Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Joe D.]

Thanks for those insights Keith! 

I came across the scapegoat V2 geometry chart (attached). Interesting 
comparison to the current version (at the bottom of this 
link: https://crustbikes.com/products/scapegoat). 

When I reached out to Crust they said the current chainstay measurement of 
451mm is with the rocker dropouts all the way in, and you can get an 
additional 20mm by pushing them out. So size Large could then conceivably 
get a 471mm chanistay and 1130mm wheelbase.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:04:30 PM UTC-7 iamkeith wrote:

> I haven't fully read this thread, but have been tempted to discuss my 
> Scapegoat.  I have the Gen 2 and, as I've stated in other threads, it is 
> one of the best bikes I've ever owned.  I was slow to investigate or buy it 
> - despite wanting the exact thing - because it is so ugly.  I finally 
> jumped on one just before the pandemic hit, when Crust was moving, and had 
> them on sale.  I had contemplated the Tumbleweed Prospector and a couple of 
> other, similar bikes - including the Chumba Ursa and the Analog/Tanglefoot 
> Moonshiner - before looking past the paint job, really studying the 
> Scapegoat's geometry chart, and realizing it was just what I wanted.  
>
> Unfortunately, the new version un-did most of what I sought out and like 
> about my Gen 2 and made it different than other offerings.It had a much 
> lower BB, and a longer TT  than the new version.   The fact that the bb is 
> now higher and the HT angle is now slacker than the Prospector (which is 
> high in order to accommodate the squish of a suspension fork if so 
> outfitted)   really tells me how much the Gen 3 has changed.  (Assuming 
> that's accurate.) The top tube on the Gen 2 large was longer than the one 
> on the Gen 3 XL.  The longer chainstay on the Gen 3 is probably good.  But 
> unless someone actually owns the new Gen 3, I think it's going to be tough 
> to get a good review. 
>
> It really depends on what you want, but the prospector might once again be 
> king of the hill for my tastes.   Unless you can find a Gen 2 Scapegoat - 
> then get that!.  That's my suggestion anyway.  The stooge Scrambler has a 
> great geometry too, but it still doesn't a have enough clearance for the 
> rear tire.  The reason the Scapegoat works so well is that they used flat 
> yoke plates on BOTH sides where the chainstays connect to the bb.
>
> Regarding the chain tensioning options:  Owning bikes with: (1) an 
> eccentric bb [a  Jones 29]; (2) sliding dropouts [my actual fatbike, a 
> lynskey]; and (3) rocker dropouts [the Scapegoat], I'd say that the 
> eccentric bb is my favorite in terms of hassle-free, set-it-and-forget it 
> ease.   The only bad thing is that I position it with a rear bias to yield 
> a longer front-center measurement (ideal for me) which means that the rear 
> center / effective chainstay length gets shorter (bad).  The other two 
> mechanisms allow you to lengthen the later measurement by itself (good).
>
> In case you haven't shopped for off-the-shelf wheel sets lately, boost 
> wheels are now easier to find and do help a tiny bit with drivetrain 
> clearance.  The prospector is still 135 only because it works best with 
> Rohloff.  
>
> FWIW, I have my scapegoat set up with 27x3.25 wheels, 3x drivetrain and 
> full fenders - not 26x4 wheels.
>
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:48:56 AM UTC-7 Joe D. wrote:
>
>> Another question for you Crust Scapegoat owners... Crust released an 
>> updated version last Fall (https://crustbikes.com/products/scapegoat). 
>> Compared to the Tumbleweed Prospector,  the new Scapegoat has 1.5 degree 
>> steeper head tube angle, 1 degree slacker seat tube angle, and the 
>> wheelbase is 50mm shorter in size L (
>> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=63613a1388731d001d710fb5,61bf4058e6ec02001cccd3cf,).
>>   
>> There's also the rocker/sliding dropouts of Scapegoat vs standard 
>> dropoust/EBB of the Prospector. And the Prospector's ability to run 135mm 
>> spaced wheels front and back vs Boost spacing of the Scapegoat.
>>
>> The slacker head tube angle of the Prospector makes me think it'd handle 
>> singletrack better than the Scapegoat. Any merit to that? Any other ride 
>> differences you all imagine between the two?
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:03:30 PM UTC-7 cjus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> You guys have it right for ball parking limits based on something in the 
>>> 26x~4" range based on my experience.
>>>
>>> As stated before, my custom Clockwork Dirt Fat 1x (SqT White Industries 
>>> Road Cranks w/76bcd spider & 1x ring) with narrow Deda stays has a Q of 
>>> ~180mm and looking at the space needed for tire, space, stays (modern yokes 
>>> giving a little more here when used), space and arms, 170mm was what I was 
>>> thinking for theoretical minimum with a SS or Rohloff.  Sounds like Zach is 
>>> confirming 168mm really pushes that limit.
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:32:32 AM UTC-6 Joe D. wrote:
>>>

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[iamkeith]

I haven't fully read this thread, but have been tempted to discuss my 
Scapegoat.  I have the Gen 2 and, as I've stated in other threads, it is 
one of the best bikes I've ever owned.  I was slow to investigate or buy it 
- despite wanting the exact thing - because it is so ugly.  I finally 
jumped on one just before the pandemic hit, when Crust was moving, and had 
them on sale.  I had contemplated the Tumbleweed Prospector and a couple of 
other, similar bikes - including the Chumba Ursa and the Analog/Tanglefoot 
Moonshiner - before looking past the paint job, really studying the 
Scapegoat's geometry chart, and realizing it was just what I wanted.  

Unfortunately, the new version un-did most of what I sought out and like 
about my Gen 2 and made it different than other offerings.It had a much 
lower BB, and a longer TT  than the new version.   The fact that the bb is 
now higher and the HT angle is now slacker than the Prospector (which is 
high in order to accommodate the squish of a suspension fork if so 
outfitted)   really tells me how much the Gen 3 has changed.  (Assuming 
that's accurate.) The top tube on the Gen 2 large was longer than the one 
on the Gen 3 XL.  The longer chainstay on the Gen 3 is probably good.  But 
unless someone actually owns the new Gen 3, I think it's going to be tough 
to get a good review. 

It really depends on what you want, but the prospector might once again be 
king of the hill for my tastes.   Unless you can find a Gen 2 Scapegoat - 
then get that!.  That's my suggestion anyway.  The stooge Scrambler has a 
great geometry too, but it still doesn't a have enough clearance for the 
rear tire.  The reason the Scapegoat works so well is that they used flat 
yoke plates on BOTH sides where the chainstays connect to the bb.

Regarding the chain tensioning options:  Owning bikes with: (1) an 
eccentric bb [a  Jones 29]; (2) sliding dropouts [my actual fatbike, a 
lynskey]; and (3) rocker dropouts [the Scapegoat], I'd say that the 
eccentric bb is my favorite in terms of hassle-free, set-it-and-forget it 
ease.   The only bad thing is that I position it with a rear bias to yield 
a longer front-center measurement (ideal for me) which means that the rear 
center / effective chainstay length gets shorter (bad).  The other two 
mechanisms allow you to lengthen the later measurement by itself (good).

In case you haven't shopped for off-the-shelf wheel sets lately, boost 
wheels are now easier to find and do help a tiny bit with drivetrain 
clearance.  The prospector is still 135 only because it works best with 
Rohloff.  

FWIW, I have my scapegoat set up with 27x3.25 wheels, 3x drivetrain and 
full fenders - not 26x4 wheels.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:48:56 AM UTC-7 Joe D. wrote:

> Another question for you Crust Scapegoat owners... Crust released an 
> updated version last Fall (https://crustbikes.com/products/scapegoat). 
> Compared to the Tumbleweed Prospector,  the new Scapegoat has 1.5 degree 
> steeper head tube angle, 1 degree slacker seat tube angle, and the 
> wheelbase is 50mm shorter in size L (
> https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=63613a1388731d001d710fb5,61bf4058e6ec02001cccd3cf,).
>   
> There's also the rocker/sliding dropouts of Scapegoat vs standard 
> dropoust/EBB of the Prospector. And the Prospector's ability to run 135mm 
> spaced wheels front and back vs Boost spacing of the Scapegoat.
>
> The slacker head tube angle of the Prospector makes me think it'd handle 
> singletrack better than the Scapegoat. Any merit to that? Any other ride 
> differences you all imagine between the two?
>
>
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:03:30 PM UTC-7 cjus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You guys have it right for ball parking limits based on something in the 
>> 26x~4" range based on my experience.
>>
>> As stated before, my custom Clockwork Dirt Fat 1x (SqT White Industries 
>> Road Cranks w/76bcd spider & 1x ring) with narrow Deda stays has a Q of 
>> ~180mm and looking at the space needed for tire, space, stays (modern yokes 
>> giving a little more here when used), space and arms, 170mm was what I was 
>> thinking for theoretical minimum with a SS or Rohloff.  Sounds like Zach is 
>> confirming 168mm really pushes that limit.
>>
>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:32:32 AM UTC-6 Joe D. wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Zach! The Tumbleweed is definitely appealing, especially with a 
>>> 29 x 3 dirt tire and 26 x 4 in winter.
>>>
>>> I wonder if 26 x 4 with reasonably big rims (64mm or full 80mm) would 
>>> work with a modified cassette, like the setup Crust bikes talk about here: 
>>> https://www.tumblr.com/crustbikes/159521355676/the-stubby-cassette. I'd 
>>> be fine with only 5-7 gears. And I think a Q factor closer to 180-185 would 
>>> be ok. It sounds like it'd definitely be a no-go at your Q factor of 174.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:23:35 AM UTC-7 Zach Roeder wrote:
>>>
 I'm using a Shimano XTR M9125-1 with a Q 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Joe D.]

Another question for you Crust Scapegoat owners... Crust released an 
updated version last Fall (https://crustbikes.com/products/scapegoat). 
Compared to the Tumbleweed Prospector,  the new Scapegoat has 1.5 degree 
steeper head tube angle, 1 degree slacker seat tube angle, and the 
wheelbase is 50mm shorter in size L 
(https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=63613a1388731d001d710fb5,61bf4058e6ec02001cccd3cf,).
  
There's also the rocker/sliding dropouts of Scapegoat vs standard 
dropoust/EBB of the Prospector. And the Prospector's ability to run 135mm 
spaced wheels front and back vs Boost spacing of the Scapegoat.

The slacker head tube angle of the Prospector makes me think it'd handle 
singletrack better than the Scapegoat. Any merit to that? Any other ride 
differences you all imagine between the two?


On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:03:30 PM UTC-7 cjus...@gmail.com wrote:

> You guys have it right for ball parking limits based on something in the 
> 26x~4" range based on my experience.
>
> As stated before, my custom Clockwork Dirt Fat 1x (SqT White Industries 
> Road Cranks w/76bcd spider & 1x ring) with narrow Deda stays has a Q of 
> ~180mm and looking at the space needed for tire, space, stays (modern yokes 
> giving a little more here when used), space and arms, 170mm was what I was 
> thinking for theoretical minimum with a SS or Rohloff.  Sounds like Zach is 
> confirming 168mm really pushes that limit.
>
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:32:32 AM UTC-6 Joe D. wrote:
>
>> Thanks Zach! The Tumbleweed is definitely appealing, especially with a 29 
>> x 3 dirt tire and 26 x 4 in winter.
>>
>> I wonder if 26 x 4 with reasonably big rims (64mm or full 80mm) would 
>> work with a modified cassette, like the setup Crust bikes talk about here: 
>> https://www.tumblr.com/crustbikes/159521355676/the-stubby-cassette. I'd 
>> be fine with only 5-7 gears. And I think a Q factor closer to 180-185 would 
>> be ok. It sounds like it'd definitely be a no-go at your Q factor of 174.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:23:35 AM UTC-7 Zach Roeder wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using a Shimano XTR M9125-1 with a Q of 174mm on my Rohloff 
>>> Prospector (first generation). With short axle XTR SPD pedals, it feels 
>>> like a 168mm q factor. I've tried several different cranks, and I think 
>>> this is as narrow as you can go. And if you are a super strong rider, maybe 
>>> there's the possibility of the crank hitting the chainstays?
>>>
>>> Clearances are super tight everywhere with 26x4". I'm actually 
>>> considering slightly wider q or smaller tires because I occasionally rub my 
>>> legs on the tires on descents, and it hurts! I love how it pedals for long 
>>> rides though. 
>>> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Thanks Laing and Hoch. Once again, confirmed that fatbike Q is more 
 than I care for.



 On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:09 PM Hoch in ut  wrote:

> For reference, I built a Pugsley years ago with White Industries 
> cranks and custom BB. The narrowest I could get the Q factor was 183mm. 
> That is with about 2-3mm crank clearance. Much narrower than stock but 
> definitely nowhere close to 160. 
>
> On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Bob. Others: If any of youse have this information, would be 
>> very glad to hear it. Thanks.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Bob  wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick,
>>>
>>> I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone 
>>> here have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take 
>>> measurements?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, 
 Scapegoat, Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed 
 drivetrain (if any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from 
 Pugsleys 
 etc because of the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no 
 more 
 than 160 I'd be very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, 
 I've 
 been thinking of a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the 
 rear 
 71 mm WTB ranger rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even 
 better if 
 the Q could be sorted. 

 Thanks.

 -- 
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a5b82dc5-edcb-4b57-a3b7-0b62ec3780fdn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[J G]

You guys have it right for ball parking limits based on something in the 
26x~4" range based on my experience.

As stated before, my custom Clockwork Dirt Fat 1x (SqT White Industries 
Road Cranks w/76bcd spider & 1x ring) with narrow Deda stays has a Q of 
~180mm and looking at the space needed for tire, space, stays (modern yokes 
giving a little more here when used), space and arms, 170mm was what I was 
thinking for theoretical minimum with a SS or Rohloff.  Sounds like Zach is 
confirming 168mm really pushes that limit.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:32:32 AM UTC-6 Joe D. wrote:

> Thanks Zach! The Tumbleweed is definitely appealing, especially with a 29 
> x 3 dirt tire and 26 x 4 in winter.
>
> I wonder if 26 x 4 with reasonably big rims (64mm or full 80mm) would work 
> with a modified cassette, like the setup Crust bikes talk about here: 
> https://www.tumblr.com/crustbikes/159521355676/the-stubby-cassette. I'd 
> be fine with only 5-7 gears. And I think a Q factor closer to 180-185 would 
> be ok. It sounds like it'd definitely be a no-go at your Q factor of 174.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:23:35 AM UTC-7 Zach Roeder wrote:
>
>> I'm using a Shimano XTR M9125-1 with a Q of 174mm on my Rohloff 
>> Prospector (first generation). With short axle XTR SPD pedals, it feels 
>> like a 168mm q factor. I've tried several different cranks, and I think 
>> this is as narrow as you can go. And if you are a super strong rider, maybe 
>> there's the possibility of the crank hitting the chainstays?
>>
>> Clearances are super tight everywhere with 26x4". I'm actually 
>> considering slightly wider q or smaller tires because I occasionally rub my 
>> legs on the tires on descents, and it hurts! I love how it pedals for long 
>> rides though. 
>> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Laing and Hoch. Once again, confirmed that fatbike Q is more than 
>>> I care for.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:09 PM Hoch in ut  wrote:
>>>
 For reference, I built a Pugsley years ago with White Industries cranks 
 and custom BB. The narrowest I could get the Q factor was 183mm. That is 
 with about 2-3mm crank clearance. Much narrower than stock but definitely 
 nowhere close to 160. 

 On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Thanks, Bob. Others: If any of youse have this information, would be 
> very glad to hear it. Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Bob  wrote:
>
>> Patrick,
>>
>> I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone 
>> here have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take 
>> measurements?
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, 
>>> Scapegoat, Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed 
>>> drivetrain (if any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from 
>>> Pugsleys 
>>> etc because of the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no 
>>> more 
>>> than 160 I'd be very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, 
>>> I've 
>>> been thinking of a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the 
>>> rear 
>>> 71 mm WTB ranger rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better 
>>> if 
>>> the Q could be sorted. 
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -- 
 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a5b82dc5-edcb-4b57-a3b7-0b62ec3780fdn%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Patrick Moore
>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/47132e06-d387-4655-bbe9-ca96f714f782n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Joe D.]

Thanks Zach! The Tumbleweed is definitely appealing, especially with a 29 x 
3 dirt tire and 26 x 4 in winter.

I wonder if 26 x 4 with reasonably big rims (64mm or full 80mm) would work 
with a modified cassette, like the setup Crust bikes talk about 
here: https://www.tumblr.com/crustbikes/159521355676/the-stubby-cassette. 
I'd be fine with only 5-7 gears. And I think a Q factor closer to 180-185 
would be ok. It sounds like it'd definitely be a no-go at your Q factor of 
174.

Thanks!



On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 10:23:35 AM UTC-7 Zach Roeder wrote:

> I'm using a Shimano XTR M9125-1 with a Q of 174mm on my Rohloff Prospector 
> (first generation). With short axle XTR SPD pedals, it feels like a 168mm q 
> factor. I've tried several different cranks, and I think this is as narrow 
> as you can go. And if you are a super strong rider, maybe there's the 
> possibility of the crank hitting the chainstays?
>
> Clearances are super tight everywhere with 26x4". I'm actually considering 
> slightly wider q or smaller tires because I occasionally rub my legs on the 
> tires on descents, and it hurts! I love how it pedals for long rides 
> though. 
> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Thanks Laing and Hoch. Once again, confirmed that fatbike Q is more than 
>> I care for.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:09 PM Hoch in ut  wrote:
>>
>>> For reference, I built a Pugsley years ago with White Industries cranks 
>>> and custom BB. The narrowest I could get the Q factor was 183mm. That is 
>>> with about 2-3mm crank clearance. Much narrower than stock but definitely 
>>> nowhere close to 160. 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Thanks, Bob. Others: If any of youse have this information, would be 
 very glad to hear it. Thanks.

 On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Bob  wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone 
> here have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?
>
> --
> Bob
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, 
>> Scapegoat, Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed 
>> drivetrain (if any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from 
>> Pugsleys 
>> etc because of the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more 
>> than 160 I'd be very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, 
>> I've 
>> been thinking of a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the 
>> rear 
>> 71 mm WTB ranger rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better 
>> if 
>> the Q could be sorted. 
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -- 
>>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a5b82dc5-edcb-4b57-a3b7-0b62ec3780fdn%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> ---
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>>

-- 
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/8e1d9ec8-f392-4e3c-8462-06e3e4d9e7d1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Zach Roeder]

I'm using a Shimano XTR M9125-1 with a Q of 174mm on my Rohloff Prospector 
(first generation). With short axle XTR SPD pedals, it feels like a 168mm q 
factor. I've tried several different cranks, and I think this is as narrow 
as you can go. And if you are a super strong rider, maybe there's the 
possibility of the crank hitting the chainstays?

Clearances are super tight everywhere with 26x4". I'm actually considering 
slightly wider q or smaller tires because I occasionally rub my legs on the 
tires on descents, and it hurts! I love how it pedals for long rides 
though. 
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Thanks Laing and Hoch. Once again, confirmed that fatbike Q is more than I 
> care for.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:09 PM Hoch in ut  wrote:
>
>> For reference, I built a Pugsley years ago with White Industries cranks 
>> and custom BB. The narrowest I could get the Q factor was 183mm. That is 
>> with about 2-3mm crank clearance. Much narrower than stock but definitely 
>> nowhere close to 160. 
>>
>> On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Bob. Others: If any of youse have this information, would be 
>>> very glad to hear it. Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Bob  wrote:
>>>
 Patrick,

 I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone 
 here have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?

 --
 Bob

 On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat, 
> Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if 
> any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because 
> of 
> the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be 
> very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking 
> of 
> a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB 
> ranger 
> rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be 
> sorted. 
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- 
>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a5b82dc5-edcb-4b57-a3b7-0b62ec3780fdn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
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/9425d2bd-b07f-4fe1-be7a-4e97b35b723en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Patrick Moore]

Thanks Laing and Hoch. Once again, confirmed that fatbike Q is more than I
care for.



On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 1:09 PM Hoch in ut  wrote:

> For reference, I built a Pugsley years ago with White Industries cranks
> and custom BB. The narrowest I could get the Q factor was 183mm. That is
> with about 2-3mm crank clearance. Much narrower than stock but definitely
> nowhere close to 160.
>
> On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Bob. Others: If any of youse have this information, would be very
>> glad to hear it. Thanks.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Bob  wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick,
>>>
>>> I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone
>>> here have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat,
 Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if
 any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because of
 the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be
 very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking of
 a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB ranger
 rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be
 sorted.

 Thanks.

 --
> 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/a5b82dc5-edcb-4b57-a3b7-0b62ec3780fdn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
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/CALuTfgsX_913Y7%2BUsgixfGDiQuzHgJTYR9knaxiDHKrejrFqxg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Hoch in ut]

For reference, I built a Pugsley years ago with White Industries cranks and 
custom BB. The narrowest I could get the Q factor was 183mm. That is with 
about 2-3mm crank clearance. Much narrower than stock but definitely 
nowhere close to 160. 

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Thanks, Bob. Others: If any of youse have this information, would be very 
> glad to hear it. Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Bob  wrote:
>
>> Patrick,
>>
>> I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone here 
>> have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat, 
>>> Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if 
>>> any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because of 
>>> the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be 
>>> very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking of 
>>> a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB ranger 
>>> rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be 
>>> sorted. 
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/a5b82dc5-edcb-4b57-a3b7-0b62ec3780fdn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Patrick Moore]

Thanks, Bob. Others: If any of youse have this information, would be very
glad to hear it. Thanks.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Bob  wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone here
> have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?
>
> --
> Bob
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat,
>> Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if
>> any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because of
>> the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be
>> very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking of
>> a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB ranger
>> rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be
>> sorted.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>

-- 
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/CALuTfgsvEYKydc%2B5aeQUkcCPuAVHeai-S2w2Jyx%3D2snYvpL9uw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Joe Bernard]

Tom, the OP is Joe D. and is specifically shopping for a fatbike. My thread 
on internet-bob was about whether a fatbike would work for me, I've decided 
it won't. 

Joe Bernard with a B 

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 11:56:57 AM UTC-8 Tom Palmer wrote:

> I agree with Hoch- the Ritchey Commando is Riv-esque and rides very well. 
> I have had several fat tire bikes from low end to high end and it just has 
> the ride. Good tires help any fat bike in particular. Schwalbe Jumbo Jims 
> in particular work for me. 
> In keeping with the spirit of Joes' ask- a dual suspension mountain bike 
> is smoother than a fat tire bike even with good tires and dialed pressure. 
> I have some inflammation issues and the dually has allowed me to ride 
> rough trails in comfort during the ride and feel good the next day also. 
>
> Tom Palmer
> Twin Lake, MI
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:
>
>>
>> I’ve owned a number of fat bikes. One I thought was the most Riv-esque 
>> was the Ritchey Commando. I don’t think they make them anymore. But you may 
>> be able to find a used one. They rode fantastic. Chainstays were relatively 
>> long. 
>> Regarding chainstays, it was just fine in snow. Mike C’s point of short 
>> stays has some merit, but remember it’s just one guy’s opinion. He’s also 
>> said in the past that rigid and hard tail bikes were useless and 
>> full-suspension was the only way to go. I wholeheartedly disagreed with 
>> that. 
>> If you ever meet him, ask what he thinks of lugged steel rigid frames 
>> with rim brakes! 
>> Don’t put much weight of what he or others say. Go test it out for 
>> yourself. 
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:
>>
>>> For the record I'm not the OP, which is why Keith deleted the post 
>>> you're replying to. Fortunately his info was helpful anyway, but Joe B. who 
>>> started a fatbike thread on internet-bob is not Joe D. who started this 
>>> one! 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 Not to crowed Joe's questions, but this answers many of my questions 
 about fatbikes too; and I didn't know that there are 3.25 and 3.5 650B 
 tires. So thanks Keith for this detail. I've already found that no Riv can 
 take full 3"/76 mm 700C tires, alas.


 On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:06 PM iamkeith  wrote:

> Joe,
>
> before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not 
> really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something 
> different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question 
> with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough 
> about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to 
> save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the 
> ideas 
> I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:
>
> I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do 
> understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist 
> discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in 
> consideration of that question.
>
>
> *"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. 
> They're the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the 
> year or more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with 
> northern 
> Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County 
> Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike 
> development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a 
> fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's 
> back-to-basics, 
> monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an 
> retro-grouch 
> like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal 
> eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work. 
> Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter 
> period 
> of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and 
> steering 
> compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and 
> weight. Then they quit riding them. 
>
> *Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE 
> advances in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat 
> bike tires were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 
> 2008, 
> maybe? Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, 
> which 
> was similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you 
> really 
> plan on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no 
> longer any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires 
> that give you almost 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Tom Palmer]

I agree with Hoch- the Ritchey Commando is Riv-esque and rides very well. I 
have had several fat tire bikes from low end to high end and it just has 
the ride. Good tires help any fat bike in particular. Schwalbe Jumbo Jims 
in particular work for me. 
In keeping with the spirit of Joes' ask- a dual suspension mountain bike is 
smoother than a fat tire bike even with good tires and dialed pressure. 
I have some inflammation issues and the dually has allowed me to ride rough 
trails in comfort during the ride and feel good the next day also. 

Tom Palmer
Twin Lake, MI

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-5 Hoch in ut wrote:

>
> I’ve owned a number of fat bikes. One I thought was the most Riv-esque was 
> the Ritchey Commando. I don’t think they make them anymore. But you may be 
> able to find a used one. They rode fantastic. Chainstays were relatively 
> long. 
> Regarding chainstays, it was just fine in snow. Mike C’s point of short 
> stays has some merit, but remember it’s just one guy’s opinion. He’s also 
> said in the past that rigid and hard tail bikes were useless and 
> full-suspension was the only way to go. I wholeheartedly disagreed with 
> that. 
> If you ever meet him, ask what he thinks of lugged steel rigid frames with 
> rim brakes! 
> Don’t put much weight of what he or others say. Go test it out for 
> yourself. 
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> For the record I'm not the OP, which is why Keith deleted the post you're 
>> replying to. Fortunately his info was helpful anyway, but Joe B. who 
>> started a fatbike thread on internet-bob is not Joe D. who started this 
>> one! 
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Not to crowed Joe's questions, but this answers many of my questions 
>>> about fatbikes too; and I didn't know that there are 3.25 and 3.5 650B 
>>> tires. So thanks Keith for this detail. I've already found that no Riv can 
>>> take full 3"/76 mm 700C tires, alas.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:06 PM iamkeith  wrote:
>>>
 Joe,

 before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not 
 really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something 
 different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question 
 with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough 
 about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to 
 save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the ideas 
 I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:

 I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do 
 understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist 
 discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in 
 consideration of that question.


 *"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. 
 They're the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the 
 year or more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with northern 
 Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County 
 Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike 
 development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a 
 fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's back-to-basics, 
 monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an 
 retro-grouch 
 like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal 
 eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work. 
 Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter period 
 of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and steering 
 compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and 
 weight. Then they quit riding them. 

 *Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE 
 advances in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat 
 bike tires were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 
 2008, 
 maybe? Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, which 
 was similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you really 
 plan on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no 
 longer any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires 
 that give you almost all of the advantages of 26x4 with none of the 
 problems. If you think about it, there's nothing more "rivendell-esqe" 
 than 
 650b, right? They wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Rivendell! 

 *Regarding suspension and bounciness*: The best thing about fat bikes 
 is that they eliminate the need for suspension for most "normal" riding. 
 But it takes a lot of effort to 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Bob]

Thank you, Robert. 185 mm is good, considering the tire clearance of the 
Prospector.

--
Bob

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:21:02 PM UTC-7 Robert Tilley wrote:

> I just measured my Prospector with Rohloff and measured a Q of 185 mm. I 
> could likely shave a few mm off with with a different crank.
>
> Robert Tilley
> San Diego, CA
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 20, 2022, at 1:33 PM, Bob  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Patrick,
>
> I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone here 
> have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?
>
> --
> Bob
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat, 
>> Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if 
>> any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because of 
>> the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be 
>> very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking of 
>> a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB ranger 
>> rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be 
>> sorted. 
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:12 PM Bob  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
>>>
>> -- 
>
> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2a82212f-a509-4156-8bd7-0f75085a1137n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
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/ae0e127e-147f-44a2-acd5-b55983cbbcfbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[rltilley]

I just measured my Prospector with Rohloff and measured a Q of 185 mm. I could likely shave a few mm off with with a different crank.Robert TilleySan Diego, CASent from my iPhoneOn Dec 20, 2022, at 1:33 PM, Bob  wrote:Patrick,I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone here have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?--BobOn Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat, Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because of the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking of a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB ranger rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be sorted. Thanks.On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:12 PM Bob  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



-- 
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/2a82212f-a509-4156-8bd7-0f75085a1137n%40googlegroups.com.




-- 
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/23B0F201-C0AC-4B1B-8AB2-DA8A61C20263%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Ryan Frahm]

Mike has a lot of opinions. He builds excellent wheels. What he is looking 
for is not necessarily what a Rivendell rider might be looking for in a 
bike. He is an aggressive rider. If you are serious about a long chainstay 
fat bike, it might be worth checking out Mahall Bikeworks. It is custom so 
it won’t be cheap, but I’ve read some about him experimenting with 
Rivendell long stays on some adventure bikes that made me interested. It 
has been a while so the details are fuzzy to me, but I was very interested. 
He can even make it lugged!

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 3:24:50 PM UTC-8 Hoch in ut wrote:

>
> I’ve owned a number of fat bikes. One I thought was the most Riv-esque was 
> the Ritchey Commando. I don’t think they make them anymore. But you may be 
> able to find a used one. They rode fantastic. Chainstays were relatively 
> long. 
> Regarding chainstays, it was just fine in snow. Mike C’s point of short 
> stays has some merit, but remember it’s just one guy’s opinion. He’s also 
> said in the past that rigid and hard tail bikes were useless and 
> full-suspension was the only way to go. I wholeheartedly disagreed with 
> that. 
> If you ever meet him, ask what he thinks of lugged steel rigid frames with 
> rim brakes! 
> Don’t put much weight of what he or others say. Go test it out for 
> yourself. 
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:
>
>> For the record I'm not the OP, which is why Keith deleted the post you're 
>> replying to. Fortunately his info was helpful anyway, but Joe B. who 
>> started a fatbike thread on internet-bob is not Joe D. who started this 
>> one! 
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Not to crowed Joe's questions, but this answers many of my questions 
>>> about fatbikes too; and I didn't know that there are 3.25 and 3.5 650B 
>>> tires. So thanks Keith for this detail. I've already found that no Riv can 
>>> take full 3"/76 mm 700C tires, alas.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:06 PM iamkeith  wrote:
>>>
 Joe,

 before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not 
 really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something 
 different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question 
 with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough 
 about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to 
 save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the ideas 
 I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:

 I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do 
 understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist 
 discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in 
 consideration of that question.


 *"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. 
 They're the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the 
 year or more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with northern 
 Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County 
 Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike 
 development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a 
 fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's back-to-basics, 
 monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an 
 retro-grouch 
 like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal 
 eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work. 
 Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter period 
 of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and steering 
 compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and 
 weight. Then they quit riding them. 

 *Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE 
 advances in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat 
 bike tires were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 
 2008, 
 maybe? Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, which 
 was similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you really 
 plan on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no 
 longer any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires 
 that give you almost all of the advantages of 26x4 with none of the 
 problems. If you think about it, there's nothing more "rivendell-esqe" 
 than 
 650b, right? They wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Rivendell! 

 *Regarding suspension and bounciness*: The best thing about fat bikes 
 is that they eliminate the need for suspension for most "normal" riding. 
 But it takes a lot of effort to tune the tire pressure to 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Hoch in ut]

I’ve owned a number of fat bikes. One I thought was the most Riv-esque was 
the Ritchey Commando. I don’t think they make them anymore. But you may be 
able to find a used one. They rode fantastic. Chainstays were relatively 
long. 
Regarding chainstays, it was just fine in snow. Mike C’s point of short 
stays has some merit, but remember it’s just one guy’s opinion. He’s also 
said in the past that rigid and hard tail bikes were useless and 
full-suspension was the only way to go. I wholeheartedly disagreed with 
that. 
If you ever meet him, ask what he thinks of lugged steel rigid frames with 
rim brakes! 
Don’t put much weight of what he or others say. Go test it out for 
yourself. 
On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC-7 Joe Bernard wrote:

> For the record I'm not the OP, which is why Keith deleted the post you're 
> replying to. Fortunately his info was helpful anyway, but Joe B. who 
> started a fatbike thread on internet-bob is not Joe D. who started this 
> one! 
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Not to crowed Joe's questions, but this answers many of my questions 
>> about fatbikes too; and I didn't know that there are 3.25 and 3.5 650B 
>> tires. So thanks Keith for this detail. I've already found that no Riv can 
>> take full 3"/76 mm 700C tires, alas.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:06 PM iamkeith  wrote:
>>
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not 
>>> really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something 
>>> different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question 
>>> with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough 
>>> about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to 
>>> save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the ideas 
>>> I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:
>>>
>>> I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do 
>>> understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist 
>>> discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in 
>>> consideration of that question.
>>>
>>>
>>> *"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. 
>>> They're the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the 
>>> year or more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with northern 
>>> Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County 
>>> Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike 
>>> development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a 
>>> fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's back-to-basics, 
>>> monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an retro-grouch 
>>> like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal 
>>> eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work. 
>>> Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter period 
>>> of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and steering 
>>> compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and 
>>> weight. Then they quit riding them. 
>>>
>>> *Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE 
>>> advances in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat 
>>> bike tires were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 2008, 
>>> maybe? Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, which 
>>> was similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you really 
>>> plan on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no 
>>> longer any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires 
>>> that give you almost all of the advantages of 26x4 with none of the 
>>> problems. If you think about it, there's nothing more "rivendell-esqe" than 
>>> 650b, right? They wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Rivendell! 
>>>
>>> *Regarding suspension and bounciness*: The best thing about fat bikes 
>>> is that they eliminate the need for suspension for most "normal" riding. 
>>> But it takes a lot of effort to tune the tire pressure to really take 
>>> advantage of this. Almost as much hassle as dealing with shock rebound 
>>> rates and pressure settings, etc. on a true full-suspension bike. When you 
>>> get tire pressure >just< right, you don't bounce at all, and you don't have 
>>> funny steering or excessive rolling inefficiency. But the optimum pressure 
>>> requirement changes depending on terrain and load, so you end up fussing 
>>> with it a lot. (or giving up and getting frustrated with the ride qualities 
>>> - a la the "novelty wearing off topic." ) The REALLY important thing to 
>>> keep in mind here is that the bigger the tire volume / cross section, the 
>>> more sensitive it is  to pressure adjustments, and the more you need to 
>>> mess 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Joe Bernard]

For the record I'm not the OP, which is why Keith deleted the post you're 
replying to. Fortunately his info was helpful anyway, but Joe B. who 
started a fatbike thread on internet-bob is not Joe D. who started this 
one! 

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Not to crowed Joe's questions, but this answers many of my questions about 
> fatbikes too; and I didn't know that there are 3.25 and 3.5 650B tires. So 
> thanks Keith for this detail. I've already found that no Riv can take full 
> 3"/76 mm 700C tires, alas.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:06 PM iamkeith  wrote:
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not 
>> really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something 
>> different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question 
>> with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough 
>> about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to 
>> save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the ideas 
>> I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:
>>
>> I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do 
>> understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist 
>> discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in 
>> consideration of that question.
>>
>>
>> *"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. They're 
>> the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the year or 
>> more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with northern 
>> Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County 
>> Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike 
>> development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a 
>> fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's back-to-basics, 
>> monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an retro-grouch 
>> like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal 
>> eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work. 
>> Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter period 
>> of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and steering 
>> compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and 
>> weight. Then they quit riding them. 
>>
>> *Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE 
>> advances in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat 
>> bike tires were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 2008, 
>> maybe? Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, which 
>> was similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you really 
>> plan on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no 
>> longer any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires 
>> that give you almost all of the advantages of 26x4 with none of the 
>> problems. If you think about it, there's nothing more "rivendell-esqe" than 
>> 650b, right? They wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Rivendell! 
>>
>> *Regarding suspension and bounciness*: The best thing about fat bikes is 
>> that they eliminate the need for suspension for most "normal" riding. But 
>> it takes a lot of effort to tune the tire pressure to really take advantage 
>> of this. Almost as much hassle as dealing with shock rebound rates and 
>> pressure settings, etc. on a true full-suspension bike. When you get tire 
>> pressure >just< right, you don't bounce at all, and you don't have funny 
>> steering or excessive rolling inefficiency. But the optimum pressure 
>> requirement changes depending on terrain and load, so you end up fussing 
>> with it a lot. (or giving up and getting frustrated with the ride qualities 
>> - a la the "novelty wearing off topic." ) The REALLY important thing to 
>> keep in mind here is that the bigger the tire volume / cross section, the 
>> more sensitive it is  to pressure adjustments, and the more you need to 
>> mess with it. So you're absolutely better off only getting as much tire as 
>> you really need! 4" is really overkill most of the time, now that there are 
>> intermediate options.
>>
>> *Geometry considerations (and Pugsley concern)*: You specifically asked 
>> about the Puglsey. I'll venture that is probably NOT the bike for you. I 
>> had a first generation pugsly at one point (with canti brakes!) . The thing 
>> about wrist pain - as you know from Grant teaching us - is that it's more 
>> of an issue of frame geometry than it is of tire plushness or vibrations 
>> and impacts being transferred through the bars. In particular, it comes 
>> from bikes with too-low handlebars and too-steep seat tubes angles and 
>> twitchy steering geometries, all conspiring to require you to put lots of 
>> your body weight on the handlebars. They 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Bob]

Patrick,

I do not, sorry to say. Would like to have those data myself. Anyone here 
have a Prospector, a caliper, and a few minutes to take measurements?

--
Bob

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:17:49 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat, 
> Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if 
> any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because of 
> the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be 
> very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking of 
> a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB ranger 
> rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be 
> sorted. 
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:12 PM Bob  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
>>
>

-- 
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/2a82212f-a509-4156-8bd7-0f75085a1137n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Patrick Moore]

Bob: Do you know how low a Q you can get on the Prospector, Scapegoat,
Chimera and Bull Thistle, particularly with a single speed drivetrain (if
any accept a ss drivetrain)? I've stayed away from Pugsleys etc because of
the Q but if one can be built as a ss with a Q of no more than 160 I'd be
very interested for our local sandy trails. As it is, I've been thinking of
a 29er+ replacement for my Monocog 29er on which the rear 71 mm WTB ranger
rubs the stays in corners but fat would be even better if the Q could be
sorted.

Thanks.



On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:12 PM Bob  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
>

-- 
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/CALuTfgsqdwNuub%2BEHjxt49mD-1fsd-SvPa5V94DoKzJVr_cfww%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Joe D.]

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 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Patrick Moore]

Not to crowed Joe's questions, but this answers many of my questions about
fatbikes too; and I didn't know that there are 3.25 and 3.5 650B tires. So
thanks Keith for this detail. I've already found that no Riv can take full
3"/76 mm 700C tires, alas.


On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:06 PM iamkeith  wrote:

> Joe,
>
> before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not
> really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something
> different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question
> with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough
> about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to
> save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the ideas
> I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:
>
> I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do
> understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist
> discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in
> consideration of that question.
>
>
> *"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. They're
> the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the year or
> more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with northern
> Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County
> Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike
> development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a
> fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's back-to-basics,
> monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an retro-grouch
> like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal
> eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work.
> Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter period
> of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and steering
> compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and
> weight. Then they quit riding them.
>
> *Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE
> advances in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat
> bike tires were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 2008,
> maybe? Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, which
> was similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you really
> plan on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no
> longer any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires
> that give you almost all of the advantages of 26x4 with none of the
> problems. If you think about it, there's nothing more "rivendell-esqe" than
> 650b, right? They wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Rivendell!
>
> *Regarding suspension and bounciness*: The best thing about fat bikes is
> that they eliminate the need for suspension for most "normal" riding. But
> it takes a lot of effort to tune the tire pressure to really take advantage
> of this. Almost as much hassle as dealing with shock rebound rates and
> pressure settings, etc. on a true full-suspension bike. When you get tire
> pressure >just< right, you don't bounce at all, and you don't have funny
> steering or excessive rolling inefficiency. But the optimum pressure
> requirement changes depending on terrain and load, so you end up fussing
> with it a lot. (or giving up and getting frustrated with the ride qualities
> - a la the "novelty wearing off topic." ) The REALLY important thing to
> keep in mind here is that the bigger the tire volume / cross section, the
> more sensitive it is  to pressure adjustments, and the more you need to
> mess with it. So you're absolutely better off only getting as much tire as
> you really need! 4" is really overkill most of the time, now that there are
> intermediate options.
>
> *Geometry considerations (and Pugsley concern)*: You specifically asked
> about the Puglsey. I'll venture that is probably NOT the bike for you. I
> had a first generation pugsly at one point (with canti brakes!) . The thing
> about wrist pain - as you know from Grant teaching us - is that it's more
> of an issue of frame geometry than it is of tire plushness or vibrations
> and impacts being transferred through the bars. In particular, it comes
> from bikes with too-low handlebars and too-steep seat tubes angles and
> twitchy steering geometries, all conspiring to require you to put lots of
> your body weight on the handlebars. They may have gotten better since mine,
> but the thing about pretty much ALL surly bikes is that they have extremely
> short head tubes and stack heights. You can add 4" of stem spacers and a
> high-rise stem but, at some point, you're probably fighting the design
> intent of the bike.
>
> Similarly and, as CJ noted, many accomplished snow bike racers prefer
> short chainstays, and it's probably valid.. to a point. I've had that same
> 

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Joe D.]

Just wanted to say thanks for the insights everyone. I posted a longer 
reply a few days ago that still awaiting the moderator (I guess?) but I 
just wanted to say thanks in the meantime...

Joe

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 
>> 

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[iamkeith]

Joe,

before throwing in my 2 cents, I want to acknowledge that this is not 
really answering your questions but, instead, telling you to do something 
different.   I usually get annoyed when people answer a direct question 
with "you don't need that" but, in this case, my friend, I know enough 
about you and your bike-purchase-and-subsequent-regret habits to want to 
save you some hassle.  Others have already mentioned a couple of the ideas 
I was going to offer, but here it is with more explanation:

I haven't read through  your other ibob thread completely, but do 
understand that much of your interest comes from wanting to relieve wrist 
discomfort - especially on rough trails..  So this response is partly in 
consideration of that question.


*"Novelty" concerns:* I was a pretty early adopter of fat bikes. They're 
the only kind of bike I can even ride for fully 6 months of the year or 
more, due to the amount of snow where I live. (Along with northern 
Minnesota and Anchorage, my area - the sister communities of Teton County 
Idaho and Teton County Wyoming - were where much of the early fatbike 
development occurred.) For a number of years around 2010 or so, I rode a 
fat bike almost exclusively, all year. I liked it for it's back-to-basics, 
monster-truck, roll-over-anything simplicity. But, even for an retro-grouch 
like me who lives in a place where they make complete sense, that appeal 
eventually wore off and I now only ride it when no other bike will work. 
Most people who get fat bikes enjoy the novelty for an even shorter period 
of time. They eventually tire of the extra rolling resistance and steering 
compromises and increased q- factor and mechanical complications and 
weight. Then they quit riding them. 

*Tire Size considerations*: Keep in mind that there have been HUGE advances 
in tire manufacturing and technology since (and because) 26" fat bike tires 
were invented - even though that wasn't all that long ago. 2008, maybe? 
Much of what made 26x4 tires work so well was their diameter, which was 
similar to the not-much-older 29er development. But, unless you really plan 
on riding in loose sand or deep snow most of the time, there is no longer 
any advantage to 4" tires. There are now some 650b semi-fat tires that give 
you almost all of the advantages of 26x4 with none of the problems. If you 
think about it, there's nothing more "rivendell-esqe" than 650b, right? 
They wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Rivendell! 

*Regarding suspension and bounciness*: The best thing about fat bikes is 
that they eliminate the need for suspension for most "normal" riding. But 
it takes a lot of effort to tune the tire pressure to really take advantage 
of this. Almost as much hassle as dealing with shock rebound rates and 
pressure settings, etc. on a true full-suspension bike. When you get tire 
pressure >just< right, you don't bounce at all, and you don't have funny 
steering or excessive rolling inefficiency. But the optimum pressure 
requirement changes depending on terrain and load, so you end up fussing 
with it a lot. (or giving up and getting frustrated with the ride qualities 
- a la the "novelty wearing off topic." ) The REALLY important thing to 
keep in mind here is that the bigger the tire volume / cross section, the 
more sensitive it is  to pressure adjustments, and the more you need to 
mess with it. So you're absolutely better off only getting as much tire as 
you really need! 4" is really overkill most of the time, now that there are 
intermediate options.

*Geometry considerations (and Pugsley concern)*: You specifically asked 
about the Puglsey. I'll venture that is probably NOT the bike for you. I 
had a first generation pugsly at one point (with canti brakes!) . The thing 
about wrist pain - as you know from Grant teaching us - is that it's more 
of an issue of frame geometry than it is of tire plushness or vibrations 
and impacts being transferred through the bars. In particular, it comes 
from bikes with too-low handlebars and too-steep seat tubes angles and 
twitchy steering geometries, all conspiring to require you to put lots of 
your body weight on the handlebars. They may have gotten better since mine, 
but the thing about pretty much ALL surly bikes is that they have extremely 
short head tubes and stack heights. You can add 4" of stem spacers and a 
high-rise stem but, at some point, you're probably fighting the design 
intent of the bike. 

Similarly and, as CJ noted, many accomplished snow bike racers prefer short 
chainstays, and it's probably valid.. to a point. I've had that same 
conversation with Mike Curiak and Jay Petervary. The think to keep in mind 
is that these are extremely fit riders who have the strength to shift their 
weight fore and aft as needed, as a technique for staying on top of the 
snow. AND they're riding in the iditarod, for christ's sake. For most of us 
mortals - and for someone who's not really even riding on snow - that's 
much 

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Bob]

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 

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[CJ]

I've owned 5 different fat bikes over the last 10 years, and I love riding 
on snowy trails. In my opinion, you do not want long chainstays for that. 
Shorter chainstays make it easier to get traction and get up on top of the 
snow. Multiple time Iditabike winner, Mike Curiak, feels the same way 
, so I know 
I'm not alone in this opinion. If you want a four season fat bike, I'd 
recommend the Surly Wednesday. It rides great all year round, fits 4.6" 
tires for all but the deepest powder days, works great with 29x3" wheels, 
and doesn't have the super wide Q-factor of a full 5" tire fat bike. If you 
want max flotation, the Surly Ice Cream truck is a great choice with 
clearance for 5.05" Vee Snowshoe XL tires. 

Another thing, if you're in between sizes, you can size down for a more 
nimble ride (shorter front-center and overall wheelbase) or up for a more 
stable ride.

Chris

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:21:16 PM UTC-5 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/a2ba9f1b-aa0e-4441-b41b-fe40eeb742e0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[luckyturnip]

I just saw a lovely Tumbleweed Prospector on Tumbleweed’s IG set up as a fatbike with 26x4On Dec 15, 2022, at 13:39, Brian Turner  wrote:Speaking of Riv-esque? How about the Tanglefoot Bull Thistle? Pricey and extravagant for sure, but it sure is lovely. It's made by my buddy Alex Meade, too.On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 4:29 PM Coal Bee Rye Anne  wrote:There's also the updated Crust Scapegoat/bot which takes up to 26x4" through 29x3"https://crustbikes.com/collections/frames/products/scapegoatOn Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:I forgot the Blackborow was redesigned as a cargo long tail... I was never in the market for such a thing but did initially have a slight interest in the v1 Blackborow with the dinglespeed build: https://www.salsacycles.com/bikes/2015_blackborow_dsHere's a TI fat bike from Bearclaw with 463 chainstays, over 1000 wheelbase across all sizes and 1177 WB/66cm toptube at my XL size which rivals the 66 or 67cm TT of my Clem H, though angles of 73/70.5  definitely differ than 72.5/72.5 of my Clem.  No experience with fat bikes or Bearclaw in general but recall coming across some other Bearclaw models online and that they had a fat-fat tired model. https://bearclawbicycleco.com/frank-titanium-fat-bike/On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 3:53:02 PM UTC-5 Slin wrote:Joe - Have you taken a look at fat tire cargo bikes like the Surly Big Fat Dummy? Or the Salsa Blackborow? I don't have experience with either, but maybe they could be options to fit your use case?SOn Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 11:21:16 AM UTC-8 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 

Re: [RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Brian Turner]

Speaking of Riv-esque? How about the Tanglefoot Bull Thistle? Pricey and
extravagant for sure, but it sure is lovely. It's made by my buddy Alex
Meade, too.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 4:29 PM Coal Bee Rye Anne <
lionsrugbyalu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's also the updated Crust Scapegoat/bot which takes up to 26x4"
> through 29x3"
> https://crustbikes.com/collections/frames/products/scapegoat
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:
>
>> I forgot the Blackborow was redesigned as a cargo long tail... I was
>> never in the market for such a thing but did initially have a slight
>> interest in the v1 Blackborow with the dinglespeed build:
>> https://www.salsacycles.com/bikes/2015_blackborow_ds
>> Here's a TI fat bike from Bearclaw with 463 chainstays, over 1000
>> wheelbase across all sizes and 1177 WB/66cm toptube at my XL size which
>> rivals the 66 or 67cm TT of my Clem H, though angles of 73/70.5  definitely
>> differ than 72.5/72.5 of my Clem.  No experience with fat bikes or Bearclaw
>> in general but recall coming across some other Bearclaw models online and
>> that they had a fat-fat tired model.
>> https://bearclawbicycleco.com/frank-titanium-fat-bike/
>>
>> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 3:53:02 PM UTC-5 Slin wrote:
>>
>>> Joe - Have you taken a look at fat tire cargo bikes like the Surly Big
>>> Fat Dummy? Or the Salsa Blackborow? I don't have experience with either,
>>> but maybe they could be options to fit your use case?
>>>
>>> S
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 11:21:16 AM UTC-8 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 

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Coal Bee Rye Anne]

There's also the updated Crust Scapegoat/bot which takes up to 26x4" 
through 29x3"
https://crustbikes.com/collections/frames/products/scapegoat
On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5 Coal Bee Rye Anne wrote:

> I forgot the Blackborow was redesigned as a cargo long tail... I was never 
> in the market for such a thing but did initially have a slight interest in 
> the v1 Blackborow with the dinglespeed build: 
> https://www.salsacycles.com/bikes/2015_blackborow_ds
> Here's a TI fat bike from Bearclaw with 463 chainstays, over 1000 
> wheelbase across all sizes and 1177 WB/66cm toptube at my XL size which 
> rivals the 66 or 67cm TT of my Clem H, though angles of 73/70.5  definitely 
> differ than 72.5/72.5 of my Clem.  No experience with fat bikes or Bearclaw 
> in general but recall coming across some other Bearclaw models online and 
> that they had a fat-fat tired model. 
> https://bearclawbicycleco.com/frank-titanium-fat-bike/
>
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 3:53:02 PM UTC-5 Slin wrote:
>
>> Joe - Have you taken a look at fat tire cargo bikes like the Surly Big 
>> Fat Dummy? Or the Salsa Blackborow? I don't have experience with either, 
>> but maybe they could be options to fit your use case?
>>
>> S
>>
>> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 11:21:16 AM UTC-8 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 

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Coal Bee Rye Anne]

I forgot the Blackborow was redesigned as a cargo long tail... I was never 
in the market for such a thing but did initially have a slight interest in 
the v1 Blackborow with the dinglespeed 
build: https://www.salsacycles.com/bikes/2015_blackborow_ds
Here's a TI fat bike from Bearclaw with 463 chainstays, over 1000 wheelbase 
across all sizes and 1177 WB/66cm toptube at my XL size which rivals the 66 
or 67cm TT of my Clem H, though angles of 73/70.5  definitely differ than 
72.5/72.5 of my Clem.  No experience with fat bikes or Bearclaw in general 
but recall coming across some other Bearclaw models online and that they 
had a fat-fat tired 
model. https://bearclawbicycleco.com/frank-titanium-fat-bike/

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 3:53:02 PM UTC-5 Slin wrote:

> Joe - Have you taken a look at fat tire cargo bikes like the Surly Big Fat 
> Dummy? Or the Salsa Blackborow? I don't have experience with either, but 
> maybe they could be options to fit your use case?
>
> S
>
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 11:21:16 AM UTC-8 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/469bb715-e6ad-4fcd-90de-2e6ed125696cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Slin]

Joe - Have you taken a look at fat tire cargo bikes like the Surly Big Fat 
Dummy? Or the Salsa Blackborow? I don't have experience with either, but 
maybe they could be options to fit your use case?

S

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 11:21:16 AM UTC-8 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/ced0ee5f-4a15-4464-bae7-1f38df108cden%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Rivendell-esq fat bike

[Mr. Ray]

Just find a bike with chainstays that can accommodate 4.5" tires.  Long 
wheelbase is not necessary since the volume of the tires would be your 
"comfort and suspension".

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:21:16 PM UTC-5 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/7b145757-bbe5-488f-b8f9-08ec40e54fean%40googlegroups.com.