Thanks all. What great insight! I can’t believe that Bearclaw… a titanium drop-bar fat bike! I did recently learn about the Salsa Blackborow, but that really seems fully into cargo bike territory, with chainstays and wheelbase over 100mm longer than the Rivs. I know they designed it to be more sporty that something like the Big Fat Dummy though.
I really like that link to Mike C’s thoughts about fatbike design. It helped me realize what I’m trying to accomplish, which is not necessarily what he’s after. If I can’t ride any trails in winter it’s not a huge bummer, but I want to be able to cruise all over town for errands and go for longer rides on the dirt roads out of town. But these are all either intermittently plowed or at least trafficked roads. So mostly packed snow but occasionally 1-3” of fresh or churned stuff from cars. I currently have studded 2” tires to get around town and I’m not enjoying it. On totally packed snow and ice it’s fine, but any kind of fluff makes it squirrly. Last winter I spent time riding a friends bike with 27.5 x 3 studded tires from 45NRTH. That was a much better setup than my current 2” studs. I think I could enjoy the riding I described above for the vast majority of the winter we get with that 27.5 x 3 setup. I just figured I’d go full fat, which nowadays seems to be 4.5 to 5”. But as Keith points out, there are definite down sides. (I see his post in my email but not in the thread…) I’ve only been on a fatbike briefly and am planning on renting one for some more real world experimenting. I’m thinking about a few different scenarios. Of course budget plays a role, and I only see one new bike coming in the foreseeable future. 1) Buy a Rivendell! Makes sense if I’m excited a bout the geometry and ride feel. I guess the Gus/Susie for max tire clearance (2.8”) and then I’d stud the tires myself. Or a Clem and then buy the available 29 x 2.6” studded tires. Pros: it’s a Riv! Which is really what I’m most excited for. Cons: not the biggest tires, certainly not compared to a fat bike but not even compared to option 2. But perhaps it’s fine for my winter riding? 2) Get a Rivendell-inspired off-road bike that has even more tire clearance than Gus/Susie, but isn’t full fat. Many good choices given already like the tumbleweed prospector and crust scapegoat. I’d throw the Jones LWB in there too. Pros: Theoretically better snow performance than #1 since there are bigger tires, like a 29 x 3.25 Duro Crux for the Jones that I could stud, but still regular bike feel compared to a full fat. Cons: Although they’re making design choices with a nod towards Riv, they’re not a Rivendell! Also, still some compromise in snow performance compared to option 3, but doable 95% of winter, and more enjoyable the rest of the year? 3) Full fat. Realize that I’ll probably want either option 1 or 2 eventually anyway, so just get whatever cheap used fat bike is available. Those are often either old pugsleys or salsa mukluks for 700-800. And then eventually, like 7-10 years from now at some celebratory moment, by a classic Riv like an Atlantis or Appaloosa that can handle most of my April-October dirt riding. Pros: Maximum snow performance. Cheap initial cost, although new fat bike tires are expensive. Cons: I’m waiting a while for a bike I really want from option 1 or 2. Options 1 and 2 seem nice because other than the cargo bike, my personal bikes are two $100 specials from Craigslist: a late 80s schwinn with 40mm tires and an early 90s steel MTB with 2.3” knobbies. I enjoy the heck out of both but would expect options 1 and 2 would be more enjoyable for the dirt roads/easy single track/bikepacking I enjoy doing. On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:12:33 PM UTC-7 rcook...@gmail.com wrote: > Joe, > > The final iteration of Surly's Pugsley had 460 mm chainstays and accepted > 4.8 in. tires "with drivetrain restrictions." It also had a 72° seat tube > angle, which would feel a little more relaxed and Rivish than the steeper > angles on MTBs these days. > > The Tumbleweed Prospector and the Crust Scapegoat max out at 4.0 in. > tires, I think, but have 73 mm bottom brackets for a more comfortable Q > factor. (I ride a Pugsley, and have a limited tolerance for the 200 mm Q > factor.) > > If you go custom, Myth Cycles in Durango CO has the Chimera ( > https://mythcycles.com/bikes/chimera/). The listed geometry is shorter in > chainstay and wheelbase than you want, evidently the design allows a > narrower Q than usual for a fatbike while also accommodating 4.8 in. tires. > > That Tanglefoot Bull Thistle, though… wow. They present it as a > drop-bar-specific design, but the top tube and reach are long enough to > work with an upright bar, I think. Limited to 4.0 in. tires, but the bottom > bracket is 83 mm so the Q factor will be narrower than most fatbikes. The > angles (ST 71°, HT 69.5°) rather Riv-like, and the lugs—the LUGS! > > I'm curious to see how your quest plays out. > > -- > Bob > > P.S. Maybe the most Rivesque fatbike would be an early Pugsley, when they > still had cantilever studs and Large Marge rim-brake-compatible rims. (See > Rivendell Reader 39 from 2007.) > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 12:21:16 PM UTC-7 Joe D. wrote: > >> Hello Rivendell aficionados! The short version: I’d like some advice on >> picking a fat bike (4-5” wide tires) that shares similar ride >> characteristics with the current crop of Rivendell long chainstay-long >> wheelbase bikes (e.g. Clem, Atlantis, Platy, Gus/Susie). >> >> The long version: I’m in the market for a full-on fat bike, with true 4-5 >> inch wide tires. I live in Montana and my previous winter riding with >> studded 3 inch tires just wasn’t enough. We’re a one car family, so in >> addition to riding on winter trails or snowy forest service roads for fun, >> I’ll use the bike for groceries and errands as well. And as much as I’d >> love an Atlantis or Platy for dirt roads, bike camping, and light trail >> use, the more economical choice would be to get a set of 29 inch wheels for >> a fat bike and run 2.8 or 3 inch tires in non-snow season for an all year >> off-road bike. Hence the importance of making a good choice now. >> >> How I came to desire a Rivendell-esq fat bike: A friend in another state >> got a 2019 Clem and raves about the comfy, stable ride with the long chain >> stays/wheelbase. But the real kicker was when I got a Yuba Mundo Lux cargo >> bike (https://yubabikes.com/cargobikestore/yuba-mundo-lux/) for hauling >> my two kids around. The swept back bars get me sitting upright, and the >> crazy long chainstay (753mm) and wheelbase (1410) make 150lb loads totally >> manageable. It’s like a Cadillac. Since the Yuba, I’ve vowed that all my >> bikes will be long and upright. Fortunately upright stems and swept back >> bars can take care of the upright part for near any bike, so that leaves >> chainstay/wheelbase length as the big question for a fat bike. >> >> For reference, scroll down here ( >> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5d1ae74763bde8001707cf36,5e1faf637f17da00170c6e28,) >> >> and you can see the chainstay/wheelbase lengths on the Clem and Atlantis, >> both ~550mm for chainstays and ~1235mm for wheelbase. For fat bikes, >> consider these two models ( >> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5ff009522655ff0017c6e96a,61c0a2add559210021256cf2,). >> >> The Wyatt can actually have a longer wheelbase than the Rivendells with its >> sliding dropouts (1250 max wheelbase). But its chainstay is only 465, still >> long-ish for mountain bikes but not near what a Riv or cargo bike is. It >> achieves that with a slack head tube angle that pushes the front tire way >> out front. >> >> Alternatively, the Giant fat bike in the link has a similar max chainstay >> length as the Wyatt (460mm) but a shorter wheelbase (1170mm), leading to a >> more centered position on the bike. I’m unable to find any fat bikes with >> the combination of long chainstay/wheelbase that the Rivendell’s have. >> >> Any tips on which bike, and which geometry approach in general, would get >> me closest to the Rivendell/cargo bike-like comfort and ride quality? Other >> fat bikes? For simplicities sake, I guess don’t evaluate factors other than >> geometry, like frame material. For what it’s worth, there are very few >> chromoly fat bikes. >> >> (Sorry for the length! I appreciate anyone getting into such a bike-nerdy >> discussion) >> >> - Joe >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4588bba9-eb60-4d1c-b2ee-a6aba5e6f495n%40googlegroups.com.
