Tire sizes
- Thread starter jaejsvv
- Start date
Juggernaut
Master of the Metaphor
Ah, the old 170+ Hub vs 190+ Hub debate. It's the lifeblood of fatbike standards wars.
Start with the bike. How does it ride? If you prefer one over the other then you have your answer. If, and I mean "if" both bikes are comparable, I'd go with the 190+ hub. More options, more better. Keep in mind, the Mukluk will take a 5" tire up front (where you really need it in the snow) too.
jaejsvv
Member
So much to learn...I would have guessed that the rear was more important for the bigger size for float and traction. Thanks for that, good to know.Ah, the old 170+ Hub vs 190+ Hub debate. It's the lifeblood of fatbike standards wars.
Start with the bike. How does it ride? If you prefer one over the other then you have your answer. If, and I mean "if" both bikes are comparable, I'd go with the 190+ hub. More options, more better. Keep in mind, the Mukluk will take a 5" tire up front (where you really need it in the snow) too.
Juggernaut
Master of the Metaphor
It's not that it isn't important per say, it's just that most of the time it's tracking behind the front so it's not breaking brand new trail. Rims and drive train also impact what you can run. I ran a Bud and Lou on 65mm rims (1x10) on my muk with only a minor alteration to my crank spacing but couldn't come close to running the Lou in back on 90mm rims. These days for snow/sand I run a Dillenger 5 up front and a Vanhelga ( aggressive 4.0 tire) in back on 90mm rims on a 170mm hub'd Beargrease with great success. But being able to run the Dunderbeast in back ( it's too big for the 170 rear) would be nice.
This stuff can drive ya nuts. Still comes down to how the bike rides. Everything else is negotiable.
Demo's are your friend. Keep in mind the best way to demo a bike is on your regular trails so it's an apples to apples comparison.
Last edited:
Sandman98
Well-Known Member
I go with the 190mm hub. Because you can always change tire sizes. I go with a 4" tire during the summer and 5" during the winter. Bigger tires works for me on the beach and 8-10" of snow. Try what you have for now because different rider have different experience or feel. It all boils down to tire pressure, trail conditions, weight of the rider and skills. Not to mention tire grip and cornering abilities. The list go on and on. Not only that, good branded tires are expensive. Just my penny of thoughts
qclabrat
Well-Known Member
I'm in the same boat but don't have the funds to really commit to real money on a fat. I'd definitely choose 190 over 170 if all things are close enough. There's a Scott Big Ed frame for $400 I was considering on the bay, but the BB30 was the deal breaker for me. I already have all the parts and just need a frame/fork. I may regret getting a 170 but since my budget is under $800, it won't be a big loss if I go 190 in a year or two. What did you like about the Muk vs the Fatboy? You may also want to try a Farley, though I'm not sure how it compares to the Muk as I've never ridden one.
Johnny Utah
Well-Known Member
Not going to lie, come time for snow 5" tires are king, rocks 4" tires on 65mm rims kill it (but 5" tires on 80's will do). I wish I had the option on the back of the Beargrease for a 5" on 85mm rims, especially in the deep fluffy snow. Do I get by, yes. Do I wish I was 5" capable, yes. Will my next fatty be 5" capable. yes. Is the Mukluk a great trail bike, yes. Weight and riding style may allow you to run 4" tires all the time. In addition, how often are we really packed up with snow that a 5" is needed? Ask yourself what and when you really will be riding. Most don't "need" 5" tires, but they sure are fun.
If I didn't like to go fast, I would ride 5" tires all the time. Most likely Dillinger 5's.
If I didn't like to go fast, I would ride 5" tires all the time. Most likely Dillinger 5's.
jaejsvv
Member
hard to say...thing is, both were limited test rides in a the lot/etc around the shop, so take it for what it is worth. The mukluk felt more like a cross country bike, with bigger tires...the fatboy was like a whole different thing, rolling over stuff like it wasn't there. That's the thing I am wrestling with, the mukluk was tight and felt great, but I think i might want that "whole new world" kind of ride out of the thing if I am gonna buy another bike.
jaejsvv
Member
I like to go fast too. the mukluk can support the 5" on the front. I think that is really the way to go...I think...
Johnny Utah
Well-Known Member
I was fine all last winter with exception to 8" plus of snow, but at that point no one is really moving in anything but the flats in most types of snow (wet, light, icy, etc.). I love my Beargrease, I think you made your mind up!
Getting the Fatboy and swapping to 4" tires for the summer (not sure why you'd want to) will be cheaper than getting a 4" bike and replacing the whole bike when you decide you want a 5" bike later.
You have to realize that most of the people answering these questions (myself included) go thru bikes like candy. If you're really planning on keeping this for a long time you should choose the more versatile bike.
You have to realize that most of the people answering these questions (myself included) go thru bikes like candy. If you're really planning on keeping this for a long time you should choose the more versatile bike.
domo
Well-Known Member
Started with a framed Minnesota nice but heavy
Then motobecane Boris nice but heavy
Then salsa mukluk nice but had restrictive 170mm rear hub
Then now a specialized Fatboy super nice but now convinced 197 rear and thru axles will benefit and so now hopefully would want a 150mm ta front and 197 ta rear for more options
I don't mind keeping the expert at all it's a great ride but if someone wants it I will sell it.
Not sure there are 150/197 bikes in the 1500.00 price range
Then motobecane Boris nice but heavy
Then salsa mukluk nice but had restrictive 170mm rear hub
Then now a specialized Fatboy super nice but now convinced 197 rear and thru axles will benefit and so now hopefully would want a 150mm ta front and 197 ta rear for more options
I don't mind keeping the expert at all it's a great ride but if someone wants it I will sell it.
Not sure there are 150/197 bikes in the 1500.00 price range
The Blackborow on 5 inch tires was definitely more capable on frozen post-holed chunder than my Mukluk. Handled really well, fun bike. If I was buying now I'd go five. Everyone who has the Fatboy seems to really like it.
Johnny Utah
Well-Known Member
I eat a lot of candy. I do have about 2.3k on my beargrease doe since February. Prolly 2k on my moonlander before dat. Still, I eats lots of candy. I bet Jim can talk me into a fatboy by March.
OddTrickStar
Well-Known Member
If you liked the Mukluk, check out the Blackborow. It's a well sorted very capable fat bike.
[QUOTE="Not sure there are 150/197 bikes in the 1500.00 price range[/QUOTE]
I just got a Motobecane Sturgis Bullit with a Bluto for my wife for $1500. 150mm up front, 197 thru-axle on the rear, Mulefut tubeless-ready rims. Ready to ride the snow!
My Boris with Bluto does well in the snow even though I am limited to 4" tires. I put On-One Floaters on it and they were great! If you go with the 170mm rear, check out the On-One Floaters -- not too expensive and get the job done well.
The Motobecane bikes are on the heavy side, but we didn't buy them to race. These are our secondary bikes and they fit our requirements of 1) Not breaking the bank, 2) Suspension fork, 3) extending the season (thick leaves/snow) and 4) giving us a great workout so we can really appreciate our Giant Trances in the spring!
I just got a Motobecane Sturgis Bullit with a Bluto for my wife for $1500. 150mm up front, 197 thru-axle on the rear, Mulefut tubeless-ready rims. Ready to ride the snow!
My Boris with Bluto does well in the snow even though I am limited to 4" tires. I put On-One Floaters on it and they were great! If you go with the 170mm rear, check out the On-One Floaters -- not too expensive and get the job done well.
The Motobecane bikes are on the heavy side, but we didn't buy them to race. These are our secondary bikes and they fit our requirements of 1) Not breaking the bank, 2) Suspension fork, 3) extending the season (thick leaves/snow) and 4) giving us a great workout so we can really appreciate our Giant Trances in the spring!
Last edited:
Blinkinbanana
Member
What's the fattest tire you guys could squeeze into the rear of a 170mm hub? 4.6 ground control rubbed on mine. Wondering if a 4.2 hillbilly would work or just stick to a big knobbed 4" rear.
I am one of those who is not buying a fat bike as my only bike. I had a beargrease and it was fun , but when i came to the snow, I was bummed not to have a big tire. Then I bought a blackboro and while I loved the big tires, I hated that wide crank stance.
I just got a cannondale fat cad which has a narrower q-factor than both and still has a 4.8" tire.
I just got a cannondale fat cad which has a narrower q-factor than both and still has a 4.8" tire.
qclabrat
Well-Known Member
depends on the frame, a small 4.5 like a Bulldozer is max for most, but I've heard some frames fitting a Snowshoe