clearance than my Krampus with Canfield cranks.
    Thanks! I've been toying with exchanging my 1st gen ICT for the new one and am wondering if a RF Turbine crank meant for 170mm rear will fit.

  62. #62
    Like a FirePlug
    Reputation: ErvSpanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by ErvSpanks View Post
    I just got one to play with for a bit, I'll let you know.
    I liked it, a lot.

    https://fat-bike.com/2018/11/2019-su...y-tony-grande/

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Keep the Rubber Side Down

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    68
    Good times are here again...New ICT-img_6659.jpg
    (old style ICT still delivering tons of fun, in case any one was wondering)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-29-2017, 09:42 PM
  2. new atlas crank will it work on ICT
    By oldprobmx in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2015, 11:51 AM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 07:37 AM
  4. Iron Horse and the Sunday and ICT suspension
    By csermonet in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-13-2013, 11:53 AM
  5. Flux ICT steering is scary!!!
    By sonofmickel in forum Turner
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 09:34 AM

Members who have read this thread: 194

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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.