Fat Fargo v2

The original Fat Fargo experiment did not work. 

 

Five years ago I tried 650B X 2.8" wheels in my Fargo Gen I bike. I was really hoping that it would work, but there were issues. First, the clearances were minimal. The tires would spin freely, but there wasn't much room there with the fat 27.5"ers. 

The second thing was that the smaller wheel diameter put the bottom bracket on this bike in the weeds. That wasn't going to fly at all. So, I abandoned that idea, pulled the wheels off, and stuck them in my Fargo Gen 2 bike which I used to own. The wheels stayed there until I sold the bike and then those wheels went on the Sawyer which was sold recently. 

The B+ experiment was a qualified success. I did a couple of things, which in my looking back on it, were very unlike what the industry did with the idea, or what many riders did with the idea. Had I modified one component in that wheel assembly, the experiment likely would have been short lived. So, what was it that made it so compelling? 

I think the main ingredient was the WTB Trailblazer 2.8" tires. Had the tires been anything other than this tread pattern, I likely would have bailed out on the trial sooner. Much sooner. See, the Trailblazer had certain attributes that made it ideal for my applications. First, it wasn't too wide. It was a true 2.8", but it didn't have a super wide casing, so it fit the Fargo, and it made the tire ride well on the rims I chose to use. 

Those rims were Velocity Blunt 35's. They were far narrower internally than what the industry first went with for B+ tires, and far narrower than what most riders thought they needed. However; that narrow profile crowned up what was a really flat profile. The WTB Trailblazer was a very flat tire putting a LOT of its tread width on the ground, especially by the popular pairing of this tire with 50mm wide rims. This made the tire slow, but the Blunt 35's made the tire ride reasonably fast for its size. Especially on that center ridge the Trailblazers have. 

Me riding the Fat Fargo (Gen 2) at Odin's Revenge. Image by Wally Kilburg

I had some excellent rides on the Fat Fargo (The Gen 2 Fargo). I used it to great effect at the "muddy year" of the DK200 and later at Odin's Revenge. The big tires had their day in the Sun in specific conditions where some float was advantageous, but a fast rolling tire was paramount to success. 

The set up was good, but there were some things that weren't so good. Big diameter wheels just were much more to my liking. Once I had ridden a fat bike set up with some very light 29+ wheels, I was smitten by the possibilities of having a large diameter wheel with a wider tire in the 2.8" - 3.0" range. However; manufacturers didn't quite see things that way, offering few choices, and most of what was available was over-built, suspension corrected, or more mountain bike-like. 

So, despite the 'almost but not quite' 2.8" Fat Fargo set up, I ended up going back to 29"er wheels for the Fargo Gen I and rode that bike so much I sold off the Gen 2 version and as stated earlier, moved the wheels over to the Sawyer. Then gravel bikes took off and well...... I left the Fat Fargo idea to simmer, maybe never coming back to it at all. 

However, the other day I was offered some 29" X 2.5" Surly Extraterrestrial tires that Andy, of Andy's Bike Shop, had which he never used, or if he did, very little. They looked nearly perfect. Now Extraterrestrials were a tire I was very familiar with, having run them on the 1X1, ironically now in Andy's possession. They are heavy tires, but they roll fast, are tubeless ready, and are very voluminous for their size. I was quite tempted many a time to run the Surly as a gravel bike, as one of its previous owners, Jeff Kerkove had. But I never got around to it. 

These tires in 29'er size? Intriguing. I took them with plans to mount them on my old Gen I Fargo. That bike is set up with a rather pedestrian, and very heavy wheel set, a Bontrager Duster wheel set laced to Shimano Deore hubs. Nothing too fantastic but a serviceable wheel set. Duster rims are modestly wide, and in fact, are about the same width many 'gravel' rims are now. I was afraid to mount these big, voluminous tires to anything wider or they may not fit into the Gen I Fargo. 

The Fat Fargo v2 with 29" X 2.5" Surly Extraterrestrial tires.

Well, happily, they did fit. The clearances are acceptable, and these tires, while not quite the volume of a 3.0" tire, have the same, or very close to it, volume of the old 2.8 Trailblazers. I know it says 2.5" on the tire, but on these narrow-ish rims, they already have puffed up to exactly 2.5" and I suspect that they will stretch a bit beyond this, as the 26"ers I had did. 

Will they scratch the itch I have for large diameter wheels and big, floaty tires? That's yet to be determined, but if they end up being anything like what the 1X1 was like, hmm.......I think maybe- yes. And if they do pass that test, ah........new lighter wheels will be in order. There is no denying the weight and inertia these monsters have now, and a LOT of the fat is in the hubs here. Those Deore disc hubs weigh a ton. 

There are a few other 'upgrades' to come to the Fargo Gen I, so stay tuned for those and I think you will be surprised by a couple of the things I have in mind to do here.

Fat Fargo v2

The original Fat Fargo experiment did not work. 

 

Five years ago I tried 650B X 2.8" wheels in my Fargo Gen I bike. I was really hoping that it would work, but there were issues. First, the clearances were minimal. The tires would spin freely, but there wasn't much room there with the fat 27.5"ers. 

The second thing was that the smaller wheel diameter put the bottom bracket on this bike in the weeds. That wasn't going to fly at all. So, I abandoned that idea, pulled the wheels off, and stuck them in my Fargo Gen 2 bike which I used to own. The wheels stayed there until I sold the bike and then those wheels went on the Sawyer which was sold recently. 

The B+ experiment was a qualified success. I did a couple of things, which in my looking back on it, were very unlike what the industry did with the idea, or what many riders did with the idea. Had I modified one component in that wheel assembly, the experiment likely would have been short lived. So, what was it that made it so compelling? 

I think the main ingredient was the WTB Trailblazer 2.8" tires. Had the tires been anything other than this tread pattern, I likely would have bailed out on the trial sooner. Much sooner. See, the Trailblazer had certain attributes that made it ideal for my applications. First, it wasn't too wide. It was a true 2.8", but it didn't have a super wide casing, so it fit the Fargo, and it made the tire ride well on the rims I chose to use. 

Those rims were Velocity Blunt 35's. They were far narrower internally than what the industry first went with for B+ tires, and far narrower than what most riders thought they needed. However; that narrow profile crowned up what was a really flat profile. The WTB Trailblazer was a very flat tire putting a LOT of its tread width on the ground, especially by the popular pairing of this tire with 50mm wide rims. This made the tire slow, but the Blunt 35's made the tire ride reasonably fast for its size. Especially on that center ridge the Trailblazers have. 

Me riding the Fat Fargo (Gen 2) at Odin's Revenge. Image by Wally Kilburg

I had some excellent rides on the Fat Fargo (The Gen 2 Fargo). I used it to great effect at the "muddy year" of the DK200 and later at Odin's Revenge. The big tires had their day in the Sun in specific conditions where some float was advantageous, but a fast rolling tire was paramount to success. 

The set up was good, but there were some things that weren't so good. Big diameter wheels just were much more to my liking. Once I had ridden a fat bike set up with some very light 29+ wheels, I was smitten by the possibilities of having a large diameter wheel with a wider tire in the 2.8" - 3.0" range. However; manufacturers didn't quite see things that way, offering few choices, and most of what was available was over-built, suspension corrected, or more mountain bike-like. 

So, despite the 'almost but not quite' 2.8" Fat Fargo set up, I ended up going back to 29"er wheels for the Fargo Gen I and rode that bike so much I sold off the Gen 2 version and as stated earlier, moved the wheels over to the Sawyer. Then gravel bikes took off and well...... I left the Fat Fargo idea to simmer, maybe never coming back to it at all. 

However, the other day I was offered some 29" X 2.5" Surly Extraterrestrial tires that Andy, of Andy's Bike Shop, had which he never used, or if he did, very little. They looked nearly perfect. Now Extraterrestrials were a tire I was very familiar with, having run them on the 1X1, ironically now in Andy's possession. They are heavy tires, but they roll fast, are tubeless ready, and are very voluminous for their size. I was quite tempted many a time to run the Surly as a gravel bike, as one of its previous owners, Jeff Kerkove had. But I never got around to it. 

These tires in 29'er size? Intriguing. I took them with plans to mount them on my old Gen I Fargo. That bike is set up with a rather pedestrian, and very heavy wheel set, a Bontrager Duster wheel set laced to Shimano Deore hubs. Nothing too fantastic but a serviceable wheel set. Duster rims are modestly wide, and in fact, are about the same width many 'gravel' rims are now. I was afraid to mount these big, voluminous tires to anything wider or they may not fit into the Gen I Fargo. 

The Fat Fargo v2 with 29" X 2.5" Surly Extraterrestrial tires.

Well, happily, they did fit. The clearances are acceptable, and these tires, while not quite the volume of a 3.0" tire, have the same, or very close to it, volume of the old 2.8 Trailblazers. I know it says 2.5" on the tire, but on these narrow-ish rims, they already have puffed up to exactly 2.5" and I suspect that they will stretch a bit beyond this, as the 26"ers I had did. 

Will they scratch the itch I have for large diameter wheels and big, floaty tires? That's yet to be determined, but if they end up being anything like what the 1X1 was like, hmm.......I think maybe- yes. And if they do pass that test, ah........new lighter wheels will be in order. There is no denying the weight and inertia these monsters have now, and a LOT of the fat is in the hubs here. Those Deore disc hubs weigh a ton. 

There are a few other 'upgrades' to come to the Fargo Gen I, so stay tuned for those and I think you will be surprised by a couple of the things I have in mind to do here.

Friday News And Views

This one's a keeper with B+

Mid-Fat Plans:

I've been fortunate enough to be able to try WTB Trailblazer 2.8 B+ tires on a couple of my single speeds and, of course, on the "Fat Fargo". I've been duly impressed with the wheels on all three bikes I've tried them on. So much so that I plan on building up at least one more set of wheels to accommodate a plan I have to return another oft neglected bike I have to the general rotation.

Of course, you regular readers all have seen my scribings about how this wheel size is coming hard for 2016. That has been confirmed with a bevy of brands doing several models of this size of wheel. Not only that, but the most recent article in "BRAIN" on the wheel size quotes some tire company honches as saying "..it's here to stay", when asked about B+ tires. 29+? Nary a mention, except that asides were made to the wheel size by the trade mag in the article. This fits right in with what I think is going to happen. 29+ = too big of a diameter. Mid-fat/B+ tires = just right. That's because of the overall diameters. 27.5+/B+ is right at 29". The larger 29+ is 31" in diameter which is just too big.

I am going to do a 29+ set up alongside my B+ wheels and then I will get a much better comparison. Both sizes should be up and running here before the end of the year. Stay tuned on that......

Breaking out the Tamland for Gravel Worlds

Gravel Worlds:

The last big event for me this year is Gravel Worlds in Lincoln, Nebraska. This time I am busting out the Tamland. There are a few reasons why this bike gets the call up.

First of all, according to intell received via the PCL, there won't be near the steep climbing that the GTDRI had, and there won't be long distances between resupplies like there were in the Dirty Kanza. What I am seeing is that we will have to be ready to ride up to 40 miles at a crack. That makes things a bit lighter, in terms of what to carry. That doesn't look like Fat Fargo territory to me. With the Tamland's 1 to 1 low gear, I should be fine with the hills, and I can carry four to five water bottles with my Chaff Bag set up and the cages that the Tamland has. Plenty of fluids for 40 mile stints. Then all I have to carry, really, is some food and tools. I'll likely pack up the Tangle Bag for that.

The fenders will come off, and I may slap the Gravel Grinder tires by Challenge back on there, but the Clement MSO's will do fine as well. At any rate, this is the rig I am going with.

Another studded fat bike tire option from Trek (Image pilfered from the Trek World site)

Trek World Bits:

There were a few things not seen before shown at Trek World, and those seemed to all be fat bike related. First of all, there is the new fat bike tire with the goofy name "Gnarwahl". (groan)

Okay..... Besides the unfortunate naming of this tire, it looks to be a solid offering. Some say it doesn't have enough studs, but how many do you need? (Note: I don't think you need very many, but that's me.) It's listed as a 3.8"er, which maybe leaves out those wanting big, wide, floaty meats, but I can see commuters digging this or those that use fat bikes as indoor trainer substitutes being all over this. I know I won't be on board, because I don't feel the need for the studs on fat bike tires, but I probably am in the minority here. By the way, I have heard this will be out in November, but I haven't seen a price on these as yet.

It bears repeating that Trek has moved from 170mm rear spacing to 190mm based spacing on the Farleys. There also will be a full carbon frame, the Farley 9.8, and that bike will feature carbon rims as well. Just think "Carbon Beargrease" with a wider rear. Then you'll pretty much have the idea.

Fat Bikes On The Wane?

 Interestingly, as an aside about fat bike tires, in the referenced "BRAIN" article about plus sized tires that I mentioned above, there is some insight in to fat bike tires. It seems that while molds are not the hold up, the tooling to make the bladders and what not to make the casings is a huge investment that many tire manufacturers are not willing to ante up for. As examples, it appears that neither Continental or WTB are anywhere near pulling the trigger on fat bike tire production. My perception is that the fat bike market is a saturated one now, so I would suspect that tire introductions will not be as numerous as they were a couple years ago. I could be wrong, but I bet this year will be another soft one in fat bike sales, and from what I am seeing, that does not bode well for the future of fat bikes growth as a product category.

I am blaming this B+/29+ for part of that. I am reading a few stories and seeing quotes that refer to the "plus bike market" as being the "sweet spot" from the perspective that it hits a lot of points that riders want in fat tires without the ponderous handling and weight of a fat bike. Makes sense to me, at least from the perspective of cyclists living South of the snow belt.

That's it from this dude! Have a great weekend and keep the rubber side down!

Friday News And Views

This one's a keeper with B+

Mid-Fat Plans:

I've been fortunate enough to be able to try WTB Trailblazer 2.8 B+ tires on a couple of my single speeds and, of course, on the "Fat Fargo". I've been duly impressed with the wheels on all three bikes I've tried them on. So much so that I plan on building up at least one more set of wheels to accommodate a plan I have to return another oft neglected bike I have to the general rotation.

Of course, you regular readers all have seen my scribings about how this wheel size is coming hard for 2016. That has been confirmed with a bevy of brands doing several models of this size of wheel. Not only that, but the most recent article in "BRAIN" on the wheel size quotes some tire company honches as saying "..it's here to stay", when asked about B+ tires. 29+? Nary a mention, except that asides were made to the wheel size by the trade mag in the article. This fits right in with what I think is going to happen. 29+ = too big of a diameter. Mid-fat/B+ tires = just right. That's because of the overall diameters. 27.5+/B+ is right at 29". The larger 29+ is 31" in diameter which is just too big.

I am going to do a 29+ set up alongside my B+ wheels and then I will get a much better comparison. Both sizes should be up and running here before the end of the year. Stay tuned on that......

Breaking out the Tamland for Gravel Worlds

Gravel Worlds:

The last big event for me this year is Gravel Worlds in Lincoln, Nebraska. This time I am busting out the Tamland. There are a few reasons why this bike gets the call up.

First of all, according to intell received via the PCL, there won't be near the steep climbing that the GTDRI had, and there won't be long distances between resupplies like there were in the Dirty Kanza. What I am seeing is that we will have to be ready to ride up to 40 miles at a crack. That makes things a bit lighter, in terms of what to carry. That doesn't look like Fat Fargo territory to me. With the Tamland's 1 to 1 low gear, I should be fine with the hills, and I can carry four to five water bottles with my Chaff Bag set up and the cages that the Tamland has. Plenty of fluids for 40 mile stints. Then all I have to carry, really, is some food and tools. I'll likely pack up the Tangle Bag for that.

The fenders will come off, and I may slap the Gravel Grinder tires by Challenge back on there, but the Clement MSO's will do fine as well. At any rate, this is the rig I am going with.

Another studded fat bike tire option from Trek (Image pilfered from the Trek World site)

Trek World Bits:

There were a few things not seen before shown at Trek World, and those seemed to all be fat bike related. First of all, there is the new fat bike tire with the goofy name "Gnarwahl". (groan)

Okay..... Besides the unfortunate naming of this tire, it looks to be a solid offering. Some say it doesn't have enough studs, but how many do you need? (Note: I don't think you need very many, but that's me.) It's listed as a 3.8"er, which maybe leaves out those wanting big, wide, floaty meats, but I can see commuters digging this or those that use fat bikes as indoor trainer substitutes being all over this. I know I won't be on board, because I don't feel the need for the studs on fat bike tires, but I probably am in the minority here. By the way, I have heard this will be out in November, but I haven't seen a price on these as yet.

It bears repeating that Trek has moved from 170mm rear spacing to 190mm based spacing on the Farleys. There also will be a full carbon frame, the Farley 9.8, and that bike will feature carbon rims as well. Just think "Carbon Beargrease" with a wider rear. Then you'll pretty much have the idea.

Fat Bikes On The Wane?

 Interestingly, as an aside about fat bike tires, in the referenced "BRAIN" article about plus sized tires that I mentioned above, there is some insight in to fat bike tires. It seems that while molds are not the hold up, the tooling to make the bladders and what not to make the casings is a huge investment that many tire manufacturers are not willing to ante up for. As examples, it appears that neither Continental or WTB are anywhere near pulling the trigger on fat bike tire production. My perception is that the fat bike market is a saturated one now, so I would suspect that tire introductions will not be as numerous as they were a couple years ago. I could be wrong, but I bet this year will be another soft one in fat bike sales, and from what I am seeing, that does not bode well for the future of fat bikes growth as a product category.

I am blaming this B+/29+ for part of that. I am reading a few stories and seeing quotes that refer to the "plus bike market" as being the "sweet spot" from the perspective that it hits a lot of points that riders want in fat tires without the ponderous handling and weight of a fat bike. Makes sense to me, at least from the perspective of cyclists living South of the snow belt.

That's it from this dude! Have a great weekend and keep the rubber side down!

Fat Fargo: Thoughts On B+ Wheels

A Gen II Fargo with fatter wheels

As stated yesterday, I wanted to lay down some thoughts on the B+, 27.5+, 650B+ or whatever these are going to be called.....wheels. Let's say "mid-fat" and leave it at that, shall we?

For those of you that are not familiar, and to give those folks interested in specifications their dosage, here are the pertinent features of the mid-fat platforms and also my specs on this wheel set.

• Mid-fat or "plus" sized wheels are really just larger than average tires with high volume on rims you already know and love. There are a few wider rims out now as well. 
• Mid-fat tires can be fitted to the 650B/27.5 or 29"er based platforms. Rim specs in terms of diameter are the same- 622ISO for 29+ and 584ISO for B+/27.5+. Typically, the wider rims are better, so anything with a 30mm wide width or wider works best. Some are 50mm wide, like Surly's Rabbit Hole and Sun Ringle's Mulefut.
• Tires are typically going to be either side of 3 inches wide with a lot of height/volume to the casings. 2.8" to 3.25" seems to be the working range so far. This is for both diameters out there that are being pushed- 27.5+/B+ and 29+.
• Wide rims and fatter, higher volume tires make for big overall diameters. For instance, a 50mm wide rim with a 3.25" "B+" tire is the same diameter, more or less, as a 29" X 2.25" tire. A 29+ tire at 3 inches wide on a 50mm wide rim is approximately the same overall diameter as a 4.8" wide fat bike tire on a 100mm wide rim- 31 inches or so. 

Now for my Fargo wheels, I used 35mm wide Velocity Blunt 35 rims and put some 2.8" WTB Trailblazer tires on them tubeless. This brings the diameter of these wheels to just slightly less than a 29 X 2.2" wheel. That means my bottom bracket is ever so slightly lower. Otherwise, there was plenty of room in the frame to fit this wheel in my Fargo. Now.....why would you do this? That's the big question, and what I wanted to seek out was an answer that satisfied my curiosity. This may not be your answer, but I feel it makes a lot of sense.

The whole "plus" size/mid-fat thing is an attempt to take advantage of fat bike volume, flotation, and grip in a package that isn't so cumbersome, heavy, and that doesn't require weird frames with wide bottom brackets which hurt some folk's knees and whatnot. Are they "fat bikes"? That's a question folks debate. I own both fat bikes and this B+/mid-fat bike. My Fat Fargo is not a fat bike. Nope. Not even close.

But, it isn't like any of my 29"ers either. I have a 29 X 2.4" tired rig that runs 45mm wide Velocity Duallys. While the footprint of those wheels are as big as my mid-fat/B+ tires, they don't have the volume of those B+ tires, and there's where your differences are and why it may make sense to run a mid-fat/B+ rig for you.

The Singular Buzzard with 29 X 2.4" tires on Velocity Duallys

That volume allows for lower pressures without fear of rim strikes. Lower pressures mean the tires conform to terrain features better, which equals more grip and control. The differences are minute, to be sure, but palpable, and in the right rig, a B+/mid-fat set up may make a lot of sense. I thought it worked great on a single speed, for instance, where grip and the lack of suspension might be your set up. I also wanted to try this as a set up for a bikepacking rig or bagged hauler/tourer/versatile mtb set up. That's where the "Fat Fargo" comes in.

My thoughts were that my original Fargo Gen I was the perfect candidate for these wheels, since it wasn't suspension corrected, and a little comfort would be welcomed there. However; the tire clearances in the chain stays were too tight to allow for mud clearances, and I felt the bottom bracket on that bike with the B+ wheels was too low. Bummer that, but I wasn't going to quit just there.

I had the Gen II Fargo, so why not slap those meats into that frame and see what's up. Well, the clearances were really good, and the bottom bracket, while slightly lower for sure, isn't too low, for me. Maybe for you it would be, but so far, I've been just fine with things this way. Of course, the Gen II has a Rock Shox Reba on it and that combo is pluuuuuusssssh. The fork has 80mm of travel, but with the tires, it almost feels like my 140mm of travel on my Buzzard.

I wish this would've worked better.

I do have the rigid fork for the Gen II bike, and that will be the next thing I try, but for now, I have a brief list of "Good" and "Bad" things that I have found running these mid-fat wheels on my Fargo. This certainly isn't a list that is comprehensive or finished yet, but here you go....

Good: The ride is super smooth. The smaller bumps disappear, bigger jolts are mere annoyances, and curbs are swallowed with little to no lifting of the front end. Grip is amazing when the conditions are ripe. Stability at slow speed is enhanced. The smaller sized wheels are easier to spin up by a long shot over 29+, but they do not give you near the momentum carrying capacity of either 29+ or a straight up 29"er wheel. There is more float, and so these carry you into looser terrain a bit further than does the "normal" 29"er wheel and tire.

Bad: Weight. First and foremost, you have a heavier tire and wheel overall than you would a good quality trail wheel in a 29"er format fitted with a good 29"er tire. That means that a 29"er wheel is easier to get going and keep going than these mid-fat wheels, which is most apparent when speeds are higher on harder packed terrain. Rolling resistance- The way the tread hits the trail with these mid-fat wheels versus a 29"er tire is quite different. The WTB Trailblazer is a squared off, "all tread hits the trail" tire where a 29"er tire typically will not do that. Yes- the Trailblazer has a continuous center strip to help against this, and it works, but you will feel the "all the tread-all the time" rolling resistance and especially at lower pressures. Finally, that squared off profile and close tread block pattern makes the Trailblazer a drier conditions tire. Mud will send this tire skittering sideways. It also doesn't have a ton of side bite, but in drier conditions this is okay, in my opinion.

This single speed mid-fat set up is a blast to ride.

Conclusions So Far......

I will likely try the Fargo Gen II with the rigid fork, but in the end, I think I am pretty sure where this whole experiment is going to go. I've tried these wheels on four bikes now, and two of them were instantly inducing smiles, while the other two were head scratching conundrums and have not produced the "fun factor" the other two have. Interestingly, the two fun set ups have both been single speeds.

The lighter weight of a single speed bike overall can allow for heavier wheels and momentum, while not at the levels of a 29"er, are still pretty good with the mid-fat wheels. And we all know momentum is king with regard to single speeding. Add in the extra traction, a bit easier spin up than a 29+, and extra cush, and it all adds up when one gear is used. Why that hasn't translated to a geared hard tail set up has been baffling, but the differences in feel are like night and day to me.

The Industry is going to go "ga-ga" for these mid-fat wheels and I suppose with some quality rubber, it may be an okay deal for some. However; I am not seeing a super-wide ranging appeal here from my point of view. Ride a 29"er most of the time, and where conditions get sketchy, looser, and you want to push out your boundaries, go all in and ride a fat bike. There is one wheel that maybe will yet change my mind and that's the 29+ deal. I tried it on two different rigs. One was an amazing experience, and one was so-so, which leaves me at an inconclusive state where 29+ is concerned. I will be researching that more as time goes forward as well.

Stay tuned.......

Fat Fargo: Thoughts On B+ Wheels

A Gen II Fargo with fatter wheels

As stated yesterday, I wanted to lay down some thoughts on the B+, 27.5+, 650B+ or whatever these are going to be called.....wheels. Let's say "mid-fat" and leave it at that, shall we?

For those of you that are not familiar, and to give those folks interested in specifications their dosage, here are the pertinent features of the mid-fat platforms and also my specs on this wheel set.

• Mid-fat or "plus" sized wheels are really just larger than average tires with high volume on rims you already know and love. There are a few wider rims out now as well. 
• Mid-fat tires can be fitted to the 650B/27.5 or 29"er based platforms. Rim specs in terms of diameter are the same- 622ISO for 29+ and 584ISO for B+/27.5+. Typically, the wider rims are better, so anything with a 30mm wide width or wider works best. Some are 50mm wide, like Surly's Rabbit Hole and Sun Ringle's Mulefut.
• Tires are typically going to be either side of 3 inches wide with a lot of height/volume to the casings. 2.8" to 3.25" seems to be the working range so far. This is for both diameters out there that are being pushed- 27.5+/B+ and 29+.
• Wide rims and fatter, higher volume tires make for big overall diameters. For instance, a 50mm wide rim with a 3.25" "B+" tire is the same diameter, more or less, as a 29" X 2.25" tire. A 29+ tire at 3 inches wide on a 50mm wide rim is approximately the same overall diameter as a 4.8" wide fat bike tire on a 100mm wide rim- 31 inches or so. 

Now for my Fargo wheels, I used 35mm wide Velocity Blunt 35 rims and put some 2.8" WTB Trailblazer tires on them tubeless. This brings the diameter of these wheels to just slightly less than a 29 X 2.2" wheel. That means my bottom bracket is ever so slightly lower. Otherwise, there was plenty of room in the frame to fit this wheel in my Fargo. Now.....why would you do this? That's the big question, and what I wanted to seek out was an answer that satisfied my curiosity. This may not be your answer, but I feel it makes a lot of sense.

The whole "plus" size/mid-fat thing is an attempt to take advantage of fat bike volume, flotation, and grip in a package that isn't so cumbersome, heavy, and that doesn't require weird frames with wide bottom brackets which hurt some folk's knees and whatnot. Are they "fat bikes"? That's a question folks debate. I own both fat bikes and this B+/mid-fat bike. My Fat Fargo is not a fat bike. Nope. Not even close.

But, it isn't like any of my 29"ers either. I have a 29 X 2.4" tired rig that runs 45mm wide Velocity Duallys. While the footprint of those wheels are as big as my mid-fat/B+ tires, they don't have the volume of those B+ tires, and there's where your differences are and why it may make sense to run a mid-fat/B+ rig for you.

The Singular Buzzard with 29 X 2.4" tires on Velocity Duallys

That volume allows for lower pressures without fear of rim strikes. Lower pressures mean the tires conform to terrain features better, which equals more grip and control. The differences are minute, to be sure, but palpable, and in the right rig, a B+/mid-fat set up may make a lot of sense. I thought it worked great on a single speed, for instance, where grip and the lack of suspension might be your set up. I also wanted to try this as a set up for a bikepacking rig or bagged hauler/tourer/versatile mtb set up. That's where the "Fat Fargo" comes in.

My thoughts were that my original Fargo Gen I was the perfect candidate for these wheels, since it wasn't suspension corrected, and a little comfort would be welcomed there. However; the tire clearances in the chain stays were too tight to allow for mud clearances, and I felt the bottom bracket on that bike with the B+ wheels was too low. Bummer that, but I wasn't going to quit just there.

I had the Gen II Fargo, so why not slap those meats into that frame and see what's up. Well, the clearances were really good, and the bottom bracket, while slightly lower for sure, isn't too low, for me. Maybe for you it would be, but so far, I've been just fine with things this way. Of course, the Gen II has a Rock Shox Reba on it and that combo is pluuuuuusssssh. The fork has 80mm of travel, but with the tires, it almost feels like my 140mm of travel on my Buzzard.

I wish this would've worked better.

I do have the rigid fork for the Gen II bike, and that will be the next thing I try, but for now, I have a brief list of "Good" and "Bad" things that I have found running these mid-fat wheels on my Fargo. This certainly isn't a list that is comprehensive or finished yet, but here you go....

Good: The ride is super smooth. The smaller bumps disappear, bigger jolts are mere annoyances, and curbs are swallowed with little to no lifting of the front end. Grip is amazing when the conditions are ripe. Stability at slow speed is enhanced. The smaller sized wheels are easier to spin up by a long shot over 29+, but they do not give you near the momentum carrying capacity of either 29+ or a straight up 29"er wheel. There is more float, and so these carry you into looser terrain a bit further than does the "normal" 29"er wheel and tire.

Bad: Weight. First and foremost, you have a heavier tire and wheel overall than you would a good quality trail wheel in a 29"er format fitted with a good 29"er tire. That means that a 29"er wheel is easier to get going and keep going than these mid-fat wheels, which is most apparent when speeds are higher on harder packed terrain. Rolling resistance- The way the tread hits the trail with these mid-fat wheels versus a 29"er tire is quite different. The WTB Trailblazer is a squared off, "all tread hits the trail" tire where a 29"er tire typically will not do that. Yes- the Trailblazer has a continuous center strip to help against this, and it works, but you will feel the "all the tread-all the time" rolling resistance and especially at lower pressures. Finally, that squared off profile and close tread block pattern makes the Trailblazer a drier conditions tire. Mud will send this tire skittering sideways. It also doesn't have a ton of side bite, but in drier conditions this is okay, in my opinion.

This single speed mid-fat set up is a blast to ride.

Conclusions So Far......

I will likely try the Fargo Gen II with the rigid fork, but in the end, I think I am pretty sure where this whole experiment is going to go. I've tried these wheels on four bikes now, and two of them were instantly inducing smiles, while the other two were head scratching conundrums and have not produced the "fun factor" the other two have. Interestingly, the two fun set ups have both been single speeds.

The lighter weight of a single speed bike overall can allow for heavier wheels and momentum, while not at the levels of a 29"er, are still pretty good with the mid-fat wheels. And we all know momentum is king with regard to single speeding. Add in the extra traction, a bit easier spin up than a 29+, and extra cush, and it all adds up when one gear is used. Why that hasn't translated to a geared hard tail set up has been baffling, but the differences in feel are like night and day to me.

The Industry is going to go "ga-ga" for these mid-fat wheels and I suppose with some quality rubber, it may be an okay deal for some. However; I am not seeing a super-wide ranging appeal here from my point of view. Ride a 29"er most of the time, and where conditions get sketchy, looser, and you want to push out your boundaries, go all in and ride a fat bike. There is one wheel that maybe will yet change my mind and that's the 29+ deal. I tried it on two different rigs. One was an amazing experience, and one was so-so, which leaves me at an inconclusive state where 29+ is concerned. I will be researching that more as time goes forward as well.

Stay tuned.......

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.

#psyck

1988 Strat Plus- That isn't yellow, by the way!

This hasn't been the start to the year that I was hoping for. It's been off and on again sickness across the entire family. There was one day last week when three of us were bed ridden. Saturday and Sunday were barely tolerable, and the bike riding that everyone else was doing was sure hard to take in as I was feeling awful and needing to rest.

Well, me being me- I don't like resting during the day, or much at all, and I did go out and about a little bit. I needed to drop off my daughter at a friend's house so I took the opportunity to drag my 1988 Stratocaster Plus to Bob's Guitars to see if they had a locking tuner knob for it. One had fallen off and before I could notice it, had gotten lost.

I've known "Bob" of Bob's Guitars since he worked for another music store years ago where I had purchased this particular Strat from him. He's been through another partnership in a music store from where I purchased my main amplifier, and now he owns this store himself. I've had a "relationship", of sorts with Bob, and he treats me right. For instance, even his employees have paid attention, and they know that I am paying on a new Taylor for my wife's Master's Degree "reward". They found the locking tuner knob, a perfect match, and did not charge me.

So, why do I bring all that up? Well, I was thinking that in this day and age of Internet retail, what online can't do for you is "have a relationship with benefits" like the one I enjoy with Bob's Guitars. Think about that when you look for a local bike shop. And local bike shops- you need to really think about this! 

A "Mid-Fatted" Fargo

 So, anyway, I got to play on the Strat Saturday loudly for a while when Mrs. Guitar Ted and Jacob went out on errands. It was great to have that guitar all back in one piece. Then I hoped for a better Sunday, and perhaps a bicycle ride.

However; it wasn't to be. Still feeling rotten, I had to take it easy again. After a long morning and early afternoon, I decided to fiddle with an idea I had on the back burner for Springtime. I was going to try to fit the WTB Trailblazer/Velocity Blunt 35 wheels on my Gen 2 Fargo. So, I decided to push up the time table on that project and get it done. I had done this on my Gen 1 Fargo as well, but the mud clearances were not the greatest. So, in the interim I have had these wheels on my OS Bikes Blackbuck and on my Sawyer with the belt drive.

Good clearances here.

On the Fargo Gen 2, the wheels went in with no problem, and as a bonus there was better mud clearances! This looked like a much better fit than in the Gen 1 Fargo. I was excited so I got a "permission slip" to get out of the house free for a bit to test out how this combination felt and handled. Nothing big, just a couple miles at most. I popped on some plastic flats so I didn't have to waste a bunch of time with fussy Winter cycling footwear and headed outdoors.

The Blunt 35's with the Trailblazers makes for a decent set up. The tire isn't flattened out too much, and the rim supports the tires tubeless really well. I ran about 20-ish psi, but with the air temperatures in the low 20's Fahrenheit, that was effectively something in the teens. Into some looser, deep snow, and the bike squirreled around a bit, but it didn't want to swap ends like a skinnier tire might. Okay, that fast spin up is there yet for sure, and the resulting lack of momentum as well. Still, you can barrel over some things and the stability and comfort are there also.

You don't get that heavy, slow to accelerate 29+ feeling, but the rest of it seems to be close. When the trails open up in Springtime, I'll know more about the true, off road feel and performance with this bike. I think I will live with these on the Fargo Gen 2 awhile though. The wide range triple drive train is well suited to these wheels, and in my estimation, single speed usage, while fun, wasn't where this wheel type shines best. They just scrub off too much momentum, and while single speeding, momentum is king. So back to 29"er wheels there, and these Mid-Fats on a geared bike. Then I'll decide what I think. These still seem like a good choice for really rough, looser, back road events like Odin's Revenge to me, but if I cannot live with how they feel on gravel then I think my experimenting will be done. If they make it through that, then they stay on. Time will tell.

#psyck

1988 Strat Plus- That isn't yellow, by the way!

This hasn't been the start to the year that I was hoping for. It's been off and on again sickness across the entire family. There was one day last week when three of us were bed ridden. Saturday and Sunday were barely tolerable, and the bike riding that everyone else was doing was sure hard to take in as I was feeling awful and needing to rest.

Well, me being me- I don't like resting during the day, or much at all, and I did go out and about a little bit. I needed to drop off my daughter at a friend's house so I took the opportunity to drag my 1988 Stratocaster Plus to Bob's Guitars to see if they had a locking tuner knob for it. One had fallen off and before I could notice it, had gotten lost.

I've known "Bob" of Bob's Guitars since he worked for another music store years ago where I had purchased this particular Strat from him. He's been through another partnership in a music store from where I purchased my main amplifier, and now he owns this store himself. I've had a "relationship", of sorts with Bob, and he treats me right. For instance, even his employees have paid attention, and they know that I am paying on a new Taylor for my wife's Master's Degree "reward". They found the locking tuner knob, a perfect match, and did not charge me.

So, why do I bring all that up? Well, I was thinking that in this day and age of Internet retail, what online can't do for you is "have a relationship with benefits" like the one I enjoy with Bob's Guitars. Think about that when you look for a local bike shop. And local bike shops- you need to really think about this! 

A "Mid-Fatted" Fargo

 So, anyway, I got to play on the Strat Saturday loudly for a while when Mrs. Guitar Ted and Jacob went out on errands. It was great to have that guitar all back in one piece. Then I hoped for a better Sunday, and perhaps a bicycle ride.

However; it wasn't to be. Still feeling rotten, I had to take it easy again. After a long morning and early afternoon, I decided to fiddle with an idea I had on the back burner for Springtime. I was going to try to fit the WTB Trailblazer/Velocity Blunt 35 wheels on my Gen 2 Fargo. So, I decided to push up the time table on that project and get it done. I had done this on my Gen 1 Fargo as well, but the mud clearances were not the greatest. So, in the interim I have had these wheels on my OS Bikes Blackbuck and on my Sawyer with the belt drive.

Good clearances here.

On the Fargo Gen 2, the wheels went in with no problem, and as a bonus there was better mud clearances! This looked like a much better fit than in the Gen 1 Fargo. I was excited so I got a "permission slip" to get out of the house free for a bit to test out how this combination felt and handled. Nothing big, just a couple miles at most. I popped on some plastic flats so I didn't have to waste a bunch of time with fussy Winter cycling footwear and headed outdoors.

The Blunt 35's with the Trailblazers makes for a decent set up. The tire isn't flattened out too much, and the rim supports the tires tubeless really well. I ran about 20-ish psi, but with the air temperatures in the low 20's Fahrenheit, that was effectively something in the teens. Into some looser, deep snow, and the bike squirreled around a bit, but it didn't want to swap ends like a skinnier tire might. Okay, that fast spin up is there yet for sure, and the resulting lack of momentum as well. Still, you can barrel over some things and the stability and comfort are there also.

You don't get that heavy, slow to accelerate 29+ feeling, but the rest of it seems to be close. When the trails open up in Springtime, I'll know more about the true, off road feel and performance with this bike. I think I will live with these on the Fargo Gen 2 awhile though. The wide range triple drive train is well suited to these wheels, and in my estimation, single speed usage, while fun, wasn't where this wheel type shines best. They just scrub off too much momentum, and while single speeding, momentum is king. So back to 29"er wheels there, and these Mid-Fats on a geared bike. Then I'll decide what I think. These still seem like a good choice for really rough, looser, back road events like Odin's Revenge to me, but if I cannot live with how they feel on gravel then I think my experimenting will be done. If they make it through that, then they stay on. Time will tell.

Friday News And Views

Welcome to the first Friday News And Views of 2015! If you are new here, you can expect to see this every Friday unless otherwise preempted or noted.

pact bikes "BATTLE CAT' hard tail, long travel project looks pretty cool.

 Okay, so it isn't He-Man:

Here's a trend I think you'll be seeing a lot more of in 2015 and beyond. This is a frame project from the mind of Brant Richards' and part of his newest venture, "pact bikes".  (The home page is "ace" as they might say in Hebden Bridge) Anyway, the thing is basically a titanium, slack head angled, long travel, all-mountain/trail bike that will take on the new "Mid-Fat" wheels based on 27.5"ers and also will handle 29"er wheels with what I would assume would be better mud clearances.

The hard tail, big wheeled rig should prove to be a simple, fun, and very versatile bike that could cover a lot of territory for many folks. "pact bikes" example here will likely make it to the States at some point. I've seen hints that a certain importer is going to stock the frames, at the least. But you'll see this idea creep into other company's lines. I've heard that Trek's new Stache will be a "Mid-Fat" hard tail, and if Trek is doing that, you can bet that others will be jumping on the band wagon as well. It makes a lot of sense when you consider that 29+ just doesn't work for shorter folks and that if you didn't like "Mid-Fat" you could lace up 29"er wheels for these rigs.

Oh......yes- these will have wider hubs on the rear, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a wider standard for front wheels too, now that we have 150mm front hubs for fat bikes.

Tires are the next thing, but I do know Panaracer is bringing a Fat B Nimble in a 27.5'er variant and you can bet that Bontrager will be represented on the new Stache, bringing another model or two to the table. (Chupacabra in a fat, 27.5" size?) Sea Otter should be very interesting to watch this year.

GT In The News:

This week marked a couple of things about myself in the media. I mentioned in my "A Look  Forward" post a while back that I was leaving Twenty Nine Inches.com and moving on with RidingGravel.com. The guys at TNI.com wanted to have me write a "goodbye" post, but that felt a little too pompous to me, and I let them know that they could just do what they wanted, if they wanted, for a goodbye post. Well, they did one. They were very kind and gracious, and I wanted to say a public "Thank You" to Grannygear and c_g for that nice send off.

Then I got a phone call on Wednesday from Matt Weibe from "Bicycle Retailer & Industry News". He wanted to talk about my leaving TNI and where, if anywhere, I would be going afterward. Well, they put up a brief story about that after interviewing me which you can see here. I am a bit mixed in my feelings about all the attention. On the one hand, I have expended a huge amount of time and effort into all of this, so to get a little pat on the back and some recognition for those efforts is nice. On the other hand, I am never one to want to let any of that get to my head. Hopefully, that never happens!

If you order before midnight tonight.....

Pirate Cycling League Kit:

Down in Nebraska the gravel cycling scene has been going on for a long, long time. I have visited on several occasions and participated in the "Good Life Gravel Adventure" and "Gravel Worlds" These fine events and more are all done under the auspices of a loosely knit group of folks that have dubbed themselves the "Pirate Cycling League".

As a community of riders, the PCL is a pretty cool bunch and they have survived quite awhile now. A few years back the PCL started selling their own "kit" and then invited anyone of like mind to join in the "crew", as it were. I like these guys, and they have sort of adopted me as one of their own, so I am doing them a solid here by helping to promote their kit order for the coming season. Order the black kit by clicking HERE.  It's quality schtuff, made by Voler, and you can get a selection of jersey styles, shorts/bibs, and accessories like arm warmers and caps.

The PCL doesn't make anything off this, and they aren't in it for the dough either, but they would like to have their folks get the kit and they need a few more to be sold to make minimums. So, check it out. I've supported them for the past two years or so in this and the jerseys are really cool and very well made. Now I have to get my arse down that way to join them in some riding again!

Okay, that's a cold, frigid wrap. Get outside and ride, ski, hike......whatever!

Friday News And Views

Welcome to the first Friday News And Views of 2015! If you are new here, you can expect to see this every Friday unless otherwise preempted or noted.

pact bikes "BATTLE CAT' hard tail, long travel project looks pretty cool.

 Okay, so it isn't He-Man:

Here's a trend I think you'll be seeing a lot more of in 2015 and beyond. This is a frame project from the mind of Brant Richards' and part of his newest venture, "pact bikes".  (The home page is "ace" as they might say in Hebden Bridge) Anyway, the thing is basically a titanium, slack head angled, long travel, all-mountain/trail bike that will take on the new "Mid-Fat" wheels based on 27.5"ers and also will handle 29"er wheels with what I would assume would be better mud clearances.

The hard tail, big wheeled rig should prove to be a simple, fun, and very versatile bike that could cover a lot of territory for many folks. "pact bikes" example here will likely make it to the States at some point. I've seen hints that a certain importer is going to stock the frames, at the least. But you'll see this idea creep into other company's lines. I've heard that Trek's new Stache will be a "Mid-Fat" hard tail, and if Trek is doing that, you can bet that others will be jumping on the band wagon as well. It makes a lot of sense when you consider that 29+ just doesn't work for shorter folks and that if you didn't like "Mid-Fat" you could lace up 29"er wheels for these rigs.

Oh......yes- these will have wider hubs on the rear, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a wider standard for front wheels too, now that we have 150mm front hubs for fat bikes.

Tires are the next thing, but I do know Panaracer is bringing a Fat B Nimble in a 27.5'er variant and you can bet that Bontrager will be represented on the new Stache, bringing another model or two to the table. (Chupacabra in a fat, 27.5" size?) Sea Otter should be very interesting to watch this year.

GT In The News:

This week marked a couple of things about myself in the media. I mentioned in my "A Look  Forward" post a while back that I was leaving Twenty Nine Inches.com and moving on with RidingGravel.com. The guys at TNI.com wanted to have me write a "goodbye" post, but that felt a little too pompous to me, and I let them know that they could just do what they wanted, if they wanted, for a goodbye post. Well, they did one. They were very kind and gracious, and I wanted to say a public "Thank You" to Grannygear and c_g for that nice send off.

Then I got a phone call on Wednesday from Matt Weibe from "Bicycle Retailer & Industry News". He wanted to talk about my leaving TNI and where, if anywhere, I would be going afterward. Well, they put up a brief story about that after interviewing me which you can see here. I am a bit mixed in my feelings about all the attention. On the one hand, I have expended a huge amount of time and effort into all of this, so to get a little pat on the back and some recognition for those efforts is nice. On the other hand, I am never one to want to let any of that get to my head. Hopefully, that never happens!

If you order before midnight tonight.....

Pirate Cycling League Kit:

Down in Nebraska the gravel cycling scene has been going on for a long, long time. I have visited on several occasions and participated in the "Good Life Gravel Adventure" and "Gravel Worlds" These fine events and more are all done under the auspices of a loosely knit group of folks that have dubbed themselves the "Pirate Cycling League".

As a community of riders, the PCL is a pretty cool bunch and they have survived quite awhile now. A few years back the PCL started selling their own "kit" and then invited anyone of like mind to join in the "crew", as it were. I like these guys, and they have sort of adopted me as one of their own, so I am doing them a solid here by helping to promote their kit order for the coming season. Order the black kit by clicking HERE.  It's quality schtuff, made by Voler, and you can get a selection of jersey styles, shorts/bibs, and accessories like arm warmers and caps.

The PCL doesn't make anything off this, and they aren't in it for the dough either, but they would like to have their folks get the kit and they need a few more to be sold to make minimums. So, check it out. I've supported them for the past two years or so in this and the jerseys are really cool and very well made. Now I have to get my arse down that way to join them in some riding again!

Okay, that's a cold, frigid wrap. Get outside and ride, ski, hike......whatever!