In my first post, seen here, I gave an overall view on “fat bikes” and why they matter to 29″er aficionados. In this post, I will go over a few of the oddities of fat bikes that are necessary to make them work. Those big, big tires cause a few things to be quite different from the typical mountain bike.
Due to the extra-wide nature of the tires and wheels on a fat bike, several evolutions occurred to make drive trains compatible with the wheels. The biggest challenge is how to get a full range of gears without chain/tire interference. There are a couple of ways used today to solve this conundrum. Let’s take a look at them and dissect the technical aspects of each.
The Offset Frame/Fork Type: Essentially, what needs to be done is to get the cassette in the rear further outboard to help clear the tire, while doing something similar with the crankset, all the while maintaining a workable chain line. The “Offset Type” fatbike does this by offsetting the frame 17.5mm to the drive side of the bike. This sticks the hub out further from the center line of the wheel/bike and allows the chain to clear the rear tire, even when using the lowest gears available. This requires special offset drilled rims.
Up front, the crankset is offset further from the center-line of the frame by using a 100 mm bottom bracket. But instead of an asymmetrical set up, the bottom bracket is centered on the center-line of the frame. This gets the crankset in a position to maintain a workable chain line and clear the big rear tire in the lowest gears. Typically an “E Type” bottom bracket mounted derailleur is used for front shifting duties. (However, a new product made by Problem Solvers is now available to employ the use of direct mount type front derailleurs as well.)
With the drive train and rear wheel all pushed over to make accessing the drive train’s complete gearing range possible, the last thing designers had to do was to get the front fork to line up with the rear end. To do this, the front fork is also offset, just like the rear end of the frame, by 17.5mm. To get those big wheels in and out of the fork when necessary, designers found that spacing the front end at 135mm, like the rear end, allowed for easier wheel removal. Now with this set up, it is also possible to swap front and rear wheels. This allows for several possibilities in setting up the bike with different gear ratios on cassettes, or to set one up as a single speed wheel as a bail out measure in case of derailleur failure.
The Offset Type fat bike is offered by Surly Bikes in their Pugsley model and Chain Reaction Cycles AK with their 9:Zero:7 model.
The Symmetrical Type: While setting up offset wheels in an offset frame and fork was one way to solve the puzzle, Greg Matyas of Speedway Cycles and others developed a symmetrical rear ended fat bike that still allowed for full access to the rear cassette without interference from the fat rear tire. How did they manage this? They simply added width to the rear hub until the cassette was in the proper position. This amounted to adding 17.5mm to each side of a 135mm O.L.D. hub for a grand total of 170mm.
A Phil Wood 170mm OLD hub in back of a traditional 135mm OLD single speed hub.
The wider hub kept everything “on center” so no offset wheels or fork is necessary. However; unlike an Offset Type fat bike, the wheels are not interchangeable. This may not be a big deal to traditional mountain biker types, but some fat bike aficionados are not big fans of the lack of a fail-safe for extreme conditions where failure is not an option. Supporters of the Symmetrical Type will point to the dishless wheel builds as being stronger, which isn’t the case with offset fat bike wheel builds. Other than that, the Symmetrical Type only differs in that the front fork is not offset. The width between the drop outs on these forks is still 135mm.
Purveyors of Symmetrical Type fat bikes include the aforementioned Fat Back Bikes and Salsa Cycles, which makes the Mukluk model I have shown at the top of this post, amongst others.
Rims And Tires: Obviously, the focal point of these bikes are the wheels. With the wide rims and nearly 4 inch wide tires, they certainly dominate and define the look of a fat bike. Tires for these monsters are only available from two sources and all are made by the same manufacturer in Asia. The most popular models are from Surly Bikes and have curious names like “Endomorph” and “Larry”. I won’t get into the details on the “why” of the tires since Surly does an excellent job of explaining it already. (Check the Endomorph page here for a great treatise on fat tires for fat bikes.)
Obviously Surly and others wanted a really wide rim to stretch out those early down hill tires and the subsequent Endomorphs to maximize the flotation effects. Early attempts at wide rims were usually done by attaching two mountain bke rims side by side, or by crude, single walled aluminum extrusions that were extremely rare. Now days, wide, light-ish rims are the norm. Surly has sold the “Large Marge” rims for some time now, but single walled, drilled out rims are the hot ticket these days. Rims like the Surly “Rolling Darryl“, or Chain Reaction Cycles “Flat Top” rims are usually modified extensively by riders seeking the lightest, widest rims possible. This is a common practice in trailsin bikes as well. Rim liners are used to prevent the tubes (which are also especially large), from poking out and offer the rider another way to personalize the look of their wheelset by using colorful ribbons, duct tapes, or reflective tape which shows through the rims’ “windows”.
Visual impact aside, the end result is a wheel with a very wide tire capable of running extremely low pressures, allowing riders to tackle terrain and conditions that would stop a normal mountain bike dead in its tracks. This includes, but is not limited to, snow, sand, loose rocks, and more. Of course, there are some drawbacks. Weight is an issue that can not be overlooked. The wheels and tires are quite heavy, weighing far more than traditional mountain biking fare, but supporters will tell you that once you get those big wheels turning, they like to keep turning, much like a flywheel. Add in the way they can roll over difficult terrain, and the fun factor stays high.
Typical fat bikes will weigh in from just under 30lbs to the 40lb range, depending upon materials and drive train choices. I have not accurately weighed my Salsa Cycles Mukluk yet, but it falls into the low 30’s for weight. Not terrible, but you can feel it at first. Oddly enough, that feeling seems to go away after a couple of rides. Must be all the fun I am having. Speaking of the Mukluk, I will introduce my bike that I have dubbed “The Snow Dog” in my next post, and give you my First Impressions on what it is like to pilot one of the “monster trucks of the cycling world”.
Note: Salsa Cycles did not submit this bike for review/test. This is Guitar Ted’s personal bike. He will strive to give his honest thoughts throughout the test.
Just had a thought… what if someone came out with a 170mm spacing fork? It’d be hugely over-kill, but would be interesting to allow the same fail-safe option that the 135mm off-set fat bikes get.
“…the last thing designers had to do was to get the front fork to line up with the rear end. To do this, the front fork is also offset, just like the rear end of the frame, by 17.5mm.”
ummm…since the rim/tyre is centered in respect to the front triangle is not the only reason for an offset fork is to enable swapping wheels front to rear? not being argumentative…even owning a 907 I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this offset business…it’s a minor miracle that I built a wheelset for the thing…
STeve
The big advantage of an offset is you can use the likes of an Alfine hub or Rohloff hub so you don’t have to worry about a derailleur.
This is useful if your bike is getting a lot of sand use.
I don’t know how well an IGH performs below -15ºC though.
@Steve: The center-line of the main triangle is on the center-line of the rear tire because the rim is offset. If it were not, and built as a standard wheel build, it would be offline to the drive-side, but more importantly, you would lose the advantage that offsetting the rim gives to drive train access and chain clearances. (Basically, the offset frame and rim work together to get the tire to clear the drive train), So, the fork didn’t have to be offset, but the designers felt swapping wheels would be an advantage, and having a wider OLD was going to make wheel removal easier as well, so why not make them the same? Basically, the front didn’t have to be offset, but the rear did. So, you are correct in your assumption that it was done to provide a fail-safe/redundancy for extreme conditions.
@BMac: To be more precise: “The big advantage of having an offset is that it preserves the 135mm OLD which allows for IGH usage.” Essentially, you are right, but it is the over-lock dimension of the Symmetrical Type that disallows IGH usage.
Oh yeah, almost forgot! 🙂
@Jonathan: A 170mm wide spaced fork would present some big geometry problems with regards to fork crown clearances at the down tube. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done. It would be rather difficult to make that work though, with clearances being as tight as they are already.
One other difference that was mentioned to me about snow bikes is the use of twist shifters. The idea is that these are easier to use than triggers when your hands are inside thick mittens. I can’t tell on the Surly, but it looks like this is the case on the Mukluk and Fatback pictures you have posted. Any comments on this?
GT-wouldn’t the frame offset or the symmetrical design help with the belt drive problems as well?
Are tires the limiting option? I see you mention hubs but not tires…
Would a 135mm front hub and 142mm rear hub help or just make things more difficult?
Great report about something that I know nothing about!
you could make a fork with a std width crown, which then tapers out to acept 170mm hubs,
this would also give a very lateraly stiff fork i think
@Exhausted_Auk: Yes, the Grip Shift twist grip shifters are very popular with the fat bikers since, as you say, heavily gloved or mittened hands find them easier to operate. They also function a bit better in cold temperatures, since some trigger shifters with grease inside get stiff in the cold. (Easily remedied, but still…) Also of note: Many fat bikers use thumbshifters for the same reasons, (easier operation), and also because they do not have housings which can crack and fail in extremely cold conditions like a grip shifter can.
@yogi: The belt drive suffers poor “belt line” due to Gates insistence in machining the cogs with an offset to the inside of the bike, and more specifically, due to their width. Of course, an offset drive train/rear wheel might be made to work, but again- just to have a belt? No thanks.
@adrian ward: Possibilities there with your idea are tantalizing. Getting someone to make a rigid fork shouldn’t be too hard to do. 😉
A 170mm wide rear hub translates to a stronger wheel build. It’s about time someone got the ball rolling in terms of widening the rear spacing.
I’ve seen the extreme tapers on road bike forks. It’s most certainly possible to do something similar for a fat bike. As long as you’re being non-standard with a 135mm front spacing, why not go all the way for 170mm?!?!
adrian ward-Wouldn’t that just make fitting a disc mount that much more difficult?
just done a quick sketch a fork that is 170mm at the wheel 470 mm long and 135 at the top end gives you a leg angle of 87.62degrees ..
so i can see no problems with disc mounts either post or iso mounts as both will be within the bounds of the fork leg
a 200mm disc needs mounting at least 8mm from inside face of the dropout to give clearance with the angled legs ,,
i’ll try to get a full drawing done this week ,, what offset ? and fork length
GT – how are those rims working our for you? Do you feel they’d be sturdy enough for some dirt riding too? Any comments on the Larry tires? Thanks, Scott
@Swami Scott: The Rolling Darryls have been great so far. Mind you, it has all been snow miles, so no hard knocks to speak of. (Well, maybe a few. 😉 ) Surly isn’t super keen on these for anything but sand and snow, that said, unless you run so low on pressures that you start to ding the rims, I wonder how in the world you would have any issues with the tires being so huge. Not saying they couldn’t be ripped apart somehow, but those tires…..whew! They is big! 😉
And did I mention that the tires were huge? Ha ha! Okay, so other than the obvious here, the Larry tires have a deeper tread than I expected. So far, on compacted snow, where the snow is shiny it is so smashed down, the Larry’s have gripped and held a line really well. They really bite in. Those little arrow head knobs seem to be doing a great job with lateral traction. We’ll see about dirt in spring.
Looking to get belt driven fat tire bikes for beach rides in Florida. Know of any manufacturers that will build them?
So how wide are those tires anyway? I have tires that are 2.6 wide and that’s the widest tires I’ve ever seen in store. So how wide are these?
Hi I saw the inquiry about a belt drive for a sand bike. Where can I learn more. No snow here in south Africa but lots of sand.my first fat bike is great but as always, I’m looking for improvements