Fat bikes

jayspies

Adventurer
BG's have always been 177 rear end. The new Muk is 197.

I see that now. So it's replaced the Blackborow in the lineup. That's good thinking on Salsa's part, as the BB and Muk were really different animals only by rear spacing. Allows the BG/Muk/Buck to cover the full range of fatty goodness.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
So, are you riding the new carbon Muk? Also, what wheels are you using? The Whisky's from the BG?
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.
 

emtmark

Austere Medical Provider
My shift mate has one and loves it, commutes to work everyday rain or shine. He had an electric motor fitted for the uphill home and recently had it in the shop for new bearings and tires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

deuxdiesel

Observer
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. Even with modern materials, BB widths and hub spacing, it is still hard to beat a Surly Pugsley for versatility. But of course that violates the N+1 bike rule....
 

rruff

Explorer
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.

Only thing I dislike is the wide pedal stance, so thinking a 29+ would suit me better. Not as good for snow and sand as a fatbike, but better everywhere else.
 

p nut

butter
There are fat bikes with a narrow Q factor. Tumbleweed makes one. I believe they're restricted to IGH, but pretty narrow Q factor.

Wide stance doesn't bother me, though.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
The Rocky Mountain Suzy Q is a fatbike built specifically to address q-factor. As a longtime road racer, q-factor used to be a big consideration for me, but now that I've logged thousands of miles on wider fatbike cranks, I've come to learn that we humans can often be highly adaptable. It doesn't bother me anymore. Although I like 29+ for certain applications, it also has some significant drawbacks on its own. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution. That said, I agree with the above comment that a fatbike, like my Mukluk, which can fit 5-inch 26 wheels and 2.8-inch 27.5 wheels, is my ideal adventure setup.
 

rruff

Explorer
The Rocky Mountain Suzy Q is a fatbike built specifically to address q-factor.

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.
 

deuxdiesel

Observer
If I do a long flat grind on one of my fat bikes (20+ dirt road or fire road ride), I can feel the Q in my knees later due to the repetitive motion and the same seated position. Riding that same bike on a trail ride, including standing climbs and crouching decents, I don't have the same issues. So yes, an 83mm BB shell would be a good compromise. 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. I did just pick up a Jamis Dragonslayer in 27.5+ and it is a much better fit for me.
 

rruff

Explorer
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.

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.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
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.
3.8 is pretty fat for most applications where full 4.8-ish fat isn't necessary.
 

deuxdiesel

Observer
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.

I would respectfully disagree, given the same gear ratio, the larger diameter wheel takes more effort to get up to speed. I never took the Krampus on any really long touring rides (longest was about 35 miles), but it was sure evident on any climb. I basically lost a gear or two compared to a "regular" fat tire, which is about 29" in diameter, where the Krampus was in excess of 30". Anyways, I am more comfortable on a 4.0 x 26 or 3.5 x 27.5 bike and have those to choose from. I sure miss the looks, color and greatest bike name ever (Krampus- especially if you say with a germanic accent) but it did not suit my riding needs.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,533
Messages
2,875,610
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top