Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Fat bikes & the future?
  • RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Couple of questions, from an interested spectator:

    1. Is their a proper standard for everything?
    Wheel diameter, dishing & width, hub & BB spacing etc.

    2. Are the big boys showing any signs of disrupting or altering the current accepted format?

    I keep bikes for a loooong time and can’t afford to get stitched up with a Betamax bike.

    Common sense is telling me to hold on and see if the major manufacturers drop a turd in the pool re compatability when they enter the market properly.
    But you’re a long time dead, there’s room in the garage and….well, you know….. 😀

    All the fault of John Climber and his fatty at Hit The North a few years ago btw. 🙂

    Thoughts?

    rOcKeTdOg
    Full Member

    Don’t let John give you a go on his Jones, now THAT could get expensive

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    I agree about the whole compatibility thing.

    It’s a fairly safe bet that 135 offset frames will be around for quite a while as that’s currently the only way of fitting an Alfine or Rohloff (the latter have said that the potential market is too small – though they could change their minds).

    170 is the next jump up and, although currently popular, seems to me to be a bit of a dead end. After all, if you’re going that wide, why not jump to 186/190 and give yourself the option of the wider, 5″ rubber?

    Wheel dishing is all a function of the above.

    Rim/tyre width is very much dependent on what type of riding you want to do – e.g. no need for 100mm if you’re not on soft sand or snow.

    BB widths seemed to have settled at 100mm, though there are a couple of proprietary solutions popping up.

    The “big boys” (Spesh/Trek) don’t currently seem to be driving a change of standards.

    Remember the “half fat” solutions too. With Krampus-type 29+ already available and 27.5+ on the near horizon. I can see a lot of scope for the latter if they can be fitted into 29er frames.

    akira
    Full Member

    Not quite settled down yet, until companies stop making wider rims and tyres then hub and bb widths won’t settle down. I can see two sizes existing, bikes designed for 4″ tyres and bikes designed for 5″ tyres, the smaller size mire trail orientated and the bigger size for proper sand/snow stiff.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

The topic ‘Fat bikes & the future?’ is closed to new replies.