Fat Tires On Gravel: From Krampus To Gryphon

 The Experimental Phase - Part 2

 Continuing on with this series concerning my thoughts and experiences with 29+ tires and gravel, today I am going to tell the story behind the other one of two ideas I had to mimic the Mukluk/29+ idea I had seen work so well at Odin's Revenge in 2014. You can go back to read the previous post here. 

While "B+" was appearing on the scene, and while I was messing with that, I still had this burning idea for the 29+ Mukluk idea I had seen at Odin's Revenge as it was ridden by Mike Johnson. One of the things I learned about Mike's set up was that he had to have a part made to accommodate the larger diameter of the 29+ wheel since that was larger than a 26" X 4.0" tire, which is what the Ti Mukluk was designed for. 

Stuffing the 29+ tires mounted on Velocity Dually's into a first generation Ti Mukluk would not work. The rear tire interfered with the "brake brace" across the seat stays above the tire. So, Mike contacted a friend of his, a fellow Trans Iowa rider and winner of T.I.v7, Dennis Grelk, to machine him some new swinging drop out plates. Dennis obliged him, but figured that if he was going to do one set, he may as well do three. 

By the time I came around two sets had been spoken for and I got my mitts on the third set. As far as I am aware, those were the only "DG Dropouts" ever produced for the Ti Mukluks. While it would have been awesome to have had these be through axle, that wasn't yet a thing when Dennis made these, so they all were quick release style. Dennis essentially had to engineer these bits to be longer and allow the proper clearance at that pesky frame brace to make it all be safe to ride. This raised the bottom bracket just a touch, but not much. That comes into play into the story later.

The 29+ wheel in stock Alternator drop outs set all the way back.

The arrow pointing to the DG Dropout which allowed the 29" wheel to have about an 1 1/2" of clearance at the brake bridge.

That was a critical piece which I needed to have to make this 29+/Muluk idea work. I ended up calling this by Mike's name for his set up: The Muktruk. This was perfect since the idea was really manifested as being worthwhile at a mucky, wet gravel event. 

By the time I got around to doing this idea in 2014, Salsa Cycles had produced a new hubset for fat bikes which required a 150mm, front brake standard fork. Previously the Mukluks had held on to the vestiges of the Pugsley's design for the front fork which utilized a 135mm spaced rear brake standard caliper. So, I had to buy a new fork to use with my new hubs which were purple, of course! 

A set of black anodized Velocity Dually rims were sourced and I built up the wheels, set the Knard tires up on there, and along with the drop outs I had from Dennis, I was able to finally put the MukTruk together in August of 2014.

The MukTruk in all its glory.

I wanted to like this set up. I really, really wanted to. But in the end, that jacked up bottom bracket height was just too much for me to deal with, and the bike just didn't feel right to me anymore. So, one thing led to another, and by October of 2014 I had sold the wheel set I built, sold the tires, and converted the bike back to a fat bike while retaining the DG Drop outs to allow for fatter rubber than I could have put in this bike before. 

So I ended up here. This is how I kept the bike until I sold it several years ago.

29+ was still on my radar. I still had the itch to get a bike with drop bars and a proper geometry for gravel that could be a bikepacking bike or a severe conditions bike. But back in 2014, that didn't exist yet. There were bikes that stoked my fires though. Two of which I actually got the chance to ride in 2014 and both used 29 X 3.0" tires. 

A Borealis fat bike conversion with 29+

MG's 29+ super-rare Singular Rooster with 29+ wheels.

The Borealis fat bike conversion I rode in the Fall of 2014 was revelatory. The geometry was 100% better than the MukTruk's. The bike was a fantastic MTB rig and I got to ride it pretty solidly for over a month before I had to send it back. This was a review bike for the now defunct "Twentynine Inches" site. 

Then I got to test ride Matt Gersib's rare Singular Rooster 29+ bike. I doubt that there are more than a few of these Singular models out there, and it was a blast to get to ride Matt's. (He still has it, by the way) This was another great example to me that a proper 29+ bike could happen. 

And you might be thinking "What about the Deadwood/Fargo with 29+?"

Close, but not quite. The 2016 Salsa Cycles Deadwood.

 Salsa Cycles took some inspirations from.....somewhere. I wouldn't claim that I, or Mike Johnson, or maybe some others, had anything to do with what Salsa Cycles came up with, but they were certainly watching what was going on with us gravel/MTB/bikepacker/fat bikers out there. At any rate, in the Summer of 2015, Salsa dropped a bombshell in their Deadwood, a bike that clearly came from the Fargo and which was stuffed with 29+ wheels and covered in a fantastic copper-colored paint scheme. 

I got to see one close up, and well..... There wasn't a whole lot of tire clearance. The geometry of the bike was pointing toward a pretty tall bottom bracket, and after having seen what some folks did with Deadwoods, namely put on much smaller diameter wheels with much skinnier tires, I was validated in those suspicions. The Fargo with the claim of multiple sized wheel capabilities came out next, but stories of minimal clearances with 29+ and high bottom brackets kept me at bay. This was not "that bike" that I was looking for either. Close, but not quite. 

Meanwhile, in 2015, I struck upon a pretty good set up. Driven by injury and a desire to try the fat tires on gravel, a bike emerged from my stable and made 2015 one of my best gravel riding seasons ever. 

Next: A Brief Look At The Fat Fargo 

Fat Tires On Gravel: From Krampus To Gryphon

 The Experimental Phase - Part 2

 Continuing on with this series concerning my thoughts and experiences with 29+ tires and gravel, today I am going to tell the story behind the other one of two ideas I had to mimic the Mukluk/29+ idea I had seen work so well at Odin's Revenge in 2014. You can go back to read the previous post here. 

While "B+" was appearing on the scene, and while I was messing with that, I still had this burning idea for the 29+ Mukluk idea I had seen at Odin's Revenge as it was ridden by Mike Johnson. One of the things I learned about Mike's set up was that he had to have a part made to accommodate the larger diameter of the 29+ wheel since that was larger than a 26" X 4.0" tire, which is what the Ti Mukluk was designed for. 

Stuffing the 29+ tires mounted on Velocity Dually's into a first generation Ti Mukluk would not work. The rear tire interfered with the "brake brace" across the seat stays above the tire. So, Mike contacted a friend of his, a fellow Trans Iowa rider and winner of T.I.v7, Dennis Grelk, to machine him some new swinging drop out plates. Dennis obliged him, but figured that if he was going to do one set, he may as well do three. 

By the time I came around two sets had been spoken for and I got my mitts on the third set. As far as I am aware, those were the only "DG Dropouts" ever produced for the Ti Mukluks. While it would have been awesome to have had these be through axle, that wasn't yet a thing when Dennis made these, so they all were quick release style. Dennis essentially had to engineer these bits to be longer and allow the proper clearance at that pesky frame brace to make it all be safe to ride. This raised the bottom bracket just a touch, but not much. That comes into play into the story later.

The 29+ wheel in stock Alternator drop outs set all the way back.

The arrow pointing to the DG Dropout which allowed the 29" wheel to have about an 1 1/2" of clearance at the brake bridge.

That was a critical piece which I needed to have to make this 29+/Muluk idea work. I ended up calling this by Mike's name for his set up: The Muktruk. This was perfect since the idea was really manifested as being worthwhile at a mucky, wet gravel event. 

By the time I got around to doing this idea in 2014, Salsa Cycles had produced a new hubset for fat bikes which required a 150mm, front brake standard fork. Previously the Mukluks had held on to the vestiges of the Pugsley's design for the front fork which utilized a 135mm spaced rear brake standard caliper. So, I had to buy a new fork to use with my new hubs which were purple, of course! 

A set of black anodized Velocity Dually rims were sourced and I built up the wheels, set the Knard tires up on there, and along with the drop outs I had from Dennis, I was able to finally put the MukTruk together in August of 2014.

The MukTruk in all its glory.

I wanted to like this set up. I really, really wanted to. But in the end, that jacked up bottom bracket height was just too much for me to deal with, and the bike just didn't feel right to me anymore. So, one thing led to another, and by October of 2014 I had sold the wheel set I built, sold the tires, and converted the bike back to a fat bike while retaining the DG Drop outs to allow for fatter rubber than I could have put in this bike before. 

So I ended up here. This is how I kept the bike until I sold it several years ago.

29+ was still on my radar. I still had the itch to get a bike with drop bars and a proper geometry for gravel that could be a bikepacking bike or a severe conditions bike. But back in 2014, that didn't exist yet. There were bikes that stoked my fires though. Two of which I actually got the chance to ride in 2014 and both used 29 X 3.0" tires. 

A Borealis fat bike conversion with 29+

MG's 29+ super-rare Singular Rooster with 29+ wheels.

The Borealis fat bike conversion I rode in the Fall of 2014 was revelatory. The geometry was 100% better than the MukTruk's. The bike was a fantastic MTB rig and I got to ride it pretty solidly for over a month before I had to send it back. This was a review bike for the now defunct "Twentynine Inches" site. 

Then I got to test ride Matt Gersib's rare Singular Rooster 29+ bike. I doubt that there are more than a few of these Singular models out there, and it was a blast to get to ride Matt's. (He still has it, by the way) This was another great example to me that a proper 29+ bike could happen. 

And you might be thinking "What about the Deadwood/Fargo with 29+?"

Close, but not quite. The 2016 Salsa Cycles Deadwood.

 Salsa Cycles took some inspirations from.....somewhere. I wouldn't claim that I, or Mike Johnson, or maybe some others, had anything to do with what Salsa Cycles came up with, but they were certainly watching what was going on with us gravel/MTB/bikepacker/fat bikers out there. At any rate, in the Summer of 2015, Salsa dropped a bombshell in their Deadwood, a bike that clearly came from the Fargo and which was stuffed with 29+ wheels and covered in a fantastic copper-colored paint scheme. 

I got to see one close up, and well..... There wasn't a whole lot of tire clearance. The geometry of the bike was pointing toward a pretty tall bottom bracket, and after having seen what some folks did with Deadwoods, namely put on much smaller diameter wheels with much skinnier tires, I was validated in those suspicions. The Fargo with the claim of multiple sized wheel capabilities came out next, but stories of minimal clearances with 29+ and high bottom brackets kept me at bay. This was not "that bike" that I was looking for either. Close, but not quite. 

Meanwhile, in 2015, I struck upon a pretty good set up. Driven by injury and a desire to try the fat tires on gravel, a bike emerged from my stable and made 2015 one of my best gravel riding seasons ever. 

Next: A Brief Look At The Fat Fargo 

Fat Tires On Gravel: From Krampus To Gryphon (Intro)

This post will be the beginning of a series on 700c fat tires on gravel. I mean really fat tires, not 2.4's or 2.6's, but really fat tires. The so-called "29+" tires. Originally these were 29" X 3.0" wide tires and they were pretty much the brainchild of the nutbags at Surly Bikes. Originally seen on the Krampus model in 2012, this tire size revolutionized my thinking about what might work in certain situations on gravel roads and dirt roads. 

This will be a mini-series on the blog here. My intentions are to show my personal experiences and takes on 29+ sized wheels for gravel. this is not going to be a comprehensive look at 29+, nor is it going to encompass everything about 29+ and gravel riding. However; I think you might find it interesting to know why I think 29+ is a good choice for gravel and what my thought processes and experiences have been up to this point. 

My intentions are to show my revelations regarding 29+, my experiences with 29+, where that led to gravel riding on such big, heavy tires, and where I have traveled on my way to getting what I consider now to be a "proper" 29+ bike for gravel. It all started with Surly's Krampus model in 2012, and it ended up with my Singular Cycles Gryphon Mk3 in 2023, over a decade later. 

29+: Surly's Last Great Innovation: 

This all begins with Surly Bikes' surprise revelation during the Summer of 2012 that they would be introducing the Krampus which was a hard tail MTB with corpulent 29" tires. Actually, if we wanted to be really technical about things, the 29+, three inch wide Surly Knard tires ended up being a bit over 31" in diameter, so quite a bit larger than 29"ers in reality. But who's measuring that?
 

I got to ride a Krampus at the 2012 Interbike show. It was the highlight of the show for me.

I was able to test ride that bike with the new 29+ Knard tires at Interbike's Outdoor Demo at Bootleg Canyon that year. I was very impressed. I stated back then that, "I think the Krampus is the ideal platform for longer, really rough road/back road/fire road riding in a bike packing set up. The tires should exhibit lots of grip, and with the volume, lots of suspension. Plus, a bit lower angle of attack should smooth out bumps even more than a typical 29"er."

I was thinking in mountain biking terms at the time, but all of that applies to gravel as well. The attributes of the 29+ tire were all well suited to gravel travel with the exception, perhaps, of the weight. The first Knards were pretty light though, so initially, this seemed like a viable way to go for gravel at some point. 

And it did.

But first we need to go back a bit further to when fat bikes came out. It wasn't completely obvious then, but in 2011, fat bikes were found to be "okay" at gravel travel. their big footprint was a stabilizing force over what could be described as a surface of stony ball bearings. Skinnier tires plowed through this and hunted for a stable passage through the rocky bits. But a fat bike tire just cruised over the top of the rocky chaos and smoothed out the ride so well that many still choose a fat bike to this day for gravel travel. All that despite the heavy, ponderous wheels. 

An all fat bike gravel ride in 2012

 While fat, voluminous tires were found to be pretty good at some things concerning gravel, they were a pretty heavy wheel back in the early twenty-teens. You rarely saw anyone running tubeless because of the lack of tubeless options, and therefore the wheels were really heavy. It would then make sense that a middle ground, something between fat tires of 3" plus and mountain bike tires for 29"ers would be a nice thing to try. 

In steps the Krampus, and later, the Surly ECR, a purpose-built bikepacking bike for off-roading. These bikes featured Surly's Knard 3.0" X 29 inch diameter tires which were a revelation in terms of what might be possible. Early on, the wheels and tires Surly brought to bear on the MTB world were repurposed as "Summer Wheels" for fat bikes, turning those bikes into multi-purpose, all-terrain vehicles. 

Bikes like this Borealis were early fat bike conversions for 29+.

I had the chance to ride a Borealis fat bike outfitted with the 29+ wheel format and I was blown away by the bike's capabilities in varied terrain. However; I was still stuck on the thought that this format was more of a mountain biking thing. I wasn't focused on the possibilities for gravel riding at that point. 

29+ is fantastic for mountain biking, but the wheel size is limited to those who ride a medium on up, in practical terms, so the proliferation of 29+ wasn't as quick and all-encompassing as Surly and a few other brands who bought into the idea were hoping that it might be. Swapping out fat tires for 29+ in a fat bike was a thing for a hot minute too, but many were put off by having to deal with an extra wheel set and a pair of expensive tires. So, the idea never really caught fire like 29"ers, fat bikes, or gravel bikes which came later. 

The 29"er-ized Mukluk in 2012.

 I actually experimented with a 29"er wheel set in my 2011 Salsa Cycles Ti Mukluk back in 2012, but that idea fell off in importance to me because it was really "just another 29"er" at that point, and not an ideal one from a geometry standpoint at that. So, it lost interest with me fairly quickly.

However; there was one thing that happened at an Odin's Revenge which made me think that I needed to revisit that extra wheel set for the Ti Muk. That will be the next installment in this mini-series coming up in a week. Stay tuned!

Fat Tires On Gravel: From Krampus To Gryphon (Intro)

This post will be the beginning of a series on 700c fat tires on gravel. I mean really fat tires, not 2.4's or 2.6's, but really fat tires. The so-called "29+" tires. Originally these were 29" X 3.0" wide tires and they were pretty much the brainchild of the nutbags at Surly Bikes. Originally seen on the Krampus model in 2012, this tire size revolutionized my thinking about what might work in certain situations on gravel roads and dirt roads. 

This will be a mini-series on the blog here. My intentions are to show my personal experiences and takes on 29+ sized wheels for gravel. this is not going to be a comprehensive look at 29+, nor is it going to encompass everything about 29+ and gravel riding. However; I think you might find it interesting to know why I think 29+ is a good choice for gravel and what my thought processes and experiences have been up to this point. 

My intentions are to show my revelations regarding 29+, my experiences with 29+, where that led to gravel riding on such big, heavy tires, and where I have traveled on my way to getting what I consider now to be a "proper" 29+ bike for gravel. It all started with Surly's Krampus model in 2012, and it ended up with my Singular Cycles Gryphon Mk3 in 2023, over a decade later. 

29+: Surly's Last Great Innovation: 

This all begins with Surly Bikes' surprise revelation during the Summer of 2012 that they would be introducing the Krampus which was a hard tail MTB with corpulent 29" tires. Actually, if we wanted to be really technical about things, the 29+, three inch wide Surly Knard tires ended up being a bit over 31" in diameter, so quite a bit larger than 29"ers in reality. But who's measuring that?
 

I got to ride a Krampus at the 2012 Interbike show. It was the highlight of the show for me.

I was able to test ride that bike with the new 29+ Knard tires at Interbike's Outdoor Demo at Bootleg Canyon that year. I was very impressed. I stated back then that, "I think the Krampus is the ideal platform for longer, really rough road/back road/fire road riding in a bike packing set up. The tires should exhibit lots of grip, and with the volume, lots of suspension. Plus, a bit lower angle of attack should smooth out bumps even more than a typical 29"er."

I was thinking in mountain biking terms at the time, but all of that applies to gravel as well. The attributes of the 29+ tire were all well suited to gravel travel with the exception, perhaps, of the weight. The first Knards were pretty light though, so initially, this seemed like a viable way to go for gravel at some point. 

And it did.

But first we need to go back a bit further to when fat bikes came out. It wasn't completely obvious then, but in 2011, fat bikes were found to be "okay" at gravel travel. their big footprint was a stabilizing force over what could be described as a surface of stony ball bearings. Skinnier tires plowed through this and hunted for a stable passage through the rocky bits. But a fat bike tire just cruised over the top of the rocky chaos and smoothed out the ride so well that many still choose a fat bike to this day for gravel travel. All that despite the heavy, ponderous wheels. 

An all fat bike gravel ride in 2012

 While fat, voluminous tires were found to be pretty good at some things concerning gravel, they were a pretty heavy wheel back in the early twenty-teens. You rarely saw anyone running tubeless because of the lack of tubeless options, and therefore the wheels were really heavy. It would then make sense that a middle ground, something between fat tires of 3" plus and mountain bike tires for 29"ers would be a nice thing to try. 

In steps the Krampus, and later, the Surly ECR, a purpose-built bikepacking bike for off-roading. These bikes featured Surly's Knard 3.0" X 29 inch diameter tires which were a revelation in terms of what might be possible. Early on, the wheels and tires Surly brought to bear on the MTB world were repurposed as "Summer Wheels" for fat bikes, turning those bikes into multi-purpose, all-terrain vehicles. 

Bikes like this Borealis were early fat bike conversions for 29+.

I had the chance to ride a Borealis fat bike outfitted with the 29+ wheel format and I was blown away by the bike's capabilities in varied terrain. However; I was still stuck on the thought that this format was more of a mountain biking thing. I wasn't focused on the possibilities for gravel riding at that point. 

29+ is fantastic for mountain biking, but the wheel size is limited to those who ride a medium on up, in practical terms, so the proliferation of 29+ wasn't as quick and all-encompassing as Surly and a few other brands who bought into the idea were hoping that it might be. Swapping out fat tires for 29+ in a fat bike was a thing for a hot minute too, but many were put off by having to deal with an extra wheel set and a pair of expensive tires. So, the idea never really caught fire like 29"ers, fat bikes, or gravel bikes which came later. 

The 29"er-ized Mukluk in 2012.

 I actually experimented with a 29"er wheel set in my 2011 Salsa Cycles Ti Mukluk back in 2012, but that idea fell off in importance to me because it was really "just another 29"er" at that point, and not an ideal one from a geometry standpoint at that. So, it lost interest with me fairly quickly.

However; there was one thing that happened at an Odin's Revenge which made me think that I needed to revisit that extra wheel set for the Ti Muk. That will be the next installment in this mini-series coming up in a week. Stay tuned!

Friday News And Views

SAFETY NOTICE - CUTTHROAT V2 FORK: 

Salsa Cycles, on Wednesday, sent out a notice that owners of the Cutthroat Carbon Deluxe v2 and Cutthroat Carbon v2 forks need to check their fork for a possible safety issue. The affected forks were delivered to dealers in September 2019 to the present and can be identified by their serial numbers which require the fork to be removed from the bike to be seen. 

Riders who are unsure of how to remove the fork safely should have a qualified mechanic look at any suspected fork immediately. You can check in to THIS LINK for more information regarding this advisory. 

Please share this post with anyone you know that has a late model Cutthroat or that has a Cutthroat fork that fits the description here. 

The Ti Muk 2 has been set up and ready for the Fat Bike Century attempt for weeks now.

Fall Planning:

 

With the end of August here, I have been in planning mode for Fall riding and reviewing for RidingGravel.com. I have things I want to do, and things I have to do. Lately, the 'things I have to do' have been taking priority and will continue to do so for quite a while. This is problematic since I failed to get in the entire 100 mile ride I attempted at the beginning of August and I still have the Fat Bike Century on my plate to attempt yet as well. 

But I have things that are continually dragging me away from personal challenges, and while I may sneak in a hundy while doing testing, it won't be on the fat bike. That one may have to wait and I am thinking that is a more likely than not situation. There are wheels that need to be ridden, 'super-secret' stuff to be used, and I have a Light and Motion light needing some night riding scheduled into the mix. All this also hinges on times I have open to ride, and that coupled with weather. 

That, as Jeff Kerkove used to say about Trans Iowa, is 'the wildcard', right? I could really get into a pinch if the weather conspires to be awful on days I have open for test riding. So far this year I have hit the jackpot. I have maybe only had a few days where I had to forgo testing due to weather. In fact, I have had more outside influences keep me from riding this year than I have had issues with weather. So, I hope my weather luck holds. It's 'crunch time' for my reviewing, because sooner than not Winter will be here, and while you may think that's nuts to think this, I know I have at least three months of scheduled reviewing/test rides ahead of me. Yes- There is that much stuff going on. 

 

Mike Varley teased this LaCabra proto plus wheeled bike as a future BMC model.

Plus Bike Dreams:

 

Posting my Ti Muk 2 and selling my Sawyer, which was set up with B+ wheels, has me thinking a lot about plus sized wheels again. It is the one thing 'I think' I am missing in the stable of choices I have here. Having ridden a few of these types of bikes, the concept intrigues me greatly. I know what the wheels are capable of, and I know just exactly what I'd do with a bike with plus sized wheels, if all was right with the design as I see things. 

 

First of all, I'd want to be able to run 29 X 3" tires, although I'd likely do 29 X 2.8"ers in reality. 650B plus sized tires? Eh......why? 29"ers roll over stuff better and with a 3.0" wide 29"er tire, you can traverse some pretty difficult terrain. I've done it, so I know. I've seen it done too. I am convinced of this wheel size's prowess. 

So, that's why I have issues with the proposed BMC LaCabra. As cool as that bike would be, I would rather see it in a 700c format. So, what else is there? Well, you have the Surly ECR. Maybe.... It's over-built and has those stupid Surly drop outs which are a turn-off for me. So..... Jones Bike? Yeah.... a distinct possibility, but the cheap ones are not my cuppa. I'd do a LWB Titanium one in a heartbeat with a truss Fork, but $$$$'s are not what I have available to get into that. Really....the dream bike? A LWB Ti Spaceframe and Truss Fork. Hey, a man has to have a dream rig, right? 

 

Don't tell me about the Fargo. Not interested in the newer ones. I've seen these with 29 X 3" tires and I am not impressed. I don't want "modern trail geometry" either, so that puts a lot of other choices to rest too. No, right now only the Jones Ti LWB has me intrigued. But until I win the lottery...... The Ti Muk 2 will have to do me for now. Yes- I could build 29 X 2.8 wheels for this. However, this screws with the bottom bracket height on a Mukluk and I've tried 29+ wheels on a Mukluk before, so I know this. 

Anyway, just a random thought I have from time to time!

 

That's it for this week. Have a great weekend and put in some bicycling miles! 

Friday News And Views

SAFETY NOTICE - CUTTHROAT V2 FORK: 

Salsa Cycles, on Wednesday, sent out a notice that owners of the Cutthroat Carbon Deluxe v2 and Cutthroat Carbon v2 forks need to check their fork for a possible safety issue. The affected forks were delivered to dealers in September 2019 to the present and can be identified by their serial numbers which require the fork to be removed from the bike to be seen. 

Riders who are unsure of how to remove the fork safely should have a qualified mechanic look at any suspected fork immediately. You can check in to THIS LINK for more information regarding this advisory. 

Please share this post with anyone you know that has a late model Cutthroat or that has a Cutthroat fork that fits the description here. 

The Ti Muk 2 has been set up and ready for the Fat Bike Century attempt for weeks now.

Fall Planning:

 

With the end of August here, I have been in planning mode for Fall riding and reviewing for RidingGravel.com. I have things I want to do, and things I have to do. Lately, the 'things I have to do' have been taking priority and will continue to do so for quite a while. This is problematic since I failed to get in the entire 100 mile ride I attempted at the beginning of August and I still have the Fat Bike Century on my plate to attempt yet as well. 

But I have things that are continually dragging me away from personal challenges, and while I may sneak in a hundy while doing testing, it won't be on the fat bike. That one may have to wait and I am thinking that is a more likely than not situation. There are wheels that need to be ridden, 'super-secret' stuff to be used, and I have a Light and Motion light needing some night riding scheduled into the mix. All this also hinges on times I have open to ride, and that coupled with weather. 

That, as Jeff Kerkove used to say about Trans Iowa, is 'the wildcard', right? I could really get into a pinch if the weather conspires to be awful on days I have open for test riding. So far this year I have hit the jackpot. I have maybe only had a few days where I had to forgo testing due to weather. In fact, I have had more outside influences keep me from riding this year than I have had issues with weather. So, I hope my weather luck holds. It's 'crunch time' for my reviewing, because sooner than not Winter will be here, and while you may think that's nuts to think this, I know I have at least three months of scheduled reviewing/test rides ahead of me. Yes- There is that much stuff going on. 

 

Mike Varley teased this LaCabra proto plus wheeled bike as a future BMC model.

Plus Bike Dreams:

 

Posting my Ti Muk 2 and selling my Sawyer, which was set up with B+ wheels, has me thinking a lot about plus sized wheels again. It is the one thing 'I think' I am missing in the stable of choices I have here. Having ridden a few of these types of bikes, the concept intrigues me greatly. I know what the wheels are capable of, and I know just exactly what I'd do with a bike with plus sized wheels, if all was right with the design as I see things. 

 

First of all, I'd want to be able to run 29 X 3" tires, although I'd likely do 29 X 2.8"ers in reality. 650B plus sized tires? Eh......why? 29"ers roll over stuff better and with a 3.0" wide 29"er tire, you can traverse some pretty difficult terrain. I've done it, so I know. I've seen it done too. I am convinced of this wheel size's prowess. 

So, that's why I have issues with the proposed BMC LaCabra. As cool as that bike would be, I would rather see it in a 700c format. So, what else is there? Well, you have the Surly ECR. Maybe.... It's over-built and has those stupid Surly drop outs which are a turn-off for me. So..... Jones Bike? Yeah.... a distinct possibility, but the cheap ones are not my cuppa. I'd do a LWB Titanium one in a heartbeat with a truss Fork, but $$$$'s are not what I have available to get into that. Really....the dream bike? A LWB Ti Spaceframe and Truss Fork. Hey, a man has to have a dream rig, right? 

 

Don't tell me about the Fargo. Not interested in the newer ones. I've seen these with 29 X 3" tires and I am not impressed. I don't want "modern trail geometry" either, so that puts a lot of other choices to rest too. No, right now only the Jones Ti LWB has me intrigued. But until I win the lottery...... The Ti Muk 2 will have to do me for now. Yes- I could build 29 X 2.8 wheels for this. However, this screws with the bottom bracket height on a Mukluk and I've tried 29+ wheels on a Mukluk before, so I know this. 

Anyway, just a random thought I have from time to time!

 

That's it for this week. Have a great weekend and put in some bicycling miles! 

Friday News And Views

 The "Fat Fargo"

27.5+ Makes Headway:

I've been carefully watching the Eurobike and pre-Interbike mountain bike introductions, and one thing is becoming very plain. The industry, (as I figured they would a long time ago), has dove head first into the 27.5+ wheel size and not so much on the 29+ wheel size.

The new introductions I've seen or heard about are from Cannondale, Fuji, Specialized, Marin, Turner, Salsa Cycles, Scott Bikes, and a couple of others that escape me right now. All offering B+ wheels for 2016. How about 29+?

Other than the Salsa Deadwood and Trek Stache for 2016? Crickets............

I know folks think I am "anti-29+", or whatever. I am certainly not that at all. However; all you have to do is count where the introductions are and see that the industry isn't going full-on for 29+. The introductions are not there. The numbers, so far, do not lie. It appears that, while 29+ isn't going to die, it isn't where the industry is putting its eggs. This, from my viewpoint, is why I am saying 29+ won't be the big deal some folks seem to think it will be. That's all.

If I was so against it, I wouldn't have bought a set of wheels and tires to set one up, now would I? (More on that soon.) It's just that a really big diameter wheel isn't going to work for a whole lot of the cycling populace. B+? That's a much, much better fit for more people. So, I think what we are witnessing makes a lot of sense.

The "Muktruk" 29+ set up I had

One thing about that diameter that didn't work for me was how it jacked up my Titanium Mukluk's bottom bracket height. The bike was designed around 3.8"-4.0" tires, which have a smaller diameter by almost two inches than a 29+ tire/wheel has. When I stuck these wheels on my bike, I found that bottom bracket was uncomfortably high, as in almost too high for me to mount the bike reasonably well high. That and the way those wheels rolled with the Mukluk just didn't sit well with me, so I sold off the wheels and tires to fund a nice acoustic guitar for Mrs. Guitar Ted. But, I wasn't done with 29+ wheels. Nope! I've been working slowly on something all year, and I hope to get this together sometime soon. It will be 29+, but on a frame that was designed for such a big diameter wheel. Then we'll see just how it really works for me where I live.

My motivation has always been that Borealis Echo I tried with the 29+ wheels on it, so I think it would make a fine wheel platform for mountain biking/off roading. I just have to get the right geometry matched up with those big wagon wheels, then we'll see how it all goes. I also want versatility, and I am not building a dedicated, 29+ only bike up. I just don't see myself needing that. Not all the time, anyway.

A quick Trans Iowa V12 Announcement:

I just wanted to give the Grinnell Steakhouse a quick shout out for agreeing to be the host site for T.I.v12's Pre-Race Meat-Up. We've had six years of meetings there ever since Trans Iowa v6, and the Grinnell Steakhouse has always been stellar partners with Trans Iowa. Their hospitality, their easy going nature, and great food have been so appreciated by myself and others over the years. It's become "Checkpoint Zero", the defacto "Trans Iowa Family Reunion", and just a great place to have the pre-event meeting over the years. Little known factoid: Our first "Meat-Up" was held during the Steakhouse's first year of business there in Grinnell, so we've grown together over the past six years.

Okay- that's a wrap for this week. Have a great weekend, ride bikes, and be safe!

Friday News And Views

 The "Fat Fargo"

27.5+ Makes Headway:

I've been carefully watching the Eurobike and pre-Interbike mountain bike introductions, and one thing is becoming very plain. The industry, (as I figured they would a long time ago), has dove head first into the 27.5+ wheel size and not so much on the 29+ wheel size.

The new introductions I've seen or heard about are from Cannondale, Fuji, Specialized, Marin, Turner, Salsa Cycles, Scott Bikes, and a couple of others that escape me right now. All offering B+ wheels for 2016. How about 29+?

Other than the Salsa Deadwood and Trek Stache for 2016? Crickets............

I know folks think I am "anti-29+", or whatever. I am certainly not that at all. However; all you have to do is count where the introductions are and see that the industry isn't going full-on for 29+. The introductions are not there. The numbers, so far, do not lie. It appears that, while 29+ isn't going to die, it isn't where the industry is putting its eggs. This, from my viewpoint, is why I am saying 29+ won't be the big deal some folks seem to think it will be. That's all.

If I was so against it, I wouldn't have bought a set of wheels and tires to set one up, now would I? (More on that soon.) It's just that a really big diameter wheel isn't going to work for a whole lot of the cycling populace. B+? That's a much, much better fit for more people. So, I think what we are witnessing makes a lot of sense.

The "Muktruk" 29+ set up I had

One thing about that diameter that didn't work for me was how it jacked up my Titanium Mukluk's bottom bracket height. The bike was designed around 3.8"-4.0" tires, which have a smaller diameter by almost two inches than a 29+ tire/wheel has. When I stuck these wheels on my bike, I found that bottom bracket was uncomfortably high, as in almost too high for me to mount the bike reasonably well high. That and the way those wheels rolled with the Mukluk just didn't sit well with me, so I sold off the wheels and tires to fund a nice acoustic guitar for Mrs. Guitar Ted. But, I wasn't done with 29+ wheels. Nope! I've been working slowly on something all year, and I hope to get this together sometime soon. It will be 29+, but on a frame that was designed for such a big diameter wheel. Then we'll see just how it really works for me where I live.

My motivation has always been that Borealis Echo I tried with the 29+ wheels on it, so I think it would make a fine wheel platform for mountain biking/off roading. I just have to get the right geometry matched up with those big wagon wheels, then we'll see how it all goes. I also want versatility, and I am not building a dedicated, 29+ only bike up. I just don't see myself needing that. Not all the time, anyway.

A quick Trans Iowa V12 Announcement:

I just wanted to give the Grinnell Steakhouse a quick shout out for agreeing to be the host site for T.I.v12's Pre-Race Meat-Up. We've had six years of meetings there ever since Trans Iowa v6, and the Grinnell Steakhouse has always been stellar partners with Trans Iowa. Their hospitality, their easy going nature, and great food have been so appreciated by myself and others over the years. It's become "Checkpoint Zero", the defacto "Trans Iowa Family Reunion", and just a great place to have the pre-event meeting over the years. Little known factoid: Our first "Meat-Up" was held during the Steakhouse's first year of business there in Grinnell, so we've grown together over the past six years.

Okay- that's a wrap for this week. Have a great weekend, ride bikes, and be safe!

Your Fat Bike Is Really A 29"er (Or Bigger!)

A typical 29"er rim/tire is, well......29 inches in diameter!

Recently there were a few comments online that indicated to me that many folks don't really understand the relationship between the nomenclature for tire/wheels and how that determines diameter overall, and furthermore, how that in turn affects geometry of a bicycle.

For example: Most people know that fat bikes are based off a rim diameter used for 26 inch wheeled mountain bikes, but they may not realize that nothing about their fat bike is 26"s at all!! That's right. Nada. Nuthin about a fat bike wheel has any dimension measuring 26 inches. So, you may wonder why in the world fat bikes are dubbed 26" wheeled bikes. Yeah......it doesn't make any sense at all. Well........actually it is a big mistake to call fat bikes 26"er based bicycles. If we would stick to long standing tradition, your fat bike would be called a 29"er, actually! Here's why.....

Without getting into a long winded discussion about wheels, just keep in mind that the diameter of a wheel is determined by the overall height of a rim and the tire that fits on that rim when they are mounted together. So, let's take a road bike wheel, as an example. One could mount a typical 23mm tire on that rim, and then take that and compare it to the matching rim with a 38mm tire mounted to it. You would notice that the rim with the 38mm tire would be taller when compared to the rim mounted with the 23mm tire. Its diameter would be bigger. 

This prototype 3.7" tire is just shy of 29"s on a 70mm rim.

  However; the example above uses a different tire to achieve a difference in diameter, but that isn't the only way to alter overall diameter. Of course, one could use a smaller diameter rim, with a really thick, tall tire, and make the overall diameter the same or larger. My example of the fat bike tire here shows this. The tire I used is a prototype marked as a 4.0"er, but in reality it measures 3.7". It is mounted with a tube on a 70mm rim and falls just shy of 29" by a few tenths. A "true" 3.8" tire would be spot on 29"es and of course, a bigger 4.0 tire would be slightly larger than 29"s on this rim, more than likely.

Your 4.8"er tires? yeah......those are about 30.5" in diameter on 100mm rims!

The point is that one can swap out their 3.8"-4.0" fat bike tires for a Summertime set up on 29"er rims with fat bike hubs and 2.25"-2.4" 29"er rubber and have almost no change in geometry. The bottom bracket height stays the same, all angles work the way they were designed to, and the only difference is a lighter, faster to spin wheel set. However; let's say that you want to do a 29+ wheel set, (29"er rims with 3 inch wide rubber), and you wonder if that would work. Well, assuming it fits your fat bike, (and it may not), using 29+ raises the bottom bracket significantly, and changes the way that the bike would handle in a significant way as well. Why? Because those bigger. wider tires make the overall diameter bigger. About 31 inches, in the case of 29+. So, you will raise the bottom bracket by half the difference in diameter between the two wheels, or in this example, by about an inch.

Using 29+ wheels on my Ti Muk raised the BB too much for my tastes.

What if you were to get into a 27.5"+ tire? (Mid-fat- B+, or whatever you want to call it!) Well, the overall diameter of these wheels is slightly smaller than 29"er wheels, so, about spot on if you are running 3.8" tires on 80mm rims. This would be a great swap to keep the geometry similar.

Keeping in mind that some fat bikes were developed with 4.8" tires from the get-go, you may find that sort of fat bike best swaps over to a 29+ wheel set since those wheel diameters match up better. (31-ish inches, as you may recall.) So, in the case of my Salsa Cycles Blackborow DS, it would make more sense for me to build up a 29+ wheel set for Summer than a 27.5"er/B+/Mid-fat one, unless I wanted a lower bottom bracket.

Whew! It can get confusing, what with all the "inch-that", "plus-this" nonsense. Just keep in mind that it is all about diameter! Just like with cars, motorcycles, trucks, and trailers. In fact, the system they use would make more sense for bicycles. See the article HERE if you want to know more about that. However; it won't change because as fast as cycling seems to change, the little bit of traditional stuff we do have is not let go of so easily. Unfortunately, this wheel and tire craziness is part of that.

Your Fat Bike Is Really A 29"er (Or Bigger!)

A typical 29"er rim/tire is, well......29 inches in diameter!

Recently there were a few comments online that indicated to me that many folks don't really understand the relationship between the nomenclature for tire/wheels and how that determines diameter overall, and furthermore, how that in turn affects geometry of a bicycle.

For example: Most people know that fat bikes are based off a rim diameter used for 26 inch wheeled mountain bikes, but they may not realize that nothing about their fat bike is 26"s at all!! That's right. Nada. Nuthin about a fat bike wheel has any dimension measuring 26 inches. So, you may wonder why in the world fat bikes are dubbed 26" wheeled bikes. Yeah......it doesn't make any sense at all. Well........actually it is a big mistake to call fat bikes 26"er based bicycles. If we would stick to long standing tradition, your fat bike would be called a 29"er, actually! Here's why.....

Without getting into a long winded discussion about wheels, just keep in mind that the diameter of a wheel is determined by the overall height of a rim and the tire that fits on that rim when they are mounted together. So, let's take a road bike wheel, as an example. One could mount a typical 23mm tire on that rim, and then take that and compare it to the matching rim with a 38mm tire mounted to it. You would notice that the rim with the 38mm tire would be taller when compared to the rim mounted with the 23mm tire. Its diameter would be bigger. 

This prototype 3.7" tire is just shy of 29"s on a 70mm rim.

  However; the example above uses a different tire to achieve a difference in diameter, but that isn't the only way to alter overall diameter. Of course, one could use a smaller diameter rim, with a really thick, tall tire, and make the overall diameter the same or larger. My example of the fat bike tire here shows this. The tire I used is a prototype marked as a 4.0"er, but in reality it measures 3.7". It is mounted with a tube on a 70mm rim and falls just shy of 29" by a few tenths. A "true" 3.8" tire would be spot on 29"es and of course, a bigger 4.0 tire would be slightly larger than 29"s on this rim, more than likely.

Your 4.8"er tires? yeah......those are about 30.5" in diameter on 100mm rims!

The point is that one can swap out their 3.8"-4.0" fat bike tires for a Summertime set up on 29"er rims with fat bike hubs and 2.25"-2.4" 29"er rubber and have almost no change in geometry. The bottom bracket height stays the same, all angles work the way they were designed to, and the only difference is a lighter, faster to spin wheel set. However; let's say that you want to do a 29+ wheel set, (29"er rims with 3 inch wide rubber), and you wonder if that would work. Well, assuming it fits your fat bike, (and it may not), using 29+ raises the bottom bracket significantly, and changes the way that the bike would handle in a significant way as well. Why? Because those bigger. wider tires make the overall diameter bigger. About 31 inches, in the case of 29+. So, you will raise the bottom bracket by half the difference in diameter between the two wheels, or in this example, by about an inch.

Using 29+ wheels on my Ti Muk raised the BB too much for my tastes.

What if you were to get into a 27.5"+ tire? (Mid-fat- B+, or whatever you want to call it!) Well, the overall diameter of these wheels is slightly smaller than 29"er wheels, so, about spot on if you are running 3.8" tires on 80mm rims. This would be a great swap to keep the geometry similar.

Keeping in mind that some fat bikes were developed with 4.8" tires from the get-go, you may find that sort of fat bike best swaps over to a 29+ wheel set since those wheel diameters match up better. (31-ish inches, as you may recall.) So, in the case of my Salsa Cycles Blackborow DS, it would make more sense for me to build up a 29+ wheel set for Summer than a 27.5"er/B+/Mid-fat one, unless I wanted a lower bottom bracket.

Whew! It can get confusing, what with all the "inch-that", "plus-this" nonsense. Just keep in mind that it is all about diameter! Just like with cars, motorcycles, trucks, and trailers. In fact, the system they use would make more sense for bicycles. See the article HERE if you want to know more about that. However; it won't change because as fast as cycling seems to change, the little bit of traditional stuff we do have is not let go of so easily. Unfortunately, this wheel and tire craziness is part of that.

Fattening Up

Corpulent Titanium

There were some issues with my set up on the Snow Dog that made me want to do something different. I was thinking about swapping out a few things, but then something else motivated me to go in a totally different direction. I found out that the Blackborow, my planned corpulent answer to Winter, wasn't going to be showing up until December, and well......I know how that can go sometimes.

Now maybe it will show up, but just in case, I had to start coming up with a "Plan B". That was going to take the form of titanium. I have the extendo-Alternators which would boost clearances. I could swap over the carbon Fatty fork to keep the brake standard the hub has. As long as I was at it, I decided to ditch the ridiculous Avid Elixir 9 noise makers masquerading as brakes and put on some real brakes. Namely, the Magura MT-6 stoppers which have traditionally been reliable and more importantly, powerful and quiet. 

So a Saturday spent down in the Lab transformed the MukTruk into By-Tor the Fatty. The transformed titanium beast is super smooth and the fork handles well on this bike as it did on the aluminum Mukluk. There is a bit of a drive train issue in the granny gear. This will be helped a bit if I get a Surly OD crankset. So, I think that's the final piece of the puzzle until the Blackborow comes. Well, I may also be swapping to a wide bar/stubby stem here as well. Anyway, the Winter steed is almost ready.