p nut
butter
So, are you riding the new carbon Muk? Also, what wheels are you using? The Whisky's from the BG?
BG's have always been 177 rear end. The new Muk is 197.
So, are you riding the new carbon Muk? Also, what wheels are you using? The Whisky's from the BG?
BG's have always been 177 rear end. The new Muk is 197.
Yes, I've been on the new Carbon XO1 model for a few months now. Super impressed. It has 100mm Whisky carbon rims set up tubeless. Very swift. Identical wheels to what I had on the BG, but those were the 70mm carbon rims. I notice a wee bit of slow-down in performance due to the extra rim and tire width, but it's surprisingly slight.So, are you riding the new carbon Muk? Also, what wheels are you using? The Whisky's from the BG?
With the advent of 27.5+ tires, modern fat bikes can handle a large range of tire and wheel sizes, so in theory one bike can almost the "one bike" quiver.
There are fat bikes with a narrow Q factor. Tumbleweed makes one. I believe they're restricted to IGH, but pretty narrow Q factor.
The Rocky Mountain Suzy Q is a fatbike built specifically to address q-factor.
Ya, if this is what you are thinking, geared hub or single speed if you use wide tires. http://bikepacker.com/tumbleweed-prospector-first-look/
I did own a Surly Krampus for a while and loved it, but the effort required to constantly turn over the wheels due to their large diameter was not for me.
3.8 is pretty fat for most applications where full 4.8-ish fat isn't necessary.It's a tweener size though, 27.5x3.8", and has tweener q factor (half way between normal mtb and fat) to go with it. I mostly ride road, and narrow q feels best to me. Even normal MTBs feel weird, though I can't say I've had any injuries from it. Pretty sure if all I rode was a fatbike it would be fine.
There isn't any added effort to keep large diameter tires/wheels turning. There is a little extra getting up to speed, though. But it isn't a lot of momentum compared to the weight of the big hunk of meat on top.