Check Out Our Shop
Page 49 of 54 FirstFirst ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 1348

Thread: Are you fat? Do you like it? What would you do different next time?

  1. #1201
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars
    Posts
    3,857
    I can't really tell much difference between my 27.5x4.5 vee rubber snow avalanche and my 26x4.8 49N whatchamacallits, both are studded. Huge difference between those and the choyangs that came with my first fatty.

  2. #1202
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaver View Post
    I can't really tell much difference between my 27.5x4.5 vee rubber snow avalanche and my 26x4.8 49N whatchamacallits, both are studded. Huge difference between those and the choyangs that came with my first fatty.
    I think a lot of people are being drawn to 27.5 by thinking it does the same thing on a fat bike that it does on a normal mountain bike.

    But 27.5 doesn't go wider than 4.5" so far, and the diameter of that wheel and my 26x5" is remarkably close... so the rollover resistance and angle of attack should be similar but I'd suggest I'm getting more float out of my 26x5.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  3. #1203
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    9,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    I think a lot of people are being drawn to 27.5 by thinking it does the same thing on a fat bike that it does on a normal mountain bike.

    But 27.5 doesn't go wider than 4.5" so far, and the diameter of that wheel and my 26x5" is remarkably close... so the rollover resistance and angle of attack should be similar but I'd suggest I'm getting more float out of my 26x5.
    I've been trying to gather info on this and yes, the 26 x 5" is going to float better than a 27.5 x 4". The overall footprint of rubber on snow is larger on the 27.5, but narrower. So the thought (from what I've read and it just makes sense) is that a wider but shorter 26" footprint will float better. Now a 27.5 x 5" would be ideal for float. A 27.5 x 4.5" is probably pretty damn good though.

  4. #1204
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw View Post
    I've been trying to gather info on this and yes, the 26 x 5" is going to float better than a 27.5 x 4". The overall footprint of rubber on snow is larger on the 27.5, but narrower. So the thought (from what I've read and it just makes sense) is that a wider but shorter 26" footprint will float better. Now a 27.5 x 5" would be ideal for float. A 27.5 x 4.5" is probably pretty damn good though.
    My point is that the assumption that 27.5 has a larger contact patch is not always valid.

    The footprint is a factor of the length of contact patch and the width... and the length of the contact patch is proportional to the diameter of the tire.

    The diameter of any johnny 5 on a 26" wheel is 30.2".

    https://fat-bike.com/2020/02/terrene...he%20Vee%202XL.

    Whereas this chart shows the cake eater 27.5x4 is under 30"... actually a smaller diameter and smaller contact patch than the Johnny 5. All of the combinations on the chart below are less than 30" and the 27.5x4 is almost identical in diameter to the 26x4.8.

    https://fat-bike.com/2018/04/26-27-5...el-comparison/

    The cake eater 27.5x4.5 is actually 785mm (30.9") and is a larger contact patch but i think most narrower 27.5 are a smaller contact patch than 26x5 johnny 5.

    https://fat-bike.com/2018/11/first-l...ight%3A%20~5mm
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  5. #1205
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    9,361
    Ok, but what is lost there? Something is going on to have a 26" tire having a larger diameter than a 27.5. The one article is 2018, so it would be interesting to see what, if anything, has changed since then.

    My new bike comes as a 650b, so I'll be riding it as one with the fattest tire possible.

  6. #1206
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw View Post
    Ok, but what is lost there? Something is going on to have a 26" tire having a larger diameter than a 27.5. The one article is 2018, so it would be interesting to see what, if anything, has changed since then.

    My new bike comes as a 650b, so I'll be riding it as one with the fattest tire possible.
    Honestly, I can't figure out what is lost there other than the 26x5 probably is less likely to pinch flat at low pressures than the same length (but narrower) 27.5x4 tire.

    And since running low pressures is one of the major points of a fat bike, I'm happy with my 26x5.

    If I had 27.5 wheels I would either run the cake eater 4.5, or the bontragger gnarwhal 4.5... pretty sure they are the largest available in that format.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  7. #1207
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    9,361
    Yeah, the Blizzard comes with a 4.5" cake eater.

    What's funny or odd is that they posted this on their support page -
    Model Year
    Maximum Tire Width
    2015 26" x 4.8"
    2016 26" x 4.8"
    2017 26" x 4.8" // 29" x 3.0"
    2018 26" x 4.8" // 29" x 3.0"
    2019 26" x 4.8" // 29" x 3.0"
    2020 26 x 4.8 // 27.5 x 4.0 // 29 x 3.0 (30/50 levels only)


    Yet, the spec on the bike page (30 layup) states this -
    Rims
    Sun Mulefüt 80 | 32H | Tubeless Ready - Tape | Valves Incl
    Tires
    F: Terrene Cake Eater Fast Rolling Tubeless Studdable 27.5 x 4.5 | R: Terrene Cake Eater Fast Rolling Tubeless Studdable 27.5 x 4.5


    So I really don't know what the fattest tire will be available for the 22 model. I'm thinking a 26" x 5" will work.

  8. #1208
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    That 4.5 cake eater is huge, and apparently the centre knobs are a lot bigger/more aggressive than the other size of cake eater, for some reason.

    If your bike comes with those, I'd just run them.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  9. #1209
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    668
    FWIW, I ran 27.5x4.5" last Winter in mostly LCC riding, and this year switched back to superior 26x4.8-5". The tires are just not there yet for 27.5 for softer conditions.

    The 27.5 was fast and efficient, which was great, but didn't cut it when it got soft.

  10. #1210
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    8,878
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1023.jpg 
Views:	77 
Size:	2.05 MB 
ID:	405100

    26 x 4.6” 45N Wrathchilds are ten times better than the Kenda Juggernauts that came as stock.

  11. #1211
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by SJG View Post
    FWIW, I ran 27.5x4.5" last Winter in mostly LCC riding, and this year switched back to superior 26x4.8-5". The tires are just not there yet for 27.5 for softer conditions.

    The 27.5 was fast and efficient, which was great, but didn't cut it when it got soft.
    Yeah having never actually tried 27.5 fat (so maybe my thoughts are off base), this is part of what I was worried about.

    You don't see people running low profile tires on a 4x4 rig so I'm not sure why you would want more rim and less rubber on a fat bike?
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  12. #1212
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    9,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SJG View Post
    FWIW, I ran 27.5x4.5" last Winter in mostly LCC riding, and this year switched back to superior 26x4.8-5". The tires are just not there yet for 27.5 for softer conditions.

    The 27.5 was fast and efficient, which was great, but didn't cut it when it got soft.
    Interesting. Thanks.

  13. #1213
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw View Post
    I've been trying to gather info on this and yes, the 26 x 5" is going to float better than a 27.5 x 4". The overall footprint of rubber on snow is larger on the 27.5, but narrower. So the thought (from what I've read and it just makes sense) is that a wider but shorter 26" footprint will float better. Now a 27.5 x 5" would be ideal for float. A 27.5 x 4.5" is probably pretty damn good though.
    Yeah I agree... 27.5x4.5 is a lot of float.

    If I had a 27.5 wheelset I would run this size and be happy with it.

    I think they are close enough to not worry about a new wheelset... just work with what you've got.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  14. #1214
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cuntecticut
    Posts
    1,826
    Got a 2017 Kona Wozo size medium frame up for grabs if anyone is looking for something to build up/swap parts to. Scratches and scrapes, but no cracks, major dings, all threaded bits are intact, etc.

    It's the older 177 x 12 rear end version, in blue.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  15. #1215
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars
    Posts
    3,857
    My 27.5 x4.5 are just as meaty as my 26x4.8. I'd say they roll better but I've never compared them in similar condition with similar pressure. I tend to run my 27.5 firmer, so they roll faster, I'd say I prefer 27.5. Don't ask what psi I run, I don't have a clue of the actual number and don't care. I finger bang them and Ride.

  16. #1216
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaver View Post
    I finger bang them and Ride.
    Sig worthy.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  17. #1217
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    668
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2-19-22-A.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	227.0 KB 
ID:	406598

  18. #1218
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    8,878
    Nice! Can’t say I’m beeping a lot riding.
    Can’t even get myself to bring my Garmin most days.

  19. #1219
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Norcal
    Posts
    2,246
    Some lake riding


  20. #1220
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Granite, UT
    Posts
    2,663

  21. #1221
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    8,878
    I’m continually amazed by your ability to ride year round, in shorts. We’ll done!

  22. #1222
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    8,878
    Not quite first.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1052.jpg 
Views:	126 
Size:	1.21 MB 
ID:	408570

  23. #1223
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,791
    You guys must be much better riders than I am because I struggle like hell in untracked.
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  24. #1224
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    cow hampshire
    Posts
    9,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    You guys must be much better riders than I am because I struggle like hell in untracked.
    Sometimes it's actually easier depending on conditions and at times it's impossible for sure. Definitely a different ride as far as pedaling and weight bearing.

    Guy who was getting a shipment of Rocky Mtn's in contacted me and not one bike is a Blizzard. No new fatty for me this season.

  25. #1225
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    8,878
    3-4” of fluff over a nice hard even base is sublime. More than that or an unconsolidated base can be tricky.
    I find slush the most difficult.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •