Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I can't exactly figure out what section to post this in...

I am in the process of figuring out a new build, a 29+ bike that also will be able to run 29x2.4, front suspension or rigid, and SS or 1x10/11, depending on my mood :)

I have narrowed the search down to two frames (I rode one, riding the other soon). One is a fatbike than can run 29x3, has a 100mm BB and 170 rear spacing. The other is a more standard 73mm BB and 135 rear.

Are there any disadvantages to the 100mm/170mm combo that I am not thinking of? I know the 170 will allow me the option to run true fat tires if I want to, but I doubt I will ever do this. The wider BB and rear hub are negligibly more expensive, so that is not an issue.

Thanks!
 

·
aka bOb
Joined
·
8,813 Posts
Not as many 170 hubs available, heavier hubs and the same could be said about A 100mm crank as well as a wide q factor that bothers some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
Biggest drawback is selection. THere's not a ton of 170 hubs. Or 190 hubs.

However, 100mm cranks are now pretty common and can be had in lots of different weights and costs and setups.

I'm a sucker for flexibility. If it was me, I'd go with the 170 frame just because maybe someday I'd discover that I do want to run 4" tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,360 Posts
Downside?

Restricted to derailleurs or single speed.

If you want a gearing system you can drag through the mire and slush, a hubgear is best, and they are only in 135mm other than a 3 speed S-A.
 

·
Laramie, Wyoming
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
...I know the 170 will allow me the option to run true fat tires if I want to, but I doubt I will ever do this...
Actually, it won't allow you to run the true "fat" tires. That would be the biggest pitfall for me. As others have pointed out, you better like the 170 hubs that are currently out there because many feel that this is a size that is headed for extinction or at best won't be the norm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
Actually, it won't allow you to run the true "fat" tires. That would be the biggest pitfall for me. As others have pointed out, you better like the 170 hubs that are currently out there because many feel that this is a size that is headed for extinction or at best won't be the norm.
Running a Lou tire on an 82 mm rim and a 1x ring spaced just 2 or 3 mm outboard from the 'normal' location for a 170 rear is probably 'true fat' enough for the OP, and many riders. With 29+ rim and tire options likely to grow, I suspect the market will maintain a place for the more seasonally-versatile 170 frames.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
I've used 29+ wheelsets on two different 170 frames, and both bikes were a hoot to ride. Just as much fun as the fat wheels, but in a different way- far more versatile for gravel roads and other non-snow conditions. While there aren't a ton out there, there is a pretty good selection of 170 hubs, both high and low quality. The standard hasn't been out for more than a few years, so I don't think it's going away immediately. I know it wasn't your original choice, but what about a Pugsley? It will take a set off Rabbit Hole rims on any 135 hubs you want with 29er and 29+ tires, plus the obvious fat wheels and tires. Look at the KramPug threads for consideration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks all! Yeah, I don't think the KramPug is for me. The fat frame I am considering is the REEBdonkadonk, the other is the Carver Gnarvester. Now...if I go the REEB route, should I do a full rigid fat fork with a 135mm hub, which limits me pretty much to the Carver/11nine fork for suspension when I go that route? Or keep the front end to a 100mm 15TA, which gives me a couple more options for suspension. Wish I knew which way the manufacturers will go for 29+/fat suspension forks next year...

I was planning on getting a Hope Pro2 hubset, so I can get them in the regular 100/142 or 135/170 if need be, price is pretty much the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,801 Posts
I would not want the increased Q-factor of a fatbike on a non-fat bike. It's not that much about anatomics (I'm flexible and not too picky) but a wider BB brings the pedals much closer to the ground when cornering. Wide fat tires give you a little bit of distance (I believe) but regular tires put you closer to the ground.

The frames might have a different BB drop, look into that as well. Same reason as before: pedal strikes.

I'd just build the 29+ around the 135/73 mm frame and put the 29x2.4 tires on hold, putting the money reserved for them to the initial 29+ build to make it even better.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top