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 less important. The thing about longer chainstays, within reason and as you know, is that they allow you to sit more upright without un-weighting the steering and becoming twitchy. This might all be moot, because not much of the industry thinks like Rivendell. *Possible options:* In summary, I'm saying look at geometry first, and tire size second. And think 'less is more." I just can't imagine you being happy with 4" tires in the long run. Bontrager makes a 650b by 3.5ish tire. (hodaq) Better yet, Duro makes a 650b x 3.25. (crux) There are even a few 650b x 3 tires, too (teravail corronado, surly knard) This leads to a vastly different set of bike options, several of which I was going to suggest and were mentioned. A couple of these actually have close Rivendell associations and lineage: Tumbleweed; Analog/Tanglefoot; Soma. The VO polyvalent might work too. Or a stooge Scrambler. All of these will fit more than enough tire, but I don't actually know all of the geometry details so you'll want to study closely. You want tall stack height, low bottom bracket, slack seat tube. To me, that's what makes a Rivendell fit so well and is what you're really asking. Use the Bike Insights tool. *Actual Rivendell Option*: The Gus/Susie takes a pretty decent size tire too - but you've been there and know that and are probably looking for more than 2.8 tires. The availability of rims makes it hard to fully take advantage of even those, in my opinion, for the "squishy" tire effect you seem to be after. The thing about those bikes too, (in my experience) is that the geometry isn't actually all that "rivendell-esqe." They're meant to be decent mountain bikes, so the bottom bracket feels high to me. That's probably the case with some of the others mentioned.... but its more expected. Especially the tumbleweed prospector, which is intended to take a suspension fork. The stooge is low for sure. Still, I can't help thinking that, if you got it set up right, it wouldn't do exactly what you're after. *My own hands-down recommendation*: Again, already mentioned by others. I've said it a few times, but one of the best damn bikes I've ever owned is my gen 2 Crust Scapegoat. Ugly-as-sin paint job, but absolutely perfect geometry to me. It's what I'd want if doing a custom. It'll take a 26x4 tire with some compromises, but I set mine up with 650b x 3.25, 3x drivetrain with reasonable q factor, full fenders. Unfortunately, they just changed it. It got longer chainstays - which is probably good - but it also got a higher bottom bracket, shorter top tube and maybe steeper seat tube - which may or may not be good. The combination of the shorter top tube and longer chainstays probably allows you to still sit more upright than typical bikes. Still worth looking at and might work well for you - you know enough about what fits you. If not, you could look for a gen 2 used. On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 12:21:16 PM UTC-7 Joe D. wrote: > Hello Rivendell aficionados! The short version: I’d like some advice on > picking a fat bike (4-5” wide tires) that shares similar ride > characteristics with the current crop of Rivendell long chainstay-long > wheelbase bikes (e.g. Clem, Atlantis, Platy, Gus/Susie). > > The long version: I’m in the market for a full-on fat bike, with true 4-5 > inch wide tires. I live in Montana and my previous winter riding with > studded 3 inch tires just wasn’t enough. We’re a one car family, so in > addition to riding on winter trails or snowy forest service roads for fun, > I’ll use the bike for groceries and errands as well. And as much as I’d > love an Atlantis or Platy for dirt roads, bike camping, and light trail > use, the more economical choice would be to get a set of 29 inch wheels for > a fat bike and run 2.8 or 3 inch tires in non-snow season for an all year > off-road bike. Hence the importance of making a good choice now. > > How I came to desire a Rivendell-esq fat bike: A friend in another state > got a 2019 Clem and raves about the comfy, stable ride with the long chain > stays/wheelbase. But the real kicker was when I got a Yuba Mundo Lux cargo > bike (https://yubabikes.com/cargobikestore/yuba-mundo-lux/) for hauling > my two kids around. The swept back bars get me sitting upright, and the > crazy long chainstay (753mm) and wheelbase (1410) make 150lb loads totally > manageable. It’s like a Cadillac. Since the Yuba, I’ve vowed that all my > bikes will be long and upright. Fortunately upright stems and swept back > bars can take care of the upright part for near any bike, so that leaves > chainstay/wheelbase length as the big question for a fat bike. > > For reference, scroll down here ( > https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5d1ae74763bde8001707cf36,5e1faf637f17da00170c6e28,) > > and you can see the chainstay/wheelbase lengths on the Clem and Atlantis, > both ~550mm for chainstays and ~1235mm for wheelbase. For fat bikes, > consider these two models ( > https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5ff009522655ff0017c6e96a,61c0a2add559210021256cf2,). > > The Wyatt can actually have a longer wheelbase than the Rivendells with its > sliding dropouts (1250 max wheelbase). But its chainstay is only 465, still > long-ish for mountain bikes but not near what a Riv or cargo bike is. It > achieves that with a slack head tube angle that pushes the front tire way > out front. > > Alternatively, the Giant fat bike in the link has a similar max chainstay > length as the Wyatt (460mm) but a shorter wheelbase (1170mm), leading to a > more centered position on the bike. I’m unable to find any fat bikes with > the combination of long chainstay/wheelbase that the Rivendell’s have. > > Any tips on which bike, and which geometry approach in general, would get > me closest to the Rivendell/cargo bike-like comfort and ride quality? Other > fat bikes? For simplicities sake, I guess don’t evaluate factors other than > geometry, like frame material. For what it’s worth, there are very few > chromoly fat bikes. > > (Sorry for the length! I appreciate anyone getting into such a bike-nerdy > discussion) > > - Joe > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c50c75a8-5929-48de-a973-95eb6fc9dd5an%40googlegroups.com.
