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 <keith...@gmail.com> 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 >>>> 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. >>>> >>> -- 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/5bf918ed-a658-44fb-b192-2c6aa0e5a121n%40googlegroups.com.
