# 26x5.05 XXL



## Beard of Power (Feb 10, 2011)

Via Instagram from Taipei show.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

The 6" tyre can only be a year away now...


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I'm passing on this one and waiting for the 5.057 version.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

So will it be 4.5" wide? :lol:


couldn't resist...


----------



## Beard of Power (Feb 10, 2011)

Allegedly measures bigger than stated size so maybe 5.12" 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

$h!+, my frame is already obsolete!

-F


----------



## WSUPolar (Sep 19, 2014)

From that angle that tread looks pretty aggressive, is that the same tread pattern of the other two snowshoe sizes?


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

Not sure why they choose to piggyback on the same name that has an established negative association from the original snowshoe, but whatever. Probably a rigid only tire if you want one up front.


----------



## Destr0 (Aug 15, 2014)

AllMountin' said:


> Not sure why they choose to piggyback on the same name that has an established negative association from the original snowshoe, but whatever. Probably a rigid only tire if you want one up front.


I wonder how the size compares to a Bud/Lou, or a Dilly 5? I mean actual width because we all know the numbers on the sidewall really have little relation to the actual tire size, especially when it also says Vee Rubber on it.  Nothing against the Vee tires, but my one bike has a 4.7 Snowshoe and a 4.5 snowshoe on it and both are the same tire and only about 4.25 in reality... And they are the same width as the H-Billie 4.25 I have.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Destr0 said:


> I wonder how the size compares to a Bud/Lou, or a Dilly 5? I mean actual width because we all know the numbers on the sidewall really have little relation to the actual tire size, especially when it also says Vee Rubber on it.  Nothing against the Vee tires, but my one bike has a 4.7 Snowshoe and a 4.5 snowshoe on it and both are the same tire and only about 4.25 in reality... And they are the same width as the H-Billie 4.25 I have.


My Snowshoe 4.7 (now rebadged 4.5) is noticeably wider than my H-Billie, easily by a 1/2". Jus' sayin'.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Gigantic said:


> My Snowshoe 4.7 (now rebadged 4.5) is noticeably wider than my H-Billie, easily by a 1/2". Jus' sayin'.


Tire snob...


----------



## Destr0 (Aug 15, 2014)

Gigantic said:


> My Snowshoe 4.7 (now rebadged 4.5) is noticeably wider than my H-Billie, easily by a 1/2". Jus' sayin'.


I have all three and swap them out - layed flat they measure within 2mm of each other. Haven't put calipers on them but visually they are identical (I have an H-Bille and snowshoe 4.5 on my Bucksaw as well). I just went back and checked my spreadsheet - the H-Billie measured 242mm wide, the two Snowshoes 240 and 242mm wide at the beads. The two with the same sizes went on my Bucksaw. The other one went on my Sturgis to replace one 72TPI snowshoe... I do see on the tire size .pdf on the "True Tire Size" thread that there is a large variation on the width of the Snowshoes bead to bead: listed ones go from 233 to 245 in measured width. That is 12mm variation on the "same" tire.

???


----------



## dirtdawg21892 (Jul 20, 2009)

Any other pix? What's the tread like?

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

I like it.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

2XL is a way of life with me.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Destr0 said:


> I wonder how the size compares to a Bud/Lou, or a Dilly 5? I mean actual width because we all know the numbers on the sidewall really have little relation to the actual tire size, especially when it also says Vee Rubber on it.  Nothing against the Vee tires, but my one bike has a 4.7 Snowshoe and a 4.5 snowshoe on it and both are the same tire and only about 4.25 in reality... And they are the same width as the H-Billie 4.25 I have.


Pump it up to 20lbs then let us know the width!!


----------



## djrez4 (Apr 6, 2012)

Excellent. This will increase my fatness to proper levels.


----------



## bepperb (Mar 26, 2004)

My understanding is that the 4.7 and 4.5 snowshoes are the same tire different label, 238~240mm bead to bead. The 4.8 is 260mm bead to bead, the same as a Bud/Lou.

No doubt this will be a big tire and I doubt it's alone. Lugs look huge but it's hard to say from an obscure angle pic such as this.


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

Somebody's got to have a contact there. Checking out the map, they are next to Fox and a stones throw from FSA, Mavic, Hutchinson and WTB.

Nangang 4F - L1327a
Go!


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

See also:
Taipei International Cycle Show-Products-GMD / 26X4.0 G810 / FATBIKE TIRE / BICYCLE TIRE / FAT TIRE-GUMONDER INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.

Taipei International Cycle Show-Products-SNOWMOBILE TYRE-TIANJIN FASTRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.


----------



## dirtdawg21892 (Jul 20, 2009)

bme107 said:


> See also:
> Taipei International Cycle Show-Products-GMD / 26X4.0 G810 / FATBIKE TIRE / BICYCLE TIRE / FAT TIRE-GUMONDER INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.
> 
> Taipei International Cycle Show-Products-SNOWMOBILE TYRE-TIANJIN FASTRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.


that is the "big adventure" tire that came on the boris x5, what does it have to do with this?


----------



## RFX big foot (Mar 16, 2011)

Velobike said:


> The 6" tyre can only be a year away now...


i'm waiting with You 
cheers


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

bepperb said:


> My understanding is that the 4.7 and 4.5 snowshoes are the same tire different label, 238~240mm bead to bead. The 4.8 is 260mm bead to bead, the same as a Bud/Lou.
> 
> No doubt this will be a big tire and I doubt it's alone. Lugs look huge but it's hard to say from an obscure angle pic such as this.


The Snowshoe XL is a really huge tire. On 100mm rims it didn't fit my Borealis frame unless the pressure was fairly low. My guess is that few frames will fit this tire with 100mm rims. I want one!!!


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

I know someone with a frame this will fit.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

AC/BC said:


> I know someone with a frame this will fit.


It is 5.65" at 20 psi.
32" overall diameter.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Exclusive Photos - Supersized Vee Snowshoe 2XL ~ Fatbike Republic


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Gigantic said:


> Exclusive Photos - Supersized Vee Snowshoe 2XL ~ Fatbike Republic


I've yet to see it on an actual bicycle.

-F


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

2000 grams?


----------



## gcappy (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm going to measure my frame now! I could push a pair of those!


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Espen W said:


> It is 5.65" at 20 psi.
> 32" overall diameter.


That's on your 103mm rim, right? What would that make it on a 90mm rim at 8psi? Or 2, even?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Jayem said:


> 2000 grams?


Approx 1590g


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

MaximumX said:


> That's on your 103mm rim, right? What would that make it on a 90mm rim at 8psi? Or 2, even?


Yep, 5.65 on the 103 at 20psi. 5.45 at 3psi. Quickly measured to approx 5.30 at around 10psi on a Sarma 80mm


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Espen W said:


> Approx 1590g


Have you applied the kenda correction factor?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Jayem said:


> Have you applied the kenda correction factor?


Hehe, the studded version was 1680g with 280 studs, so might go below 1590


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

You can't handle my rare girth, says the XXL. I prolly can fit it out back, but would need a rigid fork. 

I wonder how wide it is on a 47mm. ;-)


----------



## yxan (Oct 3, 2008)

This is a very cool development and I for one wont bash this tire just because it cant fit my bike  bring on the mega tires!! hoping we see much more of this.


----------



## rjedoaks (Aug 10, 2009)

Delete


Pedaling


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)




----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

wow!! :eekster:


----------



## worldskipper (Jul 4, 2013)

Is that a Dilly 4 or 5 next to it? That is a tire.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Sweet zombie Jesus!!!!


----------



## Aceldama (Jan 18, 2005)

So... which new frame/forks are going to fit this behemoth?


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

how about the same pic next to a lou?


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

Add a 26x2.1 next to the 45nrth for the full spectrum of progression.

I'm almost thinking it's getting silly now. That's a tall tire. IMO, diameter is pushing the limits more than width. Maybe the direction should be 24x5.05?


----------



## worldskipper (Jul 4, 2013)

I think the only frame that will fit this tire right now is my GMC Yukon at the house!


----------



## Aceldama (Jan 18, 2005)

Espen W said:


>


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

joeduda said:


> how about the same pic next to a lou?


The D4 measured 3.85 on a 82mm. Here vs a D5 that measured 4.60'' on a CS 100mm:


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

nvm. my bad


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

bme107 said:


> Add a 26x2.1 next to the 45nrth for the full spectrum of progression.
> 
> I'm almost thinking it's getting silly now. That's a tall tire. IMO, diameter is pushing the limits more than width. Maybe the direction should be 24x5.05?


Truth. I'd love the width, but that's a tall tire to be fitting in a frame for lil'ol me...


----------



## worldskipper (Jul 4, 2013)

Now if they would just make a bike hub that could take a 6 bolt pattern for my SUV, I could have a snow machine!

Espen, if it would be to much trouble could you take it outside and show it next to a car/truck/Personal Carrier tire. I want to send my dad a picture of a real FAT BIKE tire!


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

N


Espen W said:


> The D4 measured 3.85 on a 82mm. Here vs a D5 that measured 4.60'' on a CS 100mm:


DAAAAAMMMMNNNN... That is a monster! After seeing this photo, I don't see that tire fitting in many current production frames, if any.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bme107 said:


> Add a 26x2.1 next to the 45nrth for the full spectrum of progression.


Here vs. a Maxxis Ikon 29 2.2.
(these are all pics that I took back in Norway. We are in Taiwan at the Taipei show right now, and the 2XL at the Vee booth was mounted on a 80mm.
Will take the requested pics vs car/truck/Lou tires when back at the office next week


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

WOW! I'm glad I like xc bc skiing, since I'm pretty sure that would still be faster/more fun in conditions that warrant this tire. Should save me some money. That thing is a monster.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

The biggest Lezyne floor pump took 100 strokes to take this one from 0 to 20psi on the 103mm rim. For comparison, the 4.8 with the biggest casing (Jumbo Jim at 265mm bead to bead (this is 315mm)) took 65 strokes. In other words, more than 53% more volume in this one.


----------



## cadoretteboat (Aug 27, 2011)

I dont think it will fit my KX250


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

I retract my previous statement. Can't handle that girth. I'm thinking they'll downsize this before it hits production. There is no market for it yet, so who will buy them? That, or make this the 3XL and put it on ice for a bit. Split the difference between this and an XL and you have a marketable product.


----------



## gcappy (Jul 1, 2012)

Have you actually tried it on any frame?


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

I hope they made a 150mm bb/crank to go with it.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

gcappy said:


> Have you actually tried it on any frame?


I was able to get it into our alminum frame, but it would not turn, since the knobs overlapped with the SS and CS bridges.

Will build a new frame that will take it (and keep 197 spacing and current 1x cranks (and around 76mm chainline) as well as current Q as well as the current 120mm BB shell.

That is not doable with a 10/11s cassette, but there are now other options for getting 11 speeds and 197 spacing, though...


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

AllMountin' said:


> I retract my previous statement. Can't handle that girth. I'm thinking they'll downsize this before it hits production. There is no market for it yet, so who will buy them? That, or make this the 3XL and put it on ice for a bit. Split the difference between this and an XL and you have a marketable product.


That was not a bad guess, and could easily have happened if I had not convinced them to keep this one. A new 11sp system will enable the use of this one with current BB/hub/Q standards.

It might very well be renamed 3Xl and a 'tweener 2XL might show up too.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Espen W said:


> I was able to get it into our alminum frame, but it would not turn, since the knobs overlapped with the SS and CS bridges.
> 
> Will build a new frame that will take it (and keep 197 spacing and current 1x cranks (and around 76mm chainline) as well as current Q as well as the current 120mm BB shell.
> 
> That is not doable with a 10/11s cassette, but there are now other options for getting 11 speeds and 197 spacing, though...


Well if you're doing IGH, make sure that frame is belt compatible!


----------



## shoo (Nov 11, 2008)

Looks like a nice tire. Hey they should call it XL plus.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

bme107 said:


> Add a 26x2.1 next to the 45nrth for the full spectrum of progression.
> 
> I'm almost thinking it's getting silly now. That's a tall tire. IMO, diameter is pushing the limits more than width. Maybe the direction should be 24x5.05?


I certainly agree with this. Develop a 24" version of the tire, keep the tire diameter similar to 29/29+, still utilize 26er fat wheelsets/ 29er wheelsets for different uses on one frame. It's easy enough to say, but I'm guessing theres more to it than that?

Not complaining one bit though! Got the tire, the rest will follow! I'm certainly interested in seeing where this goes!


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

TrailCrawler said:


> I certainly agree with this. Develop a 24" version of the tire, keep the tire diameter similar to 29/29+, still utilize 26er fat wheelsets/ 29er wheelsets for different uses on one frame. It's easy enough to say, but I'm guessing theres more to it than that?
> 
> Not complaining one bit though! Got the tire, the rest will follow! I'm certainly interested in seeing where this goes!


This makes sense^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

This thing is a prototype. It's main purpose is not to be a teaser for the general public. Vee Rubber and their main players have chosen to include the public, to a certain degree, in their prototyping process. This is really exciting and fun for us as the viewers, and I appreciate the risks Diamant/Nakamura/Espen/Vee Rubber/Wienmann are taking with this item. Pushing the limits is where it's at, and is why I have the loyalty to Fatback that I do. I'm watching with interest to see what this tire is capable of and thank the industry players for letting us watch the process.


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

Espen W said:


>


HOLY DUCKING ****. I'm speechless. PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME THESE WILL FIT IN MY NEWLY PURCHASED MOONLANDER!!!!!!


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Think think people complain about long chainstays now...just wait until they see what the chainstay length on any bike that would fit this tire would be. 


Espen, I am very curious to understand why you always seem to over inflate tires and then post measurements. What you are doing is similar to what the EPA does for MPG.


----------



## wjh (Feb 29, 2012)

At some point, the negatives of larger tires will outweigh the benefits. That point may have been reached here. Those have got to be damn heavy


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

wjh said:


> At some point, the negatives of larger tires will outweigh the benefits. That point may have been reached here. Those have got to be damn heavy


Not too heavy



Espen W said:


> Hehe, the studded version was 1680g with 280 studs, so might go below 1590


Now for rolling resistance...


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

wjh said:


> At some point, the negatives of larger tires will outweigh the benefits. That point may have been reached here. Those have got to be damn heavy


Nup, I have places I could ride with that tyre. I suspect Norway has plenty of the same sort of terrain too.

I think there's a case for 24" rims with very large section tyres - if only to keep the wheelbase within normal limits.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Velobike said:


> Nup, I have places I could ride with that tyre. I suspect Norway has plenty of the same sort of terrain too.
> 
> I think there's a case for 24" rims with very large section tyres - if only to keep the wheelbase within normal limits.


I'd be all over it. For me, rolling resistance is irrelevant on a snow tire at 2psi...


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

PEOPLE!! Will they fit in a Moonlander? Does anyone know? *pouts*


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

OfficerFriendly said:


> PEOPLE!! Will they fit in a Moonlander? Does anyone know? *pouts*


No, this is a whole new platform. Its doubtful that they will fit on any current frames.


----------



## Meriwether (Jul 26, 2007)

Espen W - 
I know this is a lot to ask and may not be possible but...if you could post a few more tire dimensions I think we could better assess if it'll fit in current frames (which it likely won't), but I already have an order for a frame to fit this tire, if it actually goes to production. 

Stats that would be super helpful beyond tire diameter and max width on different rim widths would be:
- radius to widest point casing and that width,
- radius to widest point of tread with that width too. 

For me it's helpful to have the measurements of width and diameter at at least 10 psi to show the full extent of the tire.

Thank you!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

There is no set rule for the pressure used for size rating, but 20psi is commonly used within the industry for fatbike tires.
(35psi for 650b+)
For example D4 and D5 are marked 4.0'' and 4.8'', so they must have been measured for width at higher pressure than 20psi by the factory, since I measured 3.85'' (on 82) and 4.58'' (on 100) at 20psi.

However, I definitely do agree that the measurements at lower pressure, like 3.0psi is much more valuable for evaluating the potential footprint in loose snow, as that takes casing stretch and expansion from sloppy beads at higher pressures out of the equation.
A tubeless ready tire will grow less at higher psi as the tighter beads will keep the tires from creeping up and out over the sidewall of the rim.

At 3.0psi pressure, all on 103mm rims, except the D5, which was on a 100mm:
*''2XL''*: 5.45''
*Surly Lou*: 4.59''
*Snowshoe XL:* 4.72''
*Dillinger 5*: 4.43''
*Jumbo Jim *: 4.67''


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

Gigantic said:


> No, this is a whole new platform. Its doubtful that they will fit on any current frames.


Thanks for the reply, just saw that the tyre diameter is 32"!! I wonder how hard it would be to ride and jesus, I wonder what kind of frame would fit these tires. It would seem for the first time ever, Vee rubber is one step ahead of Surly haha


----------



## bepperb (Mar 26, 2004)

I seem to be the only one here that thinks the larger diameter is a benefit. I'm no amazing snow biker and I can ride a 4.8in tire until my progress is halted by the cranks/pedals digging into the snow, not necessarily the flotation or traction of the tire. That's unavoidable, no matter how wide of tires you have your progress will be more or less stopped when your pedals are digging through a few inches of snow. So a taller bike will be beneficial there, and to be blunt I don't see a market for these on hardpack trails so a longer wheelbase I wouldn't see as a big issue.

I think the 24" is a good idea but to me a 5.5 inch wide tire should probably be a pretty tall tire too.


----------



## SADDLE TRAMP (Aug 26, 2010)

Espen:

Thanks for the look into what the future may hold. 

The biggest objection IMO, is with the overall diameter, seems like something in the neighborhood of 29 -30" would make the product more marketable. BTW, any guess what a weighted rolling diameter could be expected?

130 - 145mm rim width in the works?

Again, thanks for the peek into this process


----------



## CBBaron (Dec 12, 2005)

bepperb said:


> I seem to be the only one here that thinks the larger diameter is a benefit. I'm no amazing snow biker and I can ride a 4.8in tire until my progress is halted by the cranks/pedals digging into the snow, not necessarily the flotation or traction of the tire. That's unavoidable, no matter how wide of tires you have your progress will be more or less stopped when your pedals are digging through a few inches of snow. So a taller bike will be beneficial there, and to be blunt I don't see a market for these on hardpack trails so a longer wheelbase I wouldn't see as a big issue.
> 
> I think the 24" is a good idea but to me a 5.5 inch wide tire should probably be a pretty tall tire too.


It does not require a taller tire to raise the BB higher. That is more a function of frame design. As a more gravity challenged rider a wider tire is very welcome. The trails i ride tend to be lightly used mostly by pedestrians. Traction and float are always highly desired. Not a summer tire though. Curious to see how many current frames or forks could handle the girth.

phat fingered from my phone


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

I will totally make some big ol' frames for this @#$*er. Can't wait.


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

Drew Diller said:


> I will totally make some big ol' frames for this @#$*er. Can't wait.


That must be really awesome to just want a frame and just be able to make one! I really wish I could make bike frames, I'd make some crazy stuff ;D You better show us what you come up with!


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

OfficerFriendly said:


> You better show us what you come up with!


My life depends on it!

HAHA

ha

haaaa....


----------



## worldskipper (Jul 4, 2013)

Drew, just a little thought bubble, with the emergence of 'fat' 24" commercial tires (vee) I wonder if a pair 24x4" tires laced together put on a 100mm (cough carbon) rim might work with standard 190 fatty frame...

Just a thought.


----------



## cadoretteboat (Aug 27, 2011)

HAHA

ha

haaaa....
Said Genesis


----------



## arc (Sep 9, 2004)

Drew Diller said:


> I will totally make some big ol' frames for this @#$*er. Can't wait.


Call it the Nut Crusher. Deep soft snow and top tubes seem like a bad combination.

How do you see frame geometry working out for a tire like this? Lots of bottom bracket drop to keep the center of gravity down and lengthen the chain-stays so the tire clears the seat-tube or high bottom bracket to keep the pedals out of the snow and a Knolly type seat-tube to keep the chain-stays short?

What about the front end? Riding in deep snow is going to be slow. Steering response on that big of tire at low pressure will be slow too. An extra steep head angle would probably be best but then how do you deal with winter boots and toe overlap?

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

arc said:


> ...but then how do you deal with winter boots and toe overlap?


My favorite among your questions is this one. As it pertains side-to-side as well. Some folks are already having Q trouble as is.

Short answer is I don't know. I never saw this tire coming in any sort of quantity. I'm pleasantly shocked.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Drew Diller said:


> My favorite among your questions is this one. As it pertains side-to-side as well. Some folks are already having Q trouble as is.
> 
> Short answer is I don't know...


The answer to that is a revision of how we pedal.

With a non rotary motion our heels don't have to intrude past the back of the BB which allows lots more room for tyre. The thin wire drive also can be diverted around the tyre with a pulley, so that removes the tyre width restrictions.

This is a pic of my Alenax, and you can see the basic principle here. It is a bit awkward to get used to it, but no harder than learning fixed. Once I mastered it, I was able to leave my sons in the dust riding this on a mtb course while they were on quality 29ers. The basic principle works ok, there's lots of improvements I would make though.


----------



## SADDLE TRAMP (Aug 26, 2010)

arc said:


> but then how do you deal with winter boots and toe overlap


The lower the BB is to the axle height, the more clearance you get. Shorter cranks will also give you a smidgen more.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Sand Rat said:


> The lower the BB is to the axle height, the more clearance you get. Shorter cranks will also give you a smidgen more.


With an Alenax system, it would be possible to adjust the operating arc of the pedals to change the height depending on conditions.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

SADDLE TRAMP said:


> Espen:
> 
> Thanks for the look into what the future may hold.
> 
> ...


Surly Bud/Lou are around 31'' overall diameter, so 32'' isn't that dramatically much bigger.
We discussed 110mm rims with Alex Rims (they make the Surly rims, etc) last year, and they wanted to do it, but at that time, we didn't have the new drivetrain ready, so a 4.8 on a 110mm would cause rubbing issues with 190 spacing and a regular 11 speed cassette setup.
The new ''5.5'' has a nice profile (I prefer flattish for a powder tire) on the current 103 rims, and will have that on the new tubeless ready 100s as well.
It retains a pretty nice powder profile even on 80s.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

Velobike said:


> The answer to that is a revision of how we pedal.
> 
> With a non rotary motion our heels don't have to intrude past the back of the BB which allows lots more room for tyre. The thin wire drive also can be diverted around the tyre with a pulley, so that removes the tyre width restrictions.
> 
> This is a pic of my Alenax, and you can see the basic principle here. It is a bit awkward to get used to it, but no harder than learning fixed. Once I mastered it, I was able to leave my sons in the dust riding this on a mtb course while they were on quality 29ers. The basic principle works ok, there's lots of improvements I would make though.


I'll consider it if you want to transmogrify it with a Whyte PRST-1 =D


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

joeduda said:


> how about the same pic next to a lou?


----------



## simple1 (Mar 12, 2015)

Sad thing is is that the sidewall casing will still extend beyond the knobs like the current slowshoe offerings. No bueno.

knard.


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

That wont be fitting on my Yampa anytime soon. And I thought my bud and lou were ridiculous! Thanks for the pic.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Espen W said:


>


Holy tread pattern knock-off Batman! Don't they copyright tread patterns or something.

In the world of engineering, if 2 different companies independently arrive at the same solution, you have to think that that solution is pretty strong.
...or that someone stole it. :yikes:

That's OK. Not only will we all need new frames and new forks, but we'll need new car racks, too. I'm all out of $$$ for now so I'll wait 'til it shows up at Wal-Mart.

-F


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

People that think this is too big or too heavy should unsubscribe. There are heaps of smaller tires--pick one and go ride it.

Bud/Lou on 100mm rims are better than everything that came before but still aren't big enough. 

29" (700c rim) x 6" is probably not too big either. Bring it.


----------



## RFX big foot (Mar 16, 2011)

^^^^^^^^
saint words !
i want this tires 
no matter what !


----------



## Meriwether (Jul 26, 2007)

That looks way more than a 1" increase in diameter... 
I'm assuming you're not going to give more detailed measurements so I'll have to wait till it comes out 

The current drivetrain options are now the limiting factor not just the frame. Unless you run it single. Or set the rear der limit-screw to the cog before the chain hits the tire.

Anyone's that has not been able to ride in deep pow knows that this will be a popular tire. What did our ancestors do on big pow days? Make bigger snowshoes!!

[/QUOTE]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ultraspontane (May 26, 2011)

Imagine pushing these monsters through untracked snow. You'd need the lactate threshold of a prime Lance Armstrong at the height of his PED abuse.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

ultraspontane said:


> Imagine pushing these monsters through untracked snow. You'd need the lactate threshold of a prime Lance Armstrong at the height of his PED abuse.


No bike will ever be able to be ridden through truly untracked snow. But if there's a base of any sort, this tire under a capable rider will be more rideable than anything that came before.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Meriwether said:


> That looks way more than a 1" increase in diameter...
> I'm assuming you're not going to give more detailed measurements so I'll have to wait till it comes out
> 
> The current drivetrain options are now the limiting factor not just the frame. Unless you run it single. Or set the rear der limit-screw to the cog before the chain hits the tire.
> ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

I measured the 2XL at right at 32'' myself, but the 30.8'' for the Surly comes from their tire geometry chart.

Since what I have are prototypes, I'll wait for Vee to publish the specific measurements that you were requesting, as that will be more accurate vs. current offerings.
Our 190 spacing (197mm IGH hub) test bike sits on LB carbon 90mm rims right now, and we were able to mount and ride the 2XLs. That frame was not made with this specific size in mind, but when it was designed, it was future proofed for somewhat bigger than 4.8''. It is perfectly rideable as is, but need slight tweaks in order to have enough room for a production bike on 100mm tubeless rims.
The cog sits in the location that yields a perfect chainline with a crankset with approx 76mm chainline and clears the tire just fine.
This was with the adjustable dropouts in the rearmost position, at 470mm (18.5'') chainstay length. These are adjustable between 445 an 470mm (17.5''), but we will add another 5mm of adjustability.
In other words, the tire is now rideable in a frame with 18.5'' chainstays. That is just 3mm longer than what we (as well as Alaska guys like 907) use as standard.
Shorten them down to 17.5'' for smaller tires if so inclined.
The test bike sits on standard Race Face 1X cranks with approx 220mm Q factor.
11 speed internal gearing that is in the late prototype stage and should be available to all bike makers by the end of the year. The drivetrain is not our own design, but has been developed by a local company, in cooperation with a very well known maker of bicycle components. We have provided some fatbike related input, as well as a guarantee for a certain order quantity, so we have exclusivity for the Norwegian market for a while, but it will be available to all foreign brands.

Up front, there are many options to run these on 100mm rims.
The Kinesis fork will accept it on a 103 (tested), and I'm fairly confident that the Surly ICT fork will accept it on a Clownshoe.
Our new 150mm carbon fork allows it at any pressure on a 103mm rim, and I picked up another carbon fork at the Taipei show that also had it run rub free at 15psi or less, so likely plenty more out there.

Having a huge front tire with more than 50% more air volume than a typical 4.8 will be great especially during spring time mountain climbing sessions when the crust might be rideable on the way up the mountain early in the day, but not so reliable on the way down, so a nice insurance against OTB.


----------



## Damon777 (Jun 11, 2012)

Espen,

You guys need to figure out how to sell your bikes in the North American market.

Signed,
A good portion of this forum


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Velobike said:


> The answer to that is a revision of how we pedal.


How the heck did one of those monstrosities escape it's vortex all the way to the other side of the pond?

*Proudly* designed in my hometown. I have a roadie version of that hanging on the ceiling at the shop, wish I had an MTB one such as you have there to do the same with......

On task, I love this tire, and the fact that I can mount one right on my Lefty, dish the wheel a smidge, trim a bit of travel, center the tire and go.

Where do I sign up?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Where do I sign up?


I would send a request to Vee USA, as the more requests they get and can forward to Vee Thailand, the greater the chance of this tire seeing production. 
My suggestion to them is to keep this as a 3XL at current size and then add a downscaled 2XL at a true 5.05ish.


----------



## cadoretteboat (Aug 27, 2011)

Espen W for President
2016
Traction and rubbing for everyones.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I think I could get one to fit if I get my rockers to slide back about 3/8" further and run 80mm rims, maybe.?.?.?.?.?


----------



## frozenmonkey (Apr 30, 2012)

"(197mm IGH hub)...11 speed internal gearing that is in the late prototype stage..."

Say whuuuuhhh??! :eekster:
This is way more intriguing to me than the freakshow tire...


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

maybe they would squeeze into the Yampa, I volunteer to test it out if you can send me a pair....................


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

mikesee said:


> People that think this is too big or too heavy should unsubscribe. There are heaps of smaller tires--pick one and go ride it.
> 
> Bud/Lou on 100mm rims are better than everything that came before but still aren't big enough.
> 
> 29" (700c rim) x 6" is probably not too big either. Bring it.


More width? Yes.

But why does the diameter have to change? Can't they make the sidewall height the same and just increase the width? They could still maintain a rounded section.
Heck, they could probably make the sidewall shorter.

-F


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

Fleas said:


> More width? Yes.
> 
> But why does the diameter have to change? Can't they make the sidewall height the same and just increase the width? They could still maintain a rounded section.
> Heck, they could probably make the sidewall shorter.
> ...


I thought the same thing, but there isn't any rigidity (not sure it that's a word) to the sidewall like a car tire, I think the only way to get more width is to increase the entire width of the casing and when it inflates it will take the shape and be taller. My guess only. I'm sure someone will chime in with more than a guess.


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

Since I am the constructor behind the frame, I think I can just verify that the monster fits in the prototype frame.

...and for all of you that have not seen this thing in the flesh, it's so darn BIG.

Anyway, I have tested the bike today, it fits and this is definitely a new standard, and it's definitely cool!








Sorry for the crappy pic.

Espen


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

So when do we get to see a pic of the whole darn bike!?!?!?!?


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

What are the knob heights? Looks far bigger than the current XL, right around Lou's.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

197mm internal gear hub? Espen, whose arm did you twist?

I really really like where this is going.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bme107 said:


> What are the knob heights? Looks far bigger than the current XL, right around Lou's.


Yep, approx. 7mm center and transition knobs and 8mm side knobs.
I have advised Vee to skip the studs on this first one, as the knobs would have to be beefed up vs the prototype, and that will add weight. Tall, fairly skinny knobs are not a good combination with studs. 
Then come out with a studded/studable version based on the same casing size, but with more XL like knobs, at a later date. Those provide a more stable foundation for the studs, and that is important in order to support the studs so that they bite into the surface, rather than the knob deflecting.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Drew Diller said:


> 197mm internal gear hub? Espen, whose arm did you twist?
> 
> I really really like where this is going.


Local (Norwegian) company that we have been cooperating with for a while.
Their drivetrain is the perfect match for this tire, as it enables current 190 frame spacing and current Q factor.


----------



## exp18 (Feb 15, 2012)

Meriwether said:


> That looks way more than a 1" increase in diameter...


Wow, my bud and lou make me feel so good about myself, but now I feel inadequate. I think I need to go see my therapist. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

American-sized


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

joeduda said:


> maybe they would squeeze into the Yampa, I volunteer to test it out if you can send me a pair....................


Unless they redesigned it this year or maybe on a 52mm rim it ain't happening.


----------



## spruceboy (Feb 18, 2008)

Espen W said:


> Local (Norwegian) company that we have been cooperating with for a while.
> Their drivetrain is the perfect match for this tire, as it enables current 190 frame spacing and current Q factor.


Ohhh nice - how well does it work in the cold? Like sub -30c cold, if you get that in Norway.


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

This tire is awesome! However 32" is huge and pushing the limits of ideal compatible bike geometry, at least for how and where I ride. As cool as this tire is, a 24" rim version would make a lot more sense and be a better choice I believe. The width, sidewall height, and tire profile CAN all be kept the same with a 24" rim version. Advantages would be much lighter weight, shorter chainstay's, shorter wheelbase, more nimble handling, etc, etc. I've extensively ridden, tested, and compared fatbikes with 16.5" and 18" chainstay lengths. I can attest that there is no comparison, shorter is much better. IMO, going larger diameter with tires and longer chainstay is going the wrong direction, but nonetheless, it's awesome to have bigger options and I'm not complaining that they made this tire. I just hope they will realize that 24" makes a lot of sense for ultra fat tires this fat.


----------



## slowride454 (Jan 11, 2014)

Can't wait to see what these look like in production. I'd love to mount this on the front of my Vinson with a Bulldozer in back.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

slowride454 said:


> Can't wait to see what these look like in production. I'd love to mount this on the front of my Vinson with a Bulldozer in back.


Yep, the fact that there are forks out there that will take these, even on 100mm rims means that Vee can sell it as an aftermarket tire from the get go. For them not having to wait for OEMs producing bikes that will enable its use front and rear should count towards starting mass production.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

From a frame constraints perspective, I'm concerned some about front toe overlap for smaller riders. Whatevs, I have a radical plan for how to compensate.

From a rolling diameter perspective, I'm not sure what to think! Is it possible that a large diameter / higher volume chamber at lower pressure could work out to a somewhat similar ride height?

I agree that there should be multiple diameters to accommodate very not-tall people. Scale to your size. I can tell you in my neck of the woods there is a strong and growing presence of genetically short cultures.

And some of them can haul ass, and get the same winter cabin fever that I do.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

A 24'' version would reduce its flotation properties. The reason why 4.8s work so much better in the loose stuff than 4.0s (close to 31'' rolling diameter for 4.8 vs a typical 29'' diameter of 4.0s) is not just the casing width, but also the longer contact patch of a larger rolling diameter. (think normal 29 vs 26)

(About chainstays:Adjustable chainstay length can allow the best of both worlds.
It all depends on what snow conditions that you ride. Where I ride (often a very weak crust under powder) and for my riding style, the 467mm chainstay length of our current bikes is vastly superior to the shorter chainstays versions that we have tested. It is the difference between being able to stay above the crust and pedal vs. constantly breaking through with the rear wheel, impeding forward movement.
I know that other very experienced fatbikers like Mike C has the opposite experience where he rides, in equally challenging snow conditions.
Snow conditions vary greatly around the globe as well as locally.
This is another discussion, however)


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

Espen W, do you have the O.D. measurement of the Snowshoe XXL on a 100 mm rim at around 7-8 psi? I'm thinking I'm going to have to build a whole new frame to fit these tires, no big deal. While, i'd prefer a 24" version of this tire, a 32" o.d. tire can still fit a custom frame with 17" chainstay's which is still short enough in my eyes.


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

Espen W said:


> A 24'' version would reduce its flotation properties. The reason why 4.8s work so much better in the loose stuff than 4.0s (close to 31'' rolling diameter for 4.8 vs a typical 29'' diameter of 4.0s is not just the casing width, but also the longer contact patch of a larger rolling diameter. (think normal 29 vs 26)
> 
> (About chainstays:Adjustable chainstay length can allow the best of both worlds.
> It all depends on what snow conditions that you ride. Where I ride (often a very weak crust under powder) and for my riding style, the 467mm chainstay length of our current bikes is vastly superior to the shorter chainstays versions that we have tested. It is the difference between being able to stay above the crust and pedal vs. constantly breaking through with the rear wheel, impeding forward movement.
> ...


True. It all depends on riding style and conditions. For someone that just wants to sit statically in the saddle and pedal, longer chainstays will punch through less but I'm a dynamic rider and move around to put my body weight where I want it to suit the current obstacle/condition. I subscribe to Mikesee's philosophy of geometry. Ultimately, you have more control, available traction, and can ride more places and in more conditions with shorter chainstay's if you're willing to use body input. That's been my experience. If I feel I need a 460mm chainstay length over my 419 mm, in an instant I can just scoot forward 41mm on my saddle while riding. I do it all the time. But again, I realize that alot of people just want to sit and pedal. 
In the end no one bike geometry or tire size will work for everyone which is why I am in no way complaining about this tire or it's size. I'd just really like to see a 24" option as well. Floatation would be a little less, but it would still be way more than anything else out now, seeing that the o.d. of a 24" version would be 30" right in the ball park of a Bud or Lou. But i'm not coming from a mostly snow use perspective. For me, fat bikes are way more fun for exploring in places like Moab and Southern Utah in warm weather than snow riding.
Anyway, I really appreciate your efforts in Tire R&D and think it's awesome that you are pushing for fat tires to get fatter.


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

I forgot to mention that while a larger diameter tire does increase the length of the contact patch, the flotation gained ratio inch for inch is much less than for increasing the width. Increasing the diameter 1.5" doesn't give anywhere near the amount of extra floatation that increasing the width 1" does. So losing 1-1.5" of diameter only effects floatation marginally compared to losing that same amount in width. I guess my point is, I feel a 24" rim 5.5" wide fat tire is a pretty awesome compromise for all around riding where extra floatation is desired but the benefits of less weight, and a more nimble, shorter bike are more important than the little bit extra floatation given from a larger diameter tire.
Again, it all comes down to riding style and conditions. I'm just glad we are seeing the tire development we are!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Interesting to see this and read folks comments.

aren't tyre moulds pretty expensive? This doesn't look like the sort of proto that isn't going into production- it's a pretty polished looking tyre!


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

Drew Diller said:


> 197mm internal gear hub? Espen, whose arm did you twist?
> 
> I really really like where this is going.


Looks like Sturmey to me? Exclusive Photos - Supersized Vee Snowshoe 2XL ~ Fatbike Republic

Or that's just a coaster brake....


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

That's not the IGH Espen W is talking about. I'll promise you that!


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

dRjOn said:


> Interesting to see this and read folks comments.
> 
> aren't tyre moulds pretty expensive? This doesn't look like the sort of proto that isn't going into production- it's a pretty polished looking tyre!


I thought the answer was the same for this regarding the construction of molds for making carbon frames.

The answer is "it depends". I'd hazard a guess that someone has figured out how to make molds that are sorta _good enough_ for a few copies, see what happens kinda thing.

I'm conjecturing here.


----------



## DirtZen (May 23, 2007)

mikesee said:


> People that think this is too big or too heavy should unsubscribe. There are heaps of smaller tires--pick one and go ride it.
> 
> Bud/Lou on 100mm rims are better than everything that came before but still aren't big enough.
> 
> 29" (700c rim) x 6" is probably not too big either. Bring it.


Vision


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

This tire/rim combo is probably maximum of what it is possible to run with todays widest crankset standards.

Some think this already is too wide, and suffers from knee problems etc. so I would say we are close to max real life tire width now.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Espen said:


> ...so I would say we are close to max real life tire width now.


Only if we retain current drive systems.

Lever action drives would enable much wider tyres and allow narrower Q factors.


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

With a 120mm wide BB and standard cranks there is about 7.5" space from inside crank arm to crank arm. Your heels stay outside of the inside of the crank arm so the inside crank arm space is the limiting factor on how wide a tire can be run with a 120mm BB. Chainstay's and chain line can all be changed and moved to get out of the way. By running the chain to a cog high and directly above the chainring, running parallel with the seat tube, the chain line can be kept narrow and then spaced out from there down to the rear wheel. Chainstay's can be raised super high so they are out of the path of the crank arms. 
This would not be a conventional design, but it is possible and you could run up to 7" actual wide fat tires. It would have more power loss from extra gears, but that's ok for how a bike like this would be used.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

N8R said:


> With a 120mm wide BB and standard cranks there is about 7.5" space from inside crank arm to crank arm. Your heels stay outside of the inside of the crank arm so the inside crank arm space is the limiting factor on how wide a tire can be run with a 120mm BB. Chainstay's and chain line can all be changed and moved to get out of the way. By running the chain to a cog high and directly above the chainring, running parallel with the seat tube, the chain line can be kept narrow and then spaced out from there down to the rear wheel. Chainstay's can be raised super high so they are out of the path of the crank arms.
> This would not be a conventional design, but it is possible and you could run up to 7" actual wide fat tires. It would have more power loss from extra gears, but that's ok for how a bike like this would be used.


ARGH @#$*ING *THANK YOU*

Been working on this for several years now.


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

Drew Diller said:


> ARGH @#$*ING *THANK YOU*
> 
> Been working on this for several years now.


Haha, sorry, this design has been on my mind for quite a while too. Just haven't gotten around to building it and no tires exist that wide yet. My plans were to just double up two 4" tires on a single rim with a tube in each tire and drill two offset tube valve holes. That would be heavy with a crappy profile, but depending on rim width should give a dually tire about 7" wide. If you don't build it it's just a matter of time before someone does, or talks about building it. IGH is the way of the future for off trail fatbikes IMO


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

N8R said:


> Haha, sorry, this design has been on my mind for quite a while too. Just haven't gotten around to building it and no tires exist that wide yet. My plans were to just double up two 4" tires on a single rim with a tube in each tire and drill two offset tube valve holes. If you don't build it it's just a matter of time before someone does, or talks about building it. IGH is the way of the future for off trail fatbikes IMO


I want to go in two directions with it.

One is to make things fat as possible. I thought I was going to be a loner on this one, I really am shocked by Espen's pics.

The other, for summer use, is to optimize Q for 3.8" tire casings / for people who have knees that don't like fat tires.

Turns out it's not as optimal as originally thought. That's why it is difficult / slow / undelivered, among other things. It's not as simple as making an elevated stay and calling it done.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Ooooorrrr... No chainstays at all!


----------



## Wildfire (Feb 4, 2004)

Drew Diller said:


> From a frame constraints perspective, I'm concerned some about front toe overlap for smaller riders. Whatevs, I have a radical plan for how to compensate.


Oh you wouldn't go that far, would you? Amputating your toes??? 

Not just smaller riders, larger riders tend to have larger feet so toe overlap affects us Clydes too. Especially when wearing size XXL Neos.

Very interesting trend. Must be tough on manufacturers -- especially those making carbon frames -- trying to keep up with this. The latest and greatest frame designs become nearly obsolete after only a couple years.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Finally, a reason to enable 52t rear cassettes with 20t chainrings.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Or this? Would be easy to widen these stays as much as you wanted without interfering with the drivetrain/cranks...

MPLS Bike Co Introduces the Full Carbon ? Murphy | FAT-BIKE.COM


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

Drew Diller said:


> I want to go in two directions with it.
> 
> One is to make things fat as possible. I thought I was going to be a loner on this one, I really am shocked by Espen's pics.
> 
> ...


Seem's like we're on the same page. I have a friend I'm trying to convince to get a fatbike but he complains about q factor.

The chainstay would have to be really high and out of the way of the crank arm rotation path. Much higher than any of the previous raised chainstay designs of the past. It could still be triangulated for rigidity. As long as an IGH is used in the center hub, the one that's above the chainring, chain line will be static for all chains and clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Anyway, sorry for getting this far off topic, but I think the point is 5.5" isn't anywhere near the max tire width that can be run with a 120mm wide BB if conventionality and maximum drivetrain efficiency for racing applications is taken out of the equation. For some applications, there's a huge payoff to sacrifice a little efficiency in one area to gain a vast amount in another one.


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

MaximumX said:


> Ooooorrrr... No chainstays at all!
> 
> View attachment 976123


That's a similar design as I was referring to. Perhaps calling them raised chainstay's is not the best term


----------



## spruceboy (Feb 18, 2008)

sean salach said:


> Looks like Sturmey to me? Exclusive Photos - Supersized Vee Snowshoe 2XL ~ Fatbike Republic
> 
> Or that's just a coaster brake....


Maybe a coaster brake - that hub doesn't look very wide..

Listening to Roger Cowles talk about his ride to Nome back in the day on the six-pack with a Sturmey five speed made me more interested in internal geared hubs. Might be a good way to go, if it works in cold (like <-30c) weather..


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

MaximumX said:


> Or this? Would be easy to widen these stays as much as you wanted without interfering with the drivetrain/cranks...
> 
> MPLS Bike Co Introduces the Full Carbon ? Murphy | FAT-BIKE.COM
> 
> View attachment 976127


Blonde Fabrication

I met with this guy to explore the feasibility of going into frame building full time as a job.

Nice dude.


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

Velobike said:


> Only if we retain current drive systems.
> 
> Lever action drives would enable much wider tyres and allow narrower Q factors.


My measures are made without a cassette. Look at the picture. Straight chain.

I am talking about available crank sets, traditional frame design and reasonable chain stay length

Of cource, if you can build a rear frame witout chainstays, you will get 1-2" of more space.

E


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

N8R said:


> Seem's like we're on the same page. I have a friend I'm trying to convince to get a fatbike but he complains about q factor.
> 
> The chainstay would have to be really high and out of the way of the crank arm rotation path. Much higher than any of the previous raised chainstay designs of the past. It could still be triangulated for rigidity. As long as an IGH is used in the center hub, the one that's above the chainring, chain line will be static for all chains and clearance shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Anyway, sorry for getting this far off topic, but I think the point is 5.5" isn't anywhere near the max tire width that can be run with a 120mm wide BB if conventionality and maximum drivetrain efficiency for racing applications is taken out of the equation. For some applications, there's a huge payoff to sacrifice a little efficiency in one area to gain a vast amount in another one.


The BB width is not that relevant. What it's all about is the inside measures between the crankarms.

e


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

spruceboy said:


> Maybe a coaster brake - that hub doesn't look very wide..
> 
> Listening to Roger Cowles talk about his ride to Nome back in the day on the six-pack with a Sturmey five speed made me more interested in internal geared hubs. Might be a good way to go, if it works in cold (like <-30c) weather..


If someone comes out with a cold-capable 197 IGH, I would get it and build it up with 100's. I'm not so much hardcore ss as hardcore anti derailleur.


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

What would you consider as "cold compatible" ?


Espen


----------



## FoldersUnite (Mar 17, 2012)

My Alfine 8 doesn't shift in the winter. -12 to -15C is enough to render it single speed.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

sean salach said:


> ...I'm not so much hardcore ss as hardcore anti derailleur.


That describes me too, and right now I have a dilemma.

I've signed up for a road 400km (250miles) Audax in July. It will be a wee bit hilly. I've got 27 hours to complete it.

On the same terrain I can comfortably do 200km in half the time, but it's a long time since I've done a 400km day, so in a moment of weakness I considered gears. However not even the thought of failure can induce me to consider a derailleur. Right now I'm looking for a Sturmey-Archer 3 speed - specifically the RS-RK3 with the rotary change.

That gives me my normal gear, one for tailwinds, and one for when I'm knackered, but best of all it remains silent.

I'll probably end up doing it SS though.


----------



## Wildfire (Feb 4, 2004)

Drew Diller said:


> Blonde Fabrication
> 
> I met with this guy to explore the feasibility of going into frame building full time as a job.
> 
> Nice dude.


Interesting... but it's been done. This was early fat bike (aka Sand Bike) pioneer Ray Molina's approach way back in the late 90's so he could use a narrow bottom bracket and still get a decent gear spread and chainline.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

Espen said:


> What would you consider as "cold compatible" ?
> 
> Espen


Functions reliably down to -45c with the right lubricant.


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

Every time I look at the new next awesome amazing mega cool chainstay technique for gaining more clearance on fat bikes, I can't help but wish they would just do away with the chainstays all together or get them up out of the way of where the business is happening.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

ScaryJerry said:


> Every time I look at the new next awesome amazing mega cool chainstay technique for gaining more clearance on fat bikes, I can't help but wish they would just do away with the chainstays all together or get them up out of the way of where the business is happening.


I am screaming expletives over here.

*sigh*

I'm working on it.

There's an expensive way to get it done: Effigear

And there's the slightly less expensive way. I eat it. I sleep it. I breathe it. And the @#*$ing molds are cracking.


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

Effigear will also suffer from crank/cs clearance.


e


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

Espen said:


> Effigear will also suffer from crank/cs clearance.
> 
> e


At the moment, you're right. They also appear to be a forward thinking company merely by their product offering.

I bet they'd be receptive to it.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

N8R said:


> Espen W, do you have the O.D. measurement of the Snowshoe XXL on a 100 mm rim at around 7-8 psi? I'm thinking I'm going to have to build a whole new frame to fit these tires, no big deal. While, i'd prefer a 24" version of this tire, a 32" o.d. tire can still fit a custom frame with 17" chainstay's which is still short enough in my eyes.


Yep, on 103mm rims: 
At 8psi: 800mm (31.49'')

For comparison, I measured a Lou at the same pressure on the same type of rim:
At 8psi: 762mm (30.00'')
At 20psi: 768mm (30.23'')

I have seen plenty of references to 30.8'' for Lou, but I now see that Surly lists 759mm (29.9'')

I got it mounted on my bike and made a quick vid with my HTC this morning, showing it vs JJ 4.8:


----------



## Espen (Feb 19, 2004)

...and I have been riding the 2XL as a rear tire today.

We got 30-40cm of snow yesterday, and today it's warmer, so the snow is pretty soggy.

I am 210 Pounds, and it's actually possible to ride on this snow.
The float is unbelievable!
Extremely low pressure, and maybe to low for normal riding, but this tells me that this tire will make it possible to ride places and conditions where no other have been riding before.



e


----------



## frl (Jul 22, 2014)

You guys 2x Espen do a greate job. Make Fatbiking even more fun in the snow. One got rear 2xl and one got front 2xl. Why not try it on one bike? And who is going for the first ride? Flip a coin


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

What bike does this fit on the rear? Would be cool if it fit on a Blackborow.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

Any chance this fits in a Bluto fork?


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Windigo said:


> Any chance this fits in a Bluto fork?


I'm guessing no, Bud has a hard time fitting tubeless width wise on 100mm rims and 29+ knards are almost too tall.


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

Really appreciate all your posts here Espen(s), they've been super interesting to read, so thanks again  I actually really kind of want to buy a Nakamura 5.6" fatbike, any chance of them coming to the uk? And I don't know if this has been said yet, but I'm guessing the hub is NuVinci? =D


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

OfficerFriendly said:


> Really appreciate all your posts here Espen(s), they've been super interesting to read, so thanks again  I actually really kind of want to buy a Nakamura 5.6" fatbike, any chance of them coming to the uk? And I don't know if this has been said yet, but I'm guessing the hub is NuVinci? =D


Good point.

Or where do you have a dealer near a ferry terminal? Easy enough to nip across and pick one up, especially if it included some riding over there.


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

Espen W said:


> A new 11sp system will enable the use of this one with current BB/hub/Q standards.


What's this new system, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## cadoretteboat (Aug 27, 2011)

Espen W said:


> A new 11sp system will enable the use of this one with current BB/hub/Q standards.


Internal gear hub? probably the only way to keep a good chainline imo.


----------



## dirtdawg21892 (Jul 20, 2009)

so, any more pictures of bikes with these baby's mounted up? particularly in the rear (cough*Espen*)


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

So maybe I missed it, but what is the outlook on this as far as availability?

I'm working on getting a frame that will accommodate this tire (and then some) and would like to know. 

Thanks!


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Velobike said:


> That describes me too, and right now I have a dilemma.
> 
> I've signed up for a road 400km (250miles) Audax in July. It will be a wee bit hilly. I've got 27 hours to complete it.
> 
> ...


Velo, I get your abhorrence to the notion of a derailleur on your ramblings through the heather, but to rule one out categorically on a road ride seems silly. Derailleurs have taken people around the world for gosh'sakes.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Availability on these tires?


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

http://www.jbi.bike/web/AdvancedCatView.php?CatOneId=TIRES&CatTwoId=CLINCHER&CatThreeId=26in&CatFourId=26x5.05+%28ISO+559%29&dfadfkawe45d9drh=4


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

JR Z said:


> http://www.jbi.bike/web/AdvancedCatView.php?CatOneId=TIRES&CatTwoId=CLINCHER&CatThreeId=26in&CatFourId=26x5.05+%28ISO+559%29&dfadfkawe45d9drh=4


BUGGER!!! I just ordered a set of Snowshoe XL's for this winter... FML


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

It says not available and they don't fit any current fat bikes, so why would you want them?


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

I guess I'm hoping/assuming that they would design the production version to fit the current 5" frame standards. All we've seen til now are pre-production prototypes.


----------



## fotooutdoors (Jul 8, 2010)

I assume they will fit many forks? No reason to bring a tire to market if no one will buy it.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

fotooutdoors said:


> I assume they will fit many forks? No reason to bring a tire to market if no one will buy it.


Or....

...build it and they will come.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

^^^ They'll arrive just in time for Surly to unveil its new mega fatty at i-bike.


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

MaximumX said:


> I guess I'm hoping/assuming that they would design the production version to fit the current 5" frame standards. All we've seen til now are pre-production prototypes.


That wouldn't make any sense. The snowshoe xl is as big as you can fit in current frames. Downsizing the xxl to fit in current frames would make it the same size as the xl.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Lars_D said:


> The snowshoe xl is as big as you can fit in current frames. Downsizing the xxl to fit in current frames would make it the same size as the xl.


Maybe. I'll mount mine up when I get them and see what kind of room they leave. My bike is *supposed* to fit a 5" tire, but most tires seem to run a little smaller than their claimed size... So maybe a 5.05 will only measure out to 4.8 or 4.9.

I'll be interested in seeing what the actual production tire looks like.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

Supposedly they measure 5.65


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

fotooutdoors said:


> I assume they will fit many forks? No reason to bring a tire to market if no one will buy it.


If you go back a page or two you'll find our forum friend Espen W and his Norwegian company Diamant & Nakamura bikes already have prototype tires from Vee and frames they've been working on since the tire was first viewed in Taipei back in March.

Surely other companies are hiding in the weeds with forks/frames.

BD already has a Ti, FS frame with 125mm rims on preorder. 1/2 the cost, 3x the fun. They ship it with a 100mm/4.5" disposable set of wheels/tires that'll last until these hit the market. If there is a delay in production or delivery of these tires they recommend you only ride the disposable ones in the sand once a week for a maximum of 2 miles and you must weigh 125lbs or less.


----------



## nolan17 (Jun 9, 2009)

I just built up a custom steel frame last year and won't be jumping on this bandwagon for the rear at least. When we get a suspension fork that will clear this size I will likely purchase one to put on. I just don't like the Vee rubber silica compound as it wears too quickly. I really want a tire with more volume than Bud/Lou but half the tread height that will fit in existing frames, more for riding dirt. 

-Nolan


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i got one from J&B on the way. its going on my moonlander up front, but rest assured i will try it in the rear first.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Dammit. I have a frame that will fit this tire shipping out on Thursday. Not sure how to order form J&B, I'm assuming you need to be a dealer? I'd love to get my hands on one. 

In the meantime I have a Bud on order...


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

I ordered one on Monday from JB. I should have it next Monday or Tuesday! I have two forks to try it on, Ice Cream Truck and Salsa Bearpaw 150. The anxiety is killing me! I hope it fits at least one of them!


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

J+B is the new QBP. 

WTF? I called as soon as I saw they *had* them. 

Out till October or some such nonsense. 

Well, once ya'll get them and they don't fit anything, keep me in mind, I know it'll fit my Lefty!


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

Weights and bead to bead measurements before you mount them up.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i will be putting it on my lander non offset fork tubeless :-O


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

If anybody get's theirs and finds it doesn't fit, I'm a buyer if you PM me. 

Thanks.


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

@bighit, i'm curious - should you succedd into mounting them on a Moonie non-offset fork, please let me know - I have two SS2Xl ( that would become 22XL, or not?) sitting waiting fot the right bike to put on....


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Anyone got one and found out it won't fit yet?


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

Sooooooooooo, I picked up mine today at the LBS. Fits the front of my Blackborow just fine. I was totally surprised to see it actually fit the rear of the Blackborow :skep:!! Chain clearance is TIGHT at 11 psi in the lowest gear (setup 1x10, not the original 2x10). Aired down to 3-5 psi, a little more clearance, and to be honest this is the tire pressure I will most likely ride at when I need this tire in the winter.

Sorry guys, I do not own measuring callipers or a scale to measure width and weight of this tire. I measure the width of the tire with a tape measure and eyeballed it the best I could, I'm gonna say 5 1/4 inches wide on 100mm rim.

Also, I have an Origin8 Crawler with a Surly Ice Cream Truck fork. This tire fits in the fork just fine, TONS of clearance!!

Sorry guys, I'm not selling it  !! My only regret is not buying two, JB is out of stock :madman:

Hope this helps you guys!

3psi








11psi








Salsa Fork Clearance















Surly ICT fork clearance


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

:band:

crazy! i'm sure there's a couple blackborrow owners who just perked up


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

im so psyched for mine.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Lars_D said:


> The Snowshoe XL is a really huge tire. On 100mm rims it didn't fit my Borealis frame unless the pressure was fairly low. My guess is that few frames will fit this tire with 100mm rims. I want one!!!


Lou doesn't fit well in the Borealis either.


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

*Snowshoe 2XL size and stats*

I mounted them on a 100 mm rim, and took some measures.
Keep in mind, though: no caliper, only eyeball measures.
Overall diameter is 30.7 in/780 mm, overall width ( at casing, knobs are a smidge smaller) is 5.03 in/128 mm.

Weight:








4.12 Lb ( 1873 grams).


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Yep, production casing width is somewhat narrower than the prototypes that I ran this winter.
The protos were approx. 315mm bead-bead, while production version is approx. 297mm (Bud/Lou are around 260mm bead-bead for comparison)
Mounted casing width at (''industry standard'') 20psi is approx 5.2'' with tubes on a 100mm rim.
It is 5.0'' (knob width) on a 80mm rim.
(my protos are 5.5/5.65'' tubed/tubeless at the same 100 rim/pressure.
Don't have my notes here, so will post knob widths on 100/80 later.
Our production tires were around 31.5'' rolling diameter vs 32'' for the protos, so the height was kept closer to the proto than the width, so the tire volume is huge.
(protos had around 53% more volume than the biggest volumed 4.8'' on the market (Jumbo Jim with 265mm bead-bead), haven't measured the volume of the production 2XL yet , but also the production tire has huge volume, allowing for ultra low pressures and huge float.

To put things in context. Our 210lb test rider rode with the proto version on the rear (90mm rim) and a Surly Bud on the same width rim up front. The *rear* tire stayed afloat in super soft powder, while the Bud up *front *punched through the snow. Anyone who has ridden powder (or sand) knows what that means about float capabilities.
Now, the production version is not quite that huge (until 3XL arrives..) but it will still be in another league vs 4.8s.

Weight of our production tires (lightest version) were around 1680g (the 5.6'' protos were 1600/1680g, so production ones have been beefed up somewhat)


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

I agree, my measurements are tubed at roughly 12 PSI.
Well, this only means that there is hope about fitting them in my Moonlander....


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

albystarvation said:


> I agree, my measurements are tubed at roughly 12 PSI.
> Well, this only means that there is hope about fitting them in my Moonlander....


Please do update us on if it does, I really want to get a set for my Moonlander!!


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

TrailCrawler said:


> Fits the front of my Blackborow just fine. I was totally surprised to see it actually fit the rear of the Blackborow :skep:!!
> 
> View attachment 1006294


Can't tell from the picture (too dark) how far do you have the alternator drops swung back?



Espen W said:


> Yep, production casing width is somewhat narrower than the prototypes that I ran this winter.


Why the change? Based on feedback you and other companies returned to them?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bme107 said:


> Can't tell from the picture (too dark) how far do you have the alternator drops swung back?
> 
> Why the change? Based on feedback you and other companies returned to them?


Not sure, probably from other companies, as we urged them to stick to 5.5''.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Found my notes, here are the measurements for our production version 2XLs:

On 100mm rim with tube at 20psi:
Casing width: 5.22''
Knob width: 5.10''
Rolling diameter: 31.5''

On 80mm rim with tube at 20psi:
Casing width: 4.85''
Knob width: 5.00''
Rolling diameter: 31.5''

For comparison, Snowshoe XL 4.8'' tubed on the same rim measured to 4.71'' casing and 4.60'' knob width and 29.8'' rolling diameter.
The numbers for Jumbo Jim 4.8'' were 4.76'' casing, 4.58'' knob width and 30.0'' rolling diameter.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

byknuts said:


> crazy! i'm sure there's a couple blackborrow owners who just perked up


More than a couple! I was skeptical of the rear fit, since the clearance is somewhat tight with the Lou's already. But I do have the drops all the way forward.

Good news.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

bme107 said:


> Can't tell from the picture (too dark) how far do you have the alternator drops swung back?


They are adjusted as far back as they can go. I'm not sure if this will work with 2x10 on the small ring though, so keep that in mind. Mine is setup 1x10.

Espen, any ideas about when the 3XL will be available?? 

I took these pics this morning, while it may not be as impressive as the prototype shown earlier in the thread, production model is still a big step up from Lou's on Clownshoes.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

TrailCrawler - How close does the tire come to the cable guide/bolt on the inside of the fork? Such stupid placement on Salsa's part. When I inquired, they said I could use one of the bolts on the cage mounts on the outside of the fork, which I've done.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

stremf said:


> TrailCrawler - How close does the tire come to the cable guide/bolt on the inside of the fork? Such stupid placement on Salsa's part. When I inquired, they said I could use one of the bolts on the cage mounts on the outside of the fork, which I've done.


It's hard for me to say right now, the tire is mounted on the rear wheel. I held it up in the fork and took a guesstimate of 1/3-1/2" looks like it would be below the widest part of the tire casing. Either way, tire clearance on the fork is good.


----------



## OnThaCouch (Oct 2, 2010)

Wow...anyone know if this tire will fit on a 2x10 setup? Or with a Bluto fork?


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

OnThaCouch said:


> Wow...anyone know if this tire will fit on a 2x10 setup? Or with a Bluto fork?


No on the Bluto.


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

TrailCrawler said:


> They are adjusted as far back as they can go. I'm not sure if this will work with 2x10 on the small ring though, so keep that in mind. Mine is setup 1x10.
> 
> Espen, any ideas about when the 3XL will be available??
> 
> ...


Has anyone given a measurement from the axle to the outside center of the tire?


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

RockyJo1 said:


> Has anyone given a measurement from the axle to the outside center of the tire?


Post #206 notes the diameter.....?


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

bme107 said:


> Post #206 notes the diameter.....?


I think he might mean the horizontal measurement from the edge of the tire to the face of the axle. (maybe I'm wrong). It would be somewhat like measuring the backspacing on a car wheel.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

any info from Mainlander owners? I can't get to the shop for mine yet.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

Alright guys more pics! Just got another Snowshoe 2XL for my Blackborow for a matching set. Bring on the snow! :thumbsup:

tire inflated to 20 psi, fork clearance








tire inflated to 20 psi, fork/cable clearance is pretty tight.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

good lord! rear too?


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

bighit said:


> good lord! rear too?


Yup :thumbsup: I posted a bunch of pics on page 8 of this thread. Chain clearance is tight at 11 psi, so I won't go any higher than that. My drivetrain is also 1x10. I don't think this tire will work on the smaller chainring of a 2x10, so I lucked out!

What's the word on your Moonlander?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i can't get to the shop!!! I'm crazy lol. its got to fit on at least the front or i will get the ICT fork to run it. the rear looks tight with the Lou, but I'm gonna try.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Espen W said:


>


Son of a Gun, WOW


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

bighit said:


> i can't get to the shop!!! I'm crazy lol. its got to fit on at least the front or i will get the ICT fork to run it. the rear looks tight with the Lou, but I'm gonna try.


That sucks! If you end up getting a ICT fork, you will have a ton of clearance. I put one on my Origin8 Crawler, pics on page 8, excellent fork. Good luck!


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Crap. I don't think that tire will fit on my 907.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Where can I buy them? Any word on availability and pricing?


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

I had to go to my local bike shop. They ordered the 2xl through JBimporters. They show as in stock in PA, NY, MN, and WA. So I would say there is plenty in stock right now.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

I'm in Canada, so that kinda complicates things... But going to be in Massachusetts the last week of August. Would like to pick up a pair somewhere en route. 

What's the retail on them?


----------



## Keski (Aug 23, 2004)

Oh gees. I want. But need to know if they will fit a Moonlander with Clownshoes....


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Son of a Gun, WOW


Can I just say, that makes my pants feel funny.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

MaximumX said:


> I'm in Canada, so that kinda complicates things... But going to be in Massachusetts the last week of August. Would like to pick up a pair somewhere en route.
> 
> What's the retail on them?


I can't give you an honest answer on retail. I highly recommend you call a bicycle shop along you're route and ask if they could order you one and ask what they would charge for it.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

I'll check with a couple local shops to see how bad the "north-of-the-border"gouge is this week... Pretty sure I'll end up buying while I'm on vacay though. ;-)


----------



## duggus (May 11, 2007)

Geez, I haven't been on here in awhile and didn't know they were actually going to production with these. Saw the teaser shots last year. Kinda overboard if you ask me. I actually sold my Bud/Lou and going with the new 45nrth D/FBeists. Bud/Lou were just overkill for everything - and I'm in MN the fatbike capital of the world 

But seriously. There is a point to which you only need so much float. Over the years I got to that point and realized I only like riding full-on or somewhat groomed trails in winter or at least riding on snowmobile tracks on the river. 4.8's aren't needed for that, and I don't see anywhere these new behemoth tires would be needed, other than to have the "wow/neat/new" factor. They look like they would take any last bit of talent away that it takes to ride an already easy to ride fat bike.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

On a 100mm rim, with a tube, at 20psi, they do not come close to fitting a Bluto. Kinda like a FUPA all crammed up under the arch. No way, not at any pressure.

Same rim, same pressure, they fit the Lauf Carbonara. ~5-6mm clearance per side, and inches of clearance on height.

Will be awhile til I bother setting this rim/tire up tubeless, but I suspect that once the tire has grown/stretched on that rim it'll be tight to the sides on the Lauf.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

duggus said:


> Kinda overboard if you ask me. But seriously. There is a point to which you only need so much float. I don't see anywhere these new behemoth tires would be needed, other than to have the "wow/neat/new" factor. They look like they would take any last bit of talent away that it takes to ride an already easy to ride fat bike.


Spoken like someone that lives in MN, where a 3.8" treadless Endo is 'enough' 90% of the time!


----------



## duggus (May 11, 2007)

mikesee said:


> Spoken like someone that lives in MN, where a 3.8" treadless Endo is 'enough' 90% of the time!


Haha 

Hey we have mountains of snow most winters, but you know this tire ain't getting you through that until it's packed down anyway 

I thought I'd come on the ol MTBR and arm-chair speculate once though.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

For my winter needs they look ideal. Until a 6" bike is made right. But I can understand people out for sport may not like the added resistance. For me it equals better flotation for hunting and packing meat on snogo trails


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

So it has plenty of room up front on the ICT, any chance it would fit better in the rear than on the Blackborow? Chanin clearance wise?


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

Ok, finally some actual test on the Moonlander.
First, let me state my situation and goals: I started investigating in fatbikes in February. Planned to build up one during the course of summer, to have it ready for fall/winter. the primary use was for snow riding, but I wasn't wary of using it also as a daily rider during other season, leaving the full sus enduro bike for mountain trips, thus avoiding heavy maintenance chores on the aforementioned bike fork & shock.
I was wondering which frame to buy, when I stumbled upon a 18" Moonlander framekit for peanuts. I snagged it up: frame, non-offest fork, headset, front mech mount.

I was more than happy, given the ability of the Moonie to use the ( then) bigger tires available,,,, then the Snowshoe 2XL popped up. I found an Italian store selling them, and bought a pair. My frame is still unbuilt, so I made this test:
- Mounted the SnowShoe 2XL on a Fatboy 15x150mm wheel I had lying around: rim is the 90 mm Fatboy. Tire is tubed.
- Botched up a 135QR-> 15mm adapter: pulled out the Hope Fatsno 15x150 mm hub spacers, fabbed up a fake through axle to put in the Moonlander fork.
Mounted the wheel on the fork and took these images:




















As you may see, horizontal clearance is around .4", while vertical is .75".
Quite narrow. The real problem is that, on my wheel, the tire ( NOT the rim!) has .6" of lateral runout. I don't know if it's a mounting problem, or the tire's carcass is somewhat warped. Of course, this makes the tire rub on the fork's crown while turning.
So, IMHO, there is no chance of putting one of those behemots in a Moonlander fork: even if you succeed into mounting the tire perfectly straight & true, any hit that displaces the carcass even so slightly would result into wheelrub. Moreover, i consider my test plagued by the fact that I mounted the tire tubed : tubeless expansion would surely worsen the situation.
Needless to say that back wheel situation could only be worse: I didn't had the chance to try and assemble an offset rear wheel to test it, nor will I, given the front wheel result.
So, I am currently considering switching to another frame.
What do you think?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

oh boy time for a new fork.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

and new fork on the way. Hay why not, got to early adopt. OG from day 1!


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

Yes, I suppose I could order an ICT fork... or rather, use the old Lefty I got in my storage.
But, each of those fork would raise the front end about 40-80 mm, slacken the head tube and raise the BB. And the Lefty would force me to build another offset front wheel.
Maybe, too much hassle.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

well i got one tire and can get a fork for cost so i got to do it. I'm interested to see what it does to the front end. got to give it a go.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

bighit said:


> well i got one tire and can get a fork for cost so i got to do it. I'm interested to see what it does to the front end. got to give it a go.


ICT fork on my Crawler completely changed the handling of the bike (for the better!). The bike feels very stable at low speeds, whereas the old fork was too responsive. Also beware of the top tube!! It will be even higher now! Otherwise, excellent fork I have no regrets replacing my old fork! And it allows me to swap front wheels between my Blackborow and Crawler!


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Windigo said:


> So it has plenty of room up front on the ICT, any chance it would fit better in the rear than on the Blackborow? Chanin clearance wise?


I was lookin at a Blackbarrow today in Anchorage. It had 4.8 Lou's on Clown Shoe rims. Clerance was minimum with the 4.8s . IMO 5.05" would not fit the Blackbarrow. There didn't look to have enough room to put any kind of fenders on it with the Lou's that were on that bike.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

I'm curious about the ICT in the rear. I suspect a new frame is around the corner that fits them front and rear on 100's no problem.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> I was lookin at a Blackbarrow today in Anchorage. It had 4.8 Lou's on Clown Shoe rims. Clerance was minimum with the 4.8s . IMO 5.05" would not fit the Blackbarrow. There didn't look to have enough room to put any kind of fenders on it with the Lou's that were on that bike.


Ummm.... http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/26x5-05-xxl-958904-9.html#post12132837

They appear to fit that Blackborow.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> I was lookin at a Blackbarrow today in Anchorage. It had 4.8 Lou's on Clown Shoe rims. Clerance was minimum with the 4.8s . IMO 5.05" would not fit the Blackbarrow. There didn't look to have enough room to put any kind of fenders on it with the Lou's that were on that bike.


Since you didn't read through the thread to see the pics of the blackborrow with the xxl's already on it, I won't address that point...

But who makes full-coverage fenders for 4.8's anyways? There are those custom made wooden fenders, and the trials ones velobike runs, but other than those, all other fatbike fenders I know of have been seat-post mounted anyways.
So why worry? The tires fit in a blackborrow, and noone makes full-coverage fenders for the blackborrow that would affect the tire clearance.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Windigo said:


> So it has plenty of room up front on the ICT, any chance it would fit better in the rear than on the Blackborow? Chanin clearance wise?


With the same bottom bracket width, same crank, same rear hub spacing, and as long as the frames are welded somewhat true the chain clearance will be the same. You can tweak it some by dishing the wheel, crankset, or cassette configuration but that's about it.


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

albystarvation said:


> ... I found an Italian store selling them, and bought a pair.


Could you please post a link to the store? I can't find these in any european stores. Thanks!


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

accessori borse bikepacking fat bike - GOMMA 26X4.00 VRB321 MISSION...

there you go, though I fear I snagged up the last pair they got in stock.....



enemy1 said:


> Could you please post a link to the store? I can't find these in any european stores. Thanks!


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i ordered two. i know i will use at least one.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

So a customer stopped by with his Salsa set up with a pair, got to ride it around, pretty impressed. 

Checked, J+B had them, 2 are on the way. 

MahOOOOOssive freakin' tires.....


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> So a customer stopped by with his Salsa set up with a pair, got to ride it around, pretty impressed.
> 
> Checked, J+B had them, 2 are on the way.
> 
> MahOOOOOssive freakin' tires.....


That would be me that stopped by :thumbsup:


----------



## Slow_Thyroid_Bike (May 28, 2015)

I'm gonna go ahead and assume no hope on a '15 Fatboy?


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Slow_Thyroid_Bike said:


> I'm gonna go ahead and assume no hope on a '15 Fatboy?


They won't fit the front end of yours, since you have a Bluto. (I'm in the same boat). I'm wondering about the back though- seem to have ample clearance with a Lou or Snowshoe, the XL might barely clear.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

TrailCrawler said:


> That would be me that stopped by :thumbsup:


Cool!

I don't think I knew that, and come on, you don't wear a shirt with your screen name on it? How helpful is that??? 

Thanks for thinking of me, much appreciated.....


----------



## nameresu (Jun 19, 2009)

By the way. Tire clearance information on the Surly website says, that moonlander frame has more tire clearance than ICT frame. I want 5" fatbike, so I sold my Pugsley and start new one from buying a pair of 2XLs. Fortunately, at least two of my friends got moonlanders, and I will have the chance to test how the really big tire fits to frame. Because for now I see only two possible options - blackborow and custom titanium.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

The Design Logic frames will fit a 26X5.05" Vee 2XL on a Surly Clownshoe.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

nameresu said:


> By the way. Tire clearance information on the Surly website says, that moonlander frame has more tire clearance than ICT frame. I want 5" fatbike, so I sold my Pugsley and start new one from buying a pair of 2XLs. Fortunately, at least two of my friends got moonlanders, and I will have the chance to test how the really big tire fits to frame. Because for now I see only two possible options - blackborow and custom titanium.


A 2016 Design Logic Da Phat (steel) frame will fit 26X5.05" tires on a 100mm rim.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

nameresu said:


> By the way. Tire clearance information on the Surly website says, that moonlander frame has more tire clearance than ICT frame. I want 5" fatbike, so I sold my Pugsley and start new one from buying a pair of 2XLs. Fortunately, at least two of my friends got moonlanders, and I will have the chance to test how the really big tire fits to frame. Because for now I see only two possible options - blackborow and custom titanium.


hmmm might have bought a ICT fork too soon :skep:

anyway i got two tires, but i can't get there. I have been working two weeks straight easy. I want to apologize to all for having the tire and not running to get it. :nono:


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

What is the price on this tire?


----------



## 29ger (Jan 1, 2011)

Any idea if it would fit in a Carbonara fork? The Lauf website mentions 4.8" for max tire width.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

29ger said:


> Any idea if it would fit in a Carbonara fork? The Lauf website mentions 4.8" for max tire width.


Your answer is a few posts down on page 10 of this thread.


----------



## Slow_Thyroid_Bike (May 28, 2015)

Paochow said:


> They won't fit the front end of yours, since you have a Bluto. (I'm in the same boat). I'm wondering about the back though- seem to have ample clearance with a Lou or Snowshoe, the XL might barely clear.


Eh, actually I'd get em to run with the rigid fork!


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Those tires are FRIGGEN HUGE!
I have no interest whatsoever - but damn.


----------



## nameresu (Jun 19, 2009)

bighit said:


> hmmm might have bought a ICT fork too soon :skep:
> 
> anyway i got two tires, but i can't get there. I have been working two weeks straight easy. I want to apologize to all for having the tire and not running to get it. :nono:


Don't worry about the fork, I was talking about the frame, and only the frame. It is clear, that 2XL fits fine into the ICT Fork. But ( see photos on earlier pages ) fit is very tight in the moonlander fork, simply because it is shorter.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

Yeah that moonlander fork pic was tight and that wasn't even with a 100mm rim


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

So, is Salsa Blackborow the one and only frame (excl. Design Logic Da Phat) which rear fork is wide and long enough for this 2XL tire? And will it fit to it with the front derailleur too?


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Läskimasa said:


> So, is Salsa Blackborow the one and only frame (excl. Design Logic Da Phat) which rear fork is wide and long enough for this 2XL tire? And will it fit to it with the front derailleur too?


I am not convinced it fits any current frame when you take the inevitable tire stretch and wheel deflection into account.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

My offer still stands, if anyone has one of these tires and doesn't like how they fit or won't fit, I'm a buyer.

The particular bike shop that I buy from doesn't deal with JBI so...


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

Lars_D said:


> I am not convinced it fits any current frame when you take the inevitable tire stretch and wheel deflection into account.


I could see having problems with the drivetrain when your chain is cutting mud and snow off you tire.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

omg these tires are giant! tonight i will weigh, mount and post pics.


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

bighit said:


> omg these tires are giant! tonight i will weigh, mount and post pics.


do it faster.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

Volsung said:


> do it faster.


I'm ready to leave work now lol


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

Fits rear of moonlander!


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

bighit said:


> Fits rear of moonlander!


¿dónde están las fotos?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

these tires and ICT fork to run them changed the whole bike.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i wouldn't run out and grab one for the rear just yet. i think a standard qr may not have the clamping force to secure the rear axle. with the Lou i ran the tire all the way up front and now its 3/4 the way back. A bolt on hub would be the best setup.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

How about chain clearance?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i hit all the gears fine.


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

Wow, thanks for the pictures!!! It looks nuts, I can't believe it actually fits in the rear, especially as it doesn't fit in the front! Also, you should run a bolt through on sliding dropouts. I woudn't feel safe with just a qr holding that monster of a wheel!!! Is that the 135mm or 150mm fork?


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

Sweet! Glad it worked out for ya!

So, who else is gonna try fitting it??


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

its a 135mm fork. it raised my BB from 317mm with the bud/lou combo to 345mm with the 2xl combo. the whole bike needs to be re-set up now. Totally lost stand over, Doh!


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

I would wager to say it fits the ICT.


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

@bighit, thanks for the images.
This reshapes all my plans... again. After my tests, I was determined to ditch the Moonlander frame and get a custom frame made... but since the 2XLs actually do fit in the moonie's rear ( sounds somewhat wrong, isn't it??) I may resolve to use my surly frame, after all.
At this point, I might also decide to use that old Lefty Max for the front end.. thus solving also the Surly fork clearance problem.


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Any other european stores than the italian one? They only ship to italy.


----------



## Slow_Thyroid_Bike (May 28, 2015)

Now I just need to see one on the rear of a Fatboy. Fingers crossed even though I have my doubts.


----------



## spruceboy (Feb 18, 2008)

Maybe this has already been mentioned - but does anyone know if V plans to release a studded version of this tire?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

spruceboy said:


> Maybe this has already been mentioned - but does anyone know if V plans to release a studded version of this tire?


its listed on J&B.


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

They LOOK good (or at least big) but Vee tires are notoriously awful self steerers. How do they ride?


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Volsung said:


> They LOOK good (or at least big) but Vee tires are notoriously awful self steerers. How do they ride?


I only have parking lot time on them, but the profile is super nice and round, not flat, so handling should be good.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

Volsung said:


> They LOOK good (or at least big) but Vee tires are notoriously awful self steerers. How do they ride?


I ran mine 20psi front, 11psi rear. I did a 14 mile ride on paved bike path for no other reason than to try out the new tires. No self steer (do any tires self steer at that pressure?), and slow as hell. I never bought them to ride on hard surfaces, snow only.

The tires are off my bike and won't be on again till there is snow on the ground. In that case I never notice self steer in soft conditions on any of my tires :-/

sorry if that doesn't really answer your question.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Volsung said:


> They LOOK good (or at least big) but Vee tires are notoriously awful self steerers. How do they ride?


Seriously? You're going to characterize AN ENTIRE BRAND as having a certain trait that has nothing to do with *any* brand and everything to do with improper inflation for the surface being ridden?

Full on facepalm.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

TrailCrawler said:


> No self steer (do any tires self steer at that pressure?).


I should have mentioned pressure in my response. Yes, it was rather firmly blown up (I rode TrailCrawlers, as he was nice enough to stop by for show and tell).

To answer your question though, typically, no. If a tire has a super square profile, it may some, at higher pressures, but not normally, no.

Mike, I agree with the facepalm WRT the brand, but lest we forget, The Endo was crazy for this, as was the Devist8r. So profile does enter in (thus, a valid question in my mind), but overall yes, too low a pressure for a given surface is the primary culprit....


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

mikesee said:


> Seriously? You're going to characterize AN ENTIRE BRAND as having a certain trait that has nothing to do with *any* brand and everything to do with improper inflation for the surface being ridden?
> 
> Full on facepalm.


this.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i didn't feel any on the road with about 10 lbs in them. they actually made less noise then the bud/lou combo. i will get more time tonight at a lower pressure.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

bighit said:


> i wouldn't run out and grab one for the rear just yet. i think a standard qr may not have the clamping force to secure the rear axle. with the Lou i ran the tire all the way up front and now its 3/4 the way back. A bolt on hub would be the best setup.


A quality Shimano skewer is all that is needed, I would think. Not sure why a tire size would necessitate a certain type of skewer/axle. Worst case, just get some monkey nuts.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

stremf said:


> A quality Shimano skewer is all that is needed, I would think. Not sure why a tire size would necessitate a certain type of skewer/axle. Worst case, just get some monkey nuts.


awesome idea thanks. this is just what i need with a tire this big. i will order a set asap.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Mike, I agree with the facepalm WRT the brand, but lest we forget, The Endo was crazy for this, as was the Devist8r. So profile does enter in (thus, a valid question in my mind), but overall yes, too low a pressure for a given surface is the primary culprit....


You've made and reiterated my point for me, Craig. Thanks!

If someone wants to ride a 5+ inch tire on hard surfaces, that's their prerogative. If they then wish to whine publicly that it exhibits odd characteristics in so doing, I consider it my civic duty to make fun of them...


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

mikesee said:


> Seriously? You're going to characterize AN ENTIRE BRAND as having a certain trait that has nothing to do with *any* brand and everything to do with improper inflation for the surface being ridden?
> 
> Full on facepalm.


Can we all agree though that we've been beta-testers for Crank Brothers Company at one time or another?


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

Mikesee, quit being butthurt because I called you on internet bullying behavior out like 2 months ago. It's a little sad that you just wait longingly for me to post so you can quick attempt to enact internet revenge.

The self steer was a characteristic of the other sized Snowshoe tires, devistators, vee 8s, missions, and basically all of their tires with tread patterns designed by Vee. Exceptions seem to be the Floaters and the Fatback tires.

Or if you don't believe me, let me google that for you and you can click one of the numerous links to threads on MTBR alone.

https://www.google.com/search?q=vee...vee+fat+tires+self+steer+site:forums.mtbr.com


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

can we not get this thread locked.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

i rode a bit with 5lbs in the tubes tonight. its crazy! they barely squish. i was monstering up cobble stone curbs with ease. they are defiantly next level tires. There are some draw backs though. the weight is a bit noticeable and my bike is an inch taller. I need to find a fork that fits these that isn't as tall as the ICT fork. A bike built around these will be crazy! or just buy a smaller framed moony lol


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

Do they still make the Moonlander?


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

Surly they do!!!


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Volsung said:


> Mikesee, quit being butthurt because I called you on internet bullying behavior out like 2 months ago. It's a little sad that you just wait longingly for me to post so you can quick attempt to enact internet revenge.
> 
> The self steer was a characteristic of the other sized Snowshoe tires, devistators, vee 8s, missions, and basically all of their tires with tread patterns designed by Vee. Exceptions seem to be the Floaters and the Fatback tires.
> 
> ...


You flatter yourself in many ways, but you're still off by a country mile on self-steer being brand specific. Proper inflation for the surface ridden cures self steer 95% of the time, period.


----------



## Fat Urkel (May 9, 2013)

Lets get this thread back on topic. I'd like to hear more about the XXL ride characteristics.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

agreed, but until there is a specific bike built around these the topic of do they fit this and that is going to be discussed a lot. 

amazing how nice they ride for their size.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I'll bet they won't fit my 907. Even if they do initially, they won't after a few months tubeless.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

A 907 with that sloped top tube would be nice for these since you lose an extra inch of stand over.


----------



## duggus (May 11, 2007)

bighit said:


> i wouldn't run out and grab one for the rear just yet. i think a standard qr may not have the clamping force to secure the rear axle. with the Lou i ran the tire all the way up front and now its 3/4 the way back. A bolt on hub would be the best setup.
> 
> View attachment 1010639


Get a pair of Surly Monkey Nuts. I had that happen on my Moonlander a couple of times and they solved the problem with the QR wanting to slide back. But yes, I also did get a better XT skewer too.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Nextie 90mm rim, tubeless, stretched at ~20psi for more than a week, then aired down to single digit riding pressures.





Roughly 5mm between closest knob and fork leg.



If I'm getting after it, out of the saddle, tired and sloppy on something chunky, rooty, or messy, I can hear the knobs _lightly_ graze the fork leg.

Haven't been able to do that yet when descending. Will keep trying.​


----------



## Slow_Thyroid_Bike (May 28, 2015)

I don't mean this in an offensive way and am honestly just curious, and this is probably the wrong thread, but how durable are those Lauf forks? Like...what happens if you go off a 2.5 - 3' drop a little front heavy? Nothing?

Just kind of mind blowing thinking about it and I honestly have no idea where to set expectations.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

mikesee said:


> you're still off by a country mile on self-steer being brand specific. Proper inflation for the surface ridden cures self steer 95% of the time, period.


+1 to ∞.


----------



## Fat Urkel (May 9, 2013)

Slow_Thyroid_Bike said:


> I don't mean this in an offensive way and am honestly just curious, and this is probably the wrong thread, but how durable are those Lauf forks? Like...what happens if you go off a 2.5 - 3' drop a little front heavy?


It would explode sending carbon shrapnel at your chest, face and neck possibly lacerating you.


----------



## Slow_Thyroid_Bike (May 28, 2015)

Fat Urkel said:


> It would explode sending carbon shrapnel at your chest, face and neck possibly lacerating you.


Can't afford not to buy it !!

Actually, I ended up waking up at midnight and did some googlin' and apparently they do...just fine?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Anyone that has this mounted on the rear of their bike right now--can you measure chainstay length?


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

mikesee said:


> Anyone that has this mounted on the rear of their bike right now--can you measure chainstay length?


Yes... Please.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

i would like to build a fat bike around these tires(literally, lol).

i see front forks are not much of a problem. 

have any frames been made for these yet?. the pics of one here look like they have very little clearance. carbon frame would be nice.....


on that note will snow that sticks to this tire slow down the ride if it is constantly getting shredded off because of lack of frame clearance?


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

ascarlarkinyar said:


> i would like to build a fat bike around these tires(literally, lol).


Me too.


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

Carver was taking about having on ready for these tires.


----------



## dovebiker (Jul 22, 2013)

Anyone care to post some tire dimensions? Looking to get a custom rigid fork built but don't want anymore axle-crownrace than necessary.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I emailed Vee about fitting these tires on my 907. They said it's a No Go. 
Weird thing is, on all the websites, my chainstays are longer than the Moonlander and the Blackboro. I guess the gussets are too close or something.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

dovebiker said:


> Anyone care to post some tire dimensions?


http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/26x5-05-xxl-958904-8.html#post12118606
http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/26x5-05-xxl-958904-9.html#post12119189


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

NYrr496 said:


> I emailed Vee about fitting these tires on my 907. They said it's a No Go.
> Weird thing is, on all the websites, my chainstays are longer than the Moonlander and the Blackboro. I guess the gussets are too close or something.


Which email are you sending to? I've tried multiple times to contact them and have not once heard back.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Anyone tried these on a Sturgis yet?


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Anyone tried these on a Sturgis yet?


'Fraid so... We are SOL. :-(


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Looking at the size difference in the pics im not as interested in them now. Be much better as a 24" tire so they weren't stupidly tall. I was curious about the Sturgis thing too till I realized how gigantic these tires are. The idea of them is sweet, just getting impractical now


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

there is no hiding the height of these. If there was a frame that fit these A ok with no problem and you wanted to roll these i would get that frame in a smaller size. That 1" made my bike feel very tall and I was running Bud/Lou.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

bighit said:


> there is no hiding the height of these. If there was a frame that fit these A ok with no problem and you wanted to roll these i would get that frame in a smaller size. That 1" made my bike feel very tall and I was running Bud/Lou.


Except frame size wont change that, bottom bracket is still in the same place so your seat will still be higher, same place as it is now. All you'll end up with is possibly too short ett length and end up with a long stem.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

My offer still stands if anyone has one they want to sell. I'm a buyer.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

As far as fine bike handling the tallness of the bike with the 2 XL may be different. But as far as riding over stuff. Particularly snow. The higher BB is a plus. It keeps the pedal up out of the snow a bit more. . IMHO, . Sinking in the snow just sucks !!!!!

The Boris/907/KHS/Cogburn style drooped top bar would be handy with these tires. They NEED to come out with an AMC, Paceresque frame


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

tigris99 said:


> Except frame size wont change that, bottom bracket is still in the same place so your seat will still be higher, same place as it is now. All you'll end up with is possibly too short ett length and end up with a long stem.


 From a practical stand point. That wouldn't be that bad a thing. As long as the tires fit and functioned fine. . An angled seat post ect.

The problem with the Blackborrow and the ICT. Is their color. At least as far as Alaskan hunting and trapping use goes. And the Blackborrow doesn't have fork brazeons for racks. 
I know most people won't be doing what I do on these bikes. But a nice light dull color like sand or a light faded green would b awesome. I guess I got spoiled with my Cogburn in Realtree Snow camo


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

when i said a smaller frame i meant for standover reasons because my standover is gone. Its just a whole different bike now.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> From a practical stand point. That wouldn't be that bad a thing. As long as the tires fit and functioned fine. . An angled seat post ect.
> 
> The problem with the Blackborrow and the ICT. Is their color. At least as far as Alaskan hunting and trapping use goes. And the Blackborrow doesn't have fork brazeons for racks.
> I know most people won't be doing what I do on these bikes. But a nice light dull color like sand or a light faded green would b awesome. I guess I got spoiled with my Cogburn in Realtree Snow camo


Buy a $5 can of spray paint.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Shinkers said:


> Which email are you sending to? I've tried multiple times to contact them and have not once heard back.


[email protected]ireco.com


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Lars_D said:


> I am not convinced it fits any current frame when you take the inevitable tire stretch and wheel deflection into account.


Let's see, Blackborow ordered, thanks to TrailCrawler, it was your fault.

Now I have to find a couple of these tires. Is somebody got these ordered from that italian store? Do anybody know any store where these are in stock?


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

There seems to be two different versions of this:







Where to buy these? No answer from Italy.
Edit: Worries over, got them ordered from Italy. Instantly almost all gone again.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

I thot I saw a pic of them with stud holes in them from the factory.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> I thot I saw a pic of them with stud holes in them from the factory.


I´ve seen a picture of it too:


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

mikesee said:


> Anyone that has this mounted on the rear of their bike right now--can you measure chainstay length?


TrailCrawler has it in Blackborow in the longest alternator dropout position which gives 457 mm chainstay length.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

NYrr496 said:


> [email protected]


Thanks for this. Just emailed them and will see if I actually get a response from them (not expecting one though).

In the mean time, I know there's some of you out there that bought these tires and found out they don't fit your frame. If you will sell it, I will buy one! I have a frame that was made for this tire! (Thanks Walt!)


----------



## Brock Photo (Mar 23, 2008)

So, what is the recommended rim width to run a 5+ inch tire? (min / max)

Also, if you guys were going to build a wheel set for snow tires, are there any that stand out to you?

Thanks


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Brock Photo said:


> So, what is the recommended rim width to run a 5+ inch tire? (min / max)
> 
> Also, if you guys were going to build a wheel set for snow tires, are there any that stand out to you?
> 
> Thanks


85-100 mm. Nextie or Hed.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Brock Photo said:


> So, what is the recommended rim width to run a 5+ inch tire? (min / max)
> 
> Also, if you guys were going to build a wheel set for snow tires, are there any that stand out to you?
> 
> Thanks


Depends on where you're going to ride them, for how long, with what sort of load, and what your expectations and experience are.

I've ridden them on Nextie 90mm rims and ClownShoe 100mm rims thus far. Both worked fine.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> I thot I saw a pic of them with stud holes in them from the factory.


The protos (that were 5.6'') had stud holes. I have one with stud holes and another with studs (factory). However, due to the tallness and relative skinnyness of the knobs, the studs had very little support (some of the knobs had the stud base almost poking out through the side) so it was decided to do the first generation 2XL without stud holes. Studs work the best with shorter/wider/stiffer knobs that will not deflect (as much), but rather provide a solid base for the stud to dig into the ice. For example using the standard XL knob pattern with the 2XL casing would make for a super high flotation tire with excellent ice performance.
That said, it appears that the transition knobs of the production 2XL are bigger than on my protos, but the center knobs are not as wide.
My studded 5.6'' proto is actually only 1680g, so seems that the casing was beefed up for production.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Depends on where you're going to ride them, for how long, with what sort of load, and what your expectations and experience are.
> 
> I've ridden them on Nextie 90mm rims and ClownShoe 100mm rims thus far. Both worked fine.


Mikesee do you think the Nextie off set rims would would on a Moonlander? They would be a nice way to offset the extra weight of these tires.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

bighit said:


> Mikesee do you think the Nextie off set rims would would on a Moonlander? They would be a nice way to offset the extra weight of these tires.


For the 100mm rim? Their website is unclear on the offset amount--they call it "+/-20mm" but I think that translates to 10mm from centerline, which I wouldn't think would be enough for a Moonie. Plug the #'s into Freespoke and get the facts, but understand that this is an assumption until Nextie confirms the actual offset from center.


----------



## TomFL (Feb 6, 2004)

Anyone tried them on a Yampa yet?? 

Must... resist...urge..


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

bighit said:


> Mikesee do you think the Nextie off set rims would would on a Moonlander? They would be a nice way to offset the extra weight of these tires.


Light-bicycle has a 90mm with 19.5mm offset. Can be dual or one sided.


----------



## Brock Photo (Mar 23, 2008)

Well I just pulled the trigger on a set of 81mm (external measurement) wheels that I plan on mounting up my snow tires on. I would have preferred a wider wheel, but the price was too good to pass on. (Assuming they work )

Do ya'll think I can get this tire to preform properly on that width wheel or should I be looking at something a little narrower

Thanks


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

TomFL said:


> Anyone tried them on a Yampa yet??
> 
> Must... resist...urge..


Bud barely fit on my yampa with a 100mm rim.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

Thanks for the offset info. Didn't realize there is more to it. Never liked building wheels.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

TrailCrawler said:


> I took these pics this morning, while it may not be as impressive as the prototype shown earlier in the thread, production model is still a big step up from Lou's on Clownshoes.
> View attachment 1006472
> 
> View attachment 1006473


Another angle compared to Lou:








Now for sale in VEE's own site too: Snowshoe 2XL | VEE Tire Co.


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Hmm... Silica compound or PSC Compound? I'm assuming that the Silica Compound would be better wearing but not as grippy as the PSC? Thought I read somewhere that PSC is pure silica (and white?).


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

Shinkers said:


> Hmm... Silica compound or PSC Compound? I'm assuming that the Silica Compound would be better wearing but not as grippy as the PSC? Thought I read somewhere that PSC is pure silica (and white?).


You can get the Bulldozers in off white.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

I


Shinkers said:


> Hmm... Silica compound or PSC Compound? I'm assuming that the Silica Compound would be better wearing but not as grippy as the PSC? Thought I read somewhere that PSC is pure silica (and white?).


I think so too, PSC is softer = better grip = wear faster. And $20 more expensive. I think they are meant for the winter use only. 


> TIRE COMPOUNDS
> Silica - A compound designed to hold traction at lower temps. Rated 57A on Vee's hardness scale.
> PSC - Pure Silica Compound - Even better cold weather traction. Rated 50A for hardness.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

I got these today. Weight are 1844 g and 1911 g! There is quite much tread, in the middle is 7 mm (same as Lou), but on the edges there is 8.5 mm. 








Tread width is 135 mm (as flat).


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Good clearance in the front of my 2016 Kona Wo. Didn't fit in the rear. Knobs hit the seat stays.
Both tires were pretty crooked from the pack. It will be interesting to see if they straighten out overtime.
Weights 1900g and 1880g.


----------



## Tips-Up (Sep 22, 2009)

Sweet looking tire! I bought a Motobecane Boris and sold the Bluto fork for an ebay carbon 150mm fork. The switch lightened up the front end a lot, but it also lowered the front end noticeably, even with the Surly Bud up front (Nate in back; Bud didn't fit so I never tried Lou). This may be a solution to bump the front end and BB back to normal levels.

Has anyone rode them on singletrack yet? How do they handle the trail? Are they super slow on pavement? I mainly use the fatty in winter conditions but curious hwo they handle year round terrain.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Tips-Up said:


> Has anyone rode them on singletrack yet? How do they handle the trail? Are they super slow on pavement?


They won't fit on singletrack. You need at least a bike lane for the tread to all fit.


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

They look like a single track maker. New trails just go a lot easier.


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

The first one didn't straighten out after a night at high pressure.
And by crooked I mean: Vee Tire Snowshoe 2XL Video - Pinkbike
The second one isn't any better. Right after installation: Vee Tire Snowshoe 2XL Video - Pinkbike
Both are crooked in the same direction and seems that the place is also the same. (At the blue text) Seems like a quality issue. They are still ok to ride and the wobble isn't noticeable on the trail.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

Could be the rim?


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Windigo said:


> Could be the rim?


- I checked my rim in a truing stand
- Cleaned the inside of the rim
- Trimmed the extra rubber from the bead. There were some places with lot of rubber from the extrusion/mold process.
- Installed on a different place on the rim

Still there is a wobble is on the white/blue text. See video: Vee Tire Snowshoe 2XL (after bead trim) Video - Pinkbike
And like I said it was rideable even with the bad wobble. Now it doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

TrailCrawler said:


> I'm not sure if this will work with 2x10 on the small ring though, so keep that in mind. Mine is setup 1x10.


Finally I got mine Blackborow assembled. And yes, the chainline is too tight with 2x10, but I installed 2 mm spacer between the driveside crank and now it's clear. No other modifications needed.


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

Läskimasa said:


> Finally I got mine Blackborrow assembled. And yes, the chainline is too tight with 2x10, but I installed 2 mm spacer between the driveside crank and now it's clear. No other modifications needed.


I was wondering if someone was ever going to try it on a 2x10 Blackborow! Very cool! Thanks for sharing :thumbsup:


----------



## zoomin (Mar 16, 2010)

available direct: SnowShoe 2XL


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

Ok, this is my take after the failed attempt with the Moonlander frame:
















this is a 2xl, on a 103 mm rim.
Split tube tubeless, with roughly 10 PSI ( but i can't be confident in my floor pump's gauge, have to buy a proper one).
the wheel is brutally offset. Of course, the Lefty will be 'Mendonized' to "raise it's fatness to a proper level"....


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

albystarvation said:


> Ok, this is my take after the failed attempt with the Moonlander frame:
> 
> View attachment 1020734
> 
> ...


 did it not fit your Moonlander frame?


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

The frame, probably yes. The fork, ( as you may see in my previous posts in this very thread) not without incurring the danger of rubbing should the tire casing have the slightest run-out.
Fact is, my 2XL DO HAVE a little bit of wobble in the casing, so using the Moonie frame would have implied changing the fork to a longer one, thus modifying geometry..... In the end, I resorted to have a custom frame fabbed for >5" tires, fork atc 520 mm ( like my Lefty). 
Back to topic, i think also that le Lefty is the one and only sus fork that could host this juggernaut......


----------



## kgjz67 (Oct 9, 2015)

Hooray! I have a Snowshoe 2XL (26 x 5.05) mounted on the front of my Mongoose Vinson without any special modifications. The rear tire is a Snowshoe XL 2(6 x 4.08). Unfortunately, the 2XL does not fit the rear tire. Additionally, it will not fit the front or back of my 18" Fatty Wompus.


----------



## Gabriel F. Popescu (Oct 10, 2015)

Hey there,
Any links for stores that sell Snowshoe2XL in Europe?
went to Vee site but they dont sell in Europe, then i went an all resellers listed and still no luck :|


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Gabriel F. Popescu said:


> Hey there,
> Any links for stores that sell Snowshoe2XL in Europe?


This is where I bought mine: accessori borse bikepacking fat bike - GOMMA 26X5.05


----------



## Gabriel F. Popescu (Oct 10, 2015)

thank you very much, Sir.


----------



## kgjz67 (Oct 9, 2015)

*Vendor for Vee Snowshoe 2XL*



Gabriel F. Popescu said:


> Hey there,
> Any links for stores that sell Snowshoe2XL in Europe?
> went to Vee site but they dont sell in Europe, then i went an all resellers listed and still no luck :|


I purchased my tire from Cool Bike Parts and Accessories from the Coast of Maine since 1976

They will ship to Europe.


----------



## Faction6 (Oct 3, 2015)

just ordered a set of the snowshoe2xl for my salsa blackborrow from shop.veetireco.com anybody ever order anything from them in the past?


----------



## RFX big foot (Mar 16, 2011)

$130 each

https://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=74873&category=5792

$ 117
Bikeman Vee Rubber Snowshoe 2XL Fat Bike Tire: 26" x 5.05" 120 tpi Folding Bead Silica Compound Black


----------



## Tips-Up (Sep 22, 2009)

My fatty, Motobecane Boris, has a 4" Nate in the rear and a 4.8" Bud in the front. I tried Bud in the rear, to see if Lou would fit, but the side knobs rubbed. I sold off the stock Bluto for a china carbon fork, which unintentionally lowered the front end, so I want my front tire to be as tall as she gets to approach normal geometry.

Any considerations for a 5+ in front and 4 in the rear? Will it ride funny with different weights, different diameters? How will it handle in snow? Am I just a moron?


----------



## Faction6 (Oct 3, 2015)

RFX big foot said:


> $130 each
> 
> https://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=74873&category=5792
> 
> ...


i should check too see if i can cancel my order and nab some from one of those sights thanks for posting


----------



## AKCheesehead (Apr 30, 2008)

Anyone try this tire on a 190mm 9zero7?


----------



## ADKMTNBIKER (Nov 29, 2014)

AKCheesehead said:


> Anyone try this tire on a 190mm 9zero7?


I don't see any reason why it wouldn't fit. They have a ton of room.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

I wonder how long we will have to wait for RockShox or someone else to bring a bigger front shock to market.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

vadimhellbike said:


> I have a couple of Design Logic frames that will fit the 2XL arriving in a month or so but I sure can't find a front shock that will fit this tire. Does anybody know of a shock that will fit this tire?
> 
> I wonder how long we will have to wait for RockShox or someone else to bring such a front shock to market.


your best bet might be to fit a Mendon Cyclesmith Lefty. It's possible that one might be able to tweak the offset of the wheel enough on a clown shoe and massage the offset of the shock enough to make it work. as for other manufacturers? don't hold your breath.


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

Gigantic said:


> youyour best bet might be to fit a Mendon Cyclesmith Lefty. It's possible that one might be able to tweak the offset of the wheel enough on a clown shoe and massage the offset of the shock enough to make it work. as for other manufacturers? don't hold your breath.


It's my hope that in a few weeks we will be able to check this.
My Lefty Max has..... Left my hands headed to MCS headquarter. I have a wheel with an XXL ready for when the fork will came back....


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

I got some Surly Monkey Nuts. I will mount them up tonight and see if that holds the wheel in place on my Moonlander with a QR.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Winter just got a lot more interesting.... ;-)


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

MaximumX said:


> Winter just got a lot more interesting.... ;-)
> 
> View attachment 1023199


Total monsterbike- awesome!


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Gigantic said:


> your best bet might be to fit a Mendon Cyclesmith Lefty. It's possible that one might be able to tweak the offset of the wheel enough on a clown shoe and massage the offset of the shock enough to make it work. as for other manufacturers? don't hold your breath.


Thanks for your helpful reply.


----------



## gridlok (Sep 12, 2009)

Paochow said:


> Total monsterbike- awesome!


Do you have any chainrub in the lower gears?

I think this picture just sold me on the Lurch.

Since it has horizontal dropout you can easily push the tire back to the rear of the bike. I never noticed that about the Lurch.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

gridlok said:


> Do you have any chainrub in the lower gears?
> 
> I think this picture just sold me on the Lurch.
> 
> Since it has horizontal dropout you can easily push the tire back to the rear of the bike. I never noticed that about the Lurch.


Zero issues with chain rub, even in crawler-gear.

I have the wheel set as far back in the dropouts as I dare go and there is still a tiny bit of rub on a cable-guide on the back of the seattube. I'll get the Dremel on that, and probably remove the front derailleur while I'm at it.


----------



## gridlok (Sep 12, 2009)

MaximumX said:


> Zero issues with chain rub, even in crawler-gear.
> 
> I have the wheel set as far back in the dropouts as I dare go and there is still a tiny bit of rub on a cable-guide on the back of the seattube. I'll get the Dremel on that, and probably remove the front derailleur while I'm at it.


Anyone else had any luck making the 2XL work with a Sturgis? I'd prefer a Al frame but the clearances look like they are a bit less on the chainstays. Fork should be no problem.

Karl


----------



## Turd (Jul 21, 2005)

Sturgis
2015 was 190mm
2016 is 197mm
Don’t think they updated the rear end drawing on the 2016 link


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Turd said:


> Sturgis
> 2015 was 190mm
> 2016 is 197mm
> Don't think they updated the rear end drawing on the 2016 link


No - they are both 197 thru's. Another example of Bikes direct posting incorrect information. 190mm for qr, 197 for thru axles.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

gridlok said:


> Anyone else had any luck making the 2XL work with a Sturgis?


I've also got a Sturgis frame and tried to fit the 2XL there first... I was disappointed with the results. Side knobs rub on the angled part of the stays quite badly. If they were more curved like the Lurch's, it'd probably fit. Or if the 2XL were available in a 24" size...


----------



## gridlok (Sep 12, 2009)

MaximumX said:


> I've also got a Sturgis frame and tried to fit the 2XL there first... I was disappointed with the results. Side knobs rub on the angled part of the stays quite badly. If they were more curved like the Lurch's, it'd probably fit. Or if the 2XL were available in a 24" size...


Thanks I'll go with a Lurch. I think it really helps that the Lurch has the Horizontal dropouts so you can line up the widest part of the tire with the widest part of the chainstays.

Maybe I'd have more luck with the FB5 2.0, they still have a few on clearance in the deals section, I've passed them over because they use the old double walled rims which are over 1300g

Karl


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

I have officially pulled the plug on the Moonlander 2xl project. As much as i would like to run these i can't get them to stay put in the rear. The front was no problem with a ICT fork even though it did raise my front end some. Overall the extra height on my bike made me feel weird on it. I got the Bud and Lou's back on.


----------



## FASTFAT (Oct 22, 2015)

26x4.8 hold my butt up just fine...glad i went with the bigger when i bought the bike.


----------



## nelzbycks (Jun 3, 2011)

bighit said:


> I have officially pulled the plug on the Moonlander 2xl project. As much as i would like to run these i can't get them to stay put in the rear. The front was no problem with a ICT fork even though it did raise my front end some. Overall the extra height on my bike made me feel weird on it. I got the Bud and Lou's back on.


AWWW! I was hopeful that these would be my next tires!


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

nelzbycks said:


> AWWW! I was hopeful that these would be my next tires!


If you get a bolt on hub you could make them work, but i couldn't keep them from buzzing. There may be too much frame flex to run them. They clear with room 3/4's of the way back in the drop out, but my 240b butt got them to buzz. I think the key to them is a bike built around them. They felt amazing, defiantly next level tires.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

bighit said:


> I think the key to them is a bike built around them.


They work great in Blackborow too.


----------



## glockrocket17 (Aug 26, 2015)

Does anyone know if these will fit on the 2016 farley?


----------



## RFX big foot (Mar 16, 2011)

*optional fork*









Risse Racing Metron Mountain Bike and E Bike Fork 150mm Spacing for Fat Tires | eBay


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

Läskimasa said:


> They work great in Blackborow too.


I was looking at them as an option. It looks like the best frame so far for them.


----------



## Saw (Mar 24, 2012)

*Design Logic fat e-cargo bike running Snowshoe 2XL*

The gentleman that posted pics of his bikes in the Cargo Bike forum picture thread says that the second version of his fat cargo bike is being built to run the Snowshoe 2XL. I can't wait to see it.


----------



## mcnally78 (Feb 14, 2013)

Seems a little close for comfort on the black borrow. I was thinking of these but looks a little tight.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Front fork, about 6 mm clearance:









Rear, about 4-5 mm clearance:



























Seat tube, about 12 mm clearance:









Chainstay (1st gear), 2 mm extra spacer installed between crank/BB, 2-3 mm clearance:









P.S. Good offer for M-size Blackborow in Germany: Salsa Blackborow 1 26'' Fat bike bike metallic grey 2015 Edit: Sold out (was 1799€).


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

Läskimasa said:


> Front fork, about 6 mm clearance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


im gonna be totally honest with you, I had more clearance on my moonlander and i got it to rub. I think its a rear hub/stiffness issue.


----------



## ttakata73 (Feb 9, 2012)

Great pics of your Blackborow, I wish everyone showed tire clearance like this.
I guess any tire rub depends on how stiff the frame is, how heavy the rider is, and how much power the bike receives to cause the spokes/rim to wander around.
A Moonlander being steel might be why it gets tire rub, but the stiffer AL Blackborow might not have any problems?

Laskimasa, can you tell us how heavy you are and how long you have been riding with no tire rub?


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

ttakata73 said:


> Laskimasa, can you tell us how heavy you are and how long you have been riding with no tire rub?


I'm 190 lbs and I've riding about 50 miles. No rubbing at all, no marks of it too.

The Blackborow frame is noticeably stiffer than Fatboy's which I own before.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

im 245lbs with a little qr skewered i can get that wheel to rub out of the saddle in the parking lot.


----------



## middlewoodlands (Sep 11, 2015)

Will Qtubes 26" x 2.75" tubes work with the 2XL?


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Nevermind.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

For tubes, try these:


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

mikesee said:


> Bud/Lou on 100mm rims are better than everything that came before but still aren't big enough.
> 
> 29" (700c rim) x 6" is probably not too big either. Bring it.


And here it is, Mike...
Just got this monster from an up and coming tire manufacturer for evaluation and testing. It was supposed to be 5.5''.
Well, it isn't.
Got a long list of stuff they need to revise, like knob pattern (needs powder friendly pattern and knobs, casing type (way, way heavy) and they need to slim it to 5.7'' or smaller in order to be able to test it. It is marked 5.5'' but it is more than 6.1''.
New tire on the left, Lou middle and production version 2XL on the right. All mounted on 103mm rims. Rolling diameter is 32.0'' vs 31.4'' on the production 2XL.


----------



## worldskipper (Jul 4, 2013)

Espen go stand those wheels up outside next to a car/jeep tire! I don't think we get enough size perspective in these shots.

By the way, if no one else has said it, thanks for pushing the technology forward in fat bikes.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Dammit, just stop, please. 

No, wait, don't. 

AHHHHHHHGRGRGRGRGRG......


----------



## ADKMTNBIKER (Nov 29, 2014)

starts to giggle


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

This is exactly the direction I want to go with my snow riding. I am all for this step in tires.


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

Espen W said:


> .....
> Got a long list of stuff they need to revise, ..... and they need to slim it to 5.7'' or smaller in order to be able to test it. It is marked 5.5'' but it is more than 6.1''.
> .....


What?! Don't request that they make it smaller, you make a proto-bike bigger to accomodate.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Good god - how many road bike tires did they have to kill to make that thing?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

bme107 said:


> What?! Don't request that they make it smaller, you make a proto-bike bigger to accomodate.


This.


----------



## dovebiker (Jul 22, 2013)

Just ordered a custom titanium fork that has clearance for the 2XL - do I need to change my order?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

we are gonna need a bigger bike.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

bighit said:


> we are gonna need a bigger bike.


At powder right now, should be built late next week.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

mikesee said:


> At powder right now, should be built late next week.


can't wait to see it.


----------



## ttakata73 (Feb 9, 2012)

Sweet mega tire.
Keep the mammoth size and ask them to make a 24×6" tire and all will be good so long as chain clearance is OK of course.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Been trying to find a set of these, lbs is not having any luck any clues?


----------



## Saw (Mar 24, 2012)

vadimhellbike said:


> You may be referring to my Design Logic bikes. I talked to Lance Portnoff today. He is making two (4130 straight gauge chromoly tubing) frames for me now that will fit the Snowshoe XXL. I will have the bare frames a month from now and I will post pics in this thread as soon as I receive them.
> 
> When I am done, it will look like this, but with Vee XXL tires and a front shock:
> View attachment 1024908


That's the one. Great job on the build. That is pretty close to my dream bike that you are making. Is it too late to change the frame to fit a 6" tire?


----------



## Shinkers (Feb 5, 2014)

Fml.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Saw said:


> That's the one. Great job on the build. That is pretty close to my dream bike that you are making. Is it too late to change the frame to fit a 6" tire?


My frame will only fit the Vee XXL.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bme107 said:


> What?! Don't request that they make it smaller, you make a proto-bike bigger to accomodate.


Yep, definitely looking into that, but as of now, with symmetric rear and 197mm spacing/hub width, we are pretty much limited to 5.6ish effective casing width, and that is with a IGH drivetrain.
Cassette based drivetrain with acceptable chainline for a production bike is limited to around 5.2'', ie pretty much the production 2XL mounted on a 103mm rim.

These protos are 6.1-6.2'' (unstretched with tube on the 103 rims), so would require an offset 197mm frame or a 220mm+ rear hub/rear spacing.
Not a problem technically, but seeing that plenty of riders are struggling with the q-factor on a 197 frame, this would be way over the top for many.

This specific tire is fairly low tech with exceedingly thick casing and a weight of 2800g, so I actually doubt that they will have much more flotation than my prototype 2XLs that are 5.6'' and one ply casing vs. 2 ply on the production versions.
The lightest of my 5.6'' protos is 1695g with 260 studs, so would be in the 1590g range if I pulled the studs out of it. Compare that to the 1800g+ weight of the significantly smaller production 2XL.
Talked to the Vee guys at the MY17 bike show in Taichung last week, and it certainly looks like they will do a 3XL based on the 2XL protos that I and a few others got last winter. For a mass produced bike, the 3XL would require a IGH setup, but now that for example Rohloff has launched their 197 setup, that is doable.
We are having some non-IGH frames built right now with clearance for 3XL, so will use those to see how crazy the chainline will have to be in order to run the 3XL with a cassette based drivetrain. What is acceptable on ones own bike is often a lot more radical than what is accepted on a production bike with 5 year warranty.
Don't feel like going back to offset frames, and I don't think many others feel that urge either, but who knows.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Hmmmm... A return to offset rears, but in a 197 flavour? Would a 177 hub be wide enough if it's offset? They seem to be less prone to failure.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Offset frames worked to solve the problem that had yet to be solved. 

Until there is sufficient demand to create components to deal with the extra volume, honestly, I think it's a great idea.

The Pug then Moonie proved fat (and fatter) bikes were valid, and could create a new market. All by simply making a tweak to the frame. Now, because of that, we have a cornucopia of offerings in hubs, rims, tires, and cranks. 

Far easier to tweak a frame and dual drill rims, than it is to create as yet unknown crank/BB standard, which honestly, would likely end up being some POS quality crank just to make low production numbers affordable. 

I say 197 offset. The concept, and comprehension of this design is well established thus, cheap and easily implemented.

Bring on the porkers!!!!!

It's my birthday, you can make it happen for that, can't you?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

12 x 217 rear DT Swiss hub to allow full 1 x 11 with a chainline biased toward the friendly gears. E-stay to keep the chainstays sub-stratospheric. At powdercoat right now.














































​


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Call it the Bone Inducer. I'm getting light-headed....


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Mighty sweet build!

BTW, have you measured the casing width of the 2XLs mounted on the ENSO 105 rims?
(at 20psi or close to that)


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

MaximumX said:


> Call it the Bone Inducer. I'm getting light-headed....


Im with Max.


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

Wow :yesnod:


----------



## ttakata73 (Feb 9, 2012)

Wow! You are pushing the future of fatbikes; I look forward to seeing it finished.
I love elevated stays and wish more bikes had them.
I thought the Quiring bike was awesome but this is my new favorite.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Espen W said:


> Mighty sweet build!
> 
> BTW, have you measured the casing width of the 2XLs mounted on the ENSO 105 rims?
> (at 20psi or close to that)


Not yet--still stretching.

Edit: I let it sit overnight at 7psi. 130mm casing width this AM.


----------



## frl (Jul 22, 2014)

Wow, welding, nothing is like melting steele together. Especially with that result. Respect :thumbsup:


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

The magic happening in this thread in the past 2 days needs to be separated out into separate threads.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

this is getting real good. a note on the offset topic. they have been holding up for years now despite their unsettling looks.


----------



## Saw (Mar 24, 2012)

This thread rocks. Love the builds and the tech.

Unsolicited 2 cents...Offsets make sense to me now that the bikes are bumping up against the limitations of the human frame.


----------



## Faction6 (Oct 3, 2015)

received both of my snowshoe 2xl's last week and a replacement is getting shipped the tire had a horrible wobble in it thought if i did a little riding it would go away but that wasn't the case..other than that i thought it was a badass tire..more info to follow


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Anyone try these on a Farley 7? 
I think its advertised as being able to take a 5 inch tire but who knows.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

mikesee said:


> Not yet--still stretching.
> 
> Edit: I let it sit overnight at 7psi. 130mm casing width this AM.


Update: Took it to 14psi (Meiser low psi gauge) and left it overnight. 133mm casing width, averaged over 3 spots.


----------



## bbudell (Jun 10, 2005)

*My new 2XL Quiring!*

Just got my Quiring 2XL built up last night. Looking forward to hitting some sandy "test hills" tonight to see what this thing can do!


----------



## Co-opski (Oct 24, 2013)

Nice Green Bay Packer colors.

Sorry if you are a Lions fan.


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

bbudell said:


> Just got my Quiring 2XL built up last night. Looking forward to hitting some sandy "test hills" tonight to see what this thing can do!
> View attachment 1026540
> View attachment 1026541
> View attachment 1026542


looks great can't wait to hear how it rides!!


----------



## ttakata73 (Feb 9, 2012)

bbudell, your last pic is my laptop's new wallpaper. 
Feel free to add more detail shots.

I was comtemplating getting a fatbike soon but this thread is diminishing my desire because I don't want an outdated frame next year. 
I plan to ride sand and mud so fitting this tire is highest on my frame criteria.
I guess I will just keep saving up and live vicariously through you guys until I can't hold out any longer.

I hope more people post other frames that can fit this tire.
I suspect the Fuji Wendigo can as it runs Vee 4.7 on 100mm rims and looks to have a lot of clearance.


----------



## albystarvation (Apr 9, 2015)

Let's up the ante a little bit:









2XL tubeless on a 103 mm rim, on a Lefty Max 'Mendonized' by none the other than his guru-ness Craig Smith, at MCS.

Discuss.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

bbudell said:


> View attachment 1026542


Nice, but the front tire is backwards. Mistake or purpose?


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Lookin' good Alberto! :thumbsup:


----------



## bbudell (Jun 10, 2005)

In this case it was on purpose. I have been running it the "correct" direction for a while on the front of some bikes and wanted to see how it felt backwards. Didn't really notice much of a difference FWIW.

Did some playing around on some local sand dunes last night and I am SUPER impressed. I was able to climb stuff I have only made it up a few times previously with Bud/Lous but during those previous times the ground was frozen. I have never even come close to making up the climbs previously in the dry sand conditions I rode in last night. 

This is highly subjective but the jump in drive traction from Bud/Lou to 2XL feels similar to the jump from Dillinger 5's to Bud/Lou. If the sand performance is any indicator of snow performance, the bar has been raised considerably!


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

*Early fat tire bike*

For those of you who have not seen this picture:









I would build and ride a bike like that.

Note: I replaced the image with a better one, but I couldn't delete the first pic.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Here are two more for those who are interested:


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

bbudell said:


> Just got my Quiring 2XL built up last night. Looking forward to hitting some sandy "test hills" tonight to see what this thing can do!
> View attachment 1026540
> View attachment 1026541
> View attachment 1026542


If the frame and fork were both built for this tire, why aren't the fork steer tube and head tube the same diameter?


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

Willum said:


> If the frame and fork were both built for this tire, why aren't the fork steer tube and head tube the same diameter?


Guessing he had that built as I had my custom built. With a rigid fork(easier for a steel builder to do in 1 1/8th), but built to accept Bluto.


----------



## bbudell (Jun 10, 2005)

sean salach said:


> Guessing he had that built as I had my custom built. With a rigid fork(easier for a steel builder to do in 1 1/8th), but built to accept Bluto.


I wanted the ability to run an Angleset and a tapered steerer down the line.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

bbudell said:


> I wanted the ability to run an Angleset and a tapered steerer down the line.


Or that....


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

I also have a Quiring fatty, but not the Triple B. The reason Scott prefers that steerer is weight savings. On mine, I learned from my previous Fatback going from a normal steerer to a larger tapered one I liked better. So when Scott built mine, I payed the weight penalty and went with a tapered fork that matches the headtube. I like the 70 degree HT year round, so no Angleset for me. I don't notice the extra weight, and the fork is fantastic. The steering ability of my Q is the closest fatty I've ridden that matches my old Wildfire, which to this day is still top notch despite its age and 72 degree HT angle. I'm not saying the normal steerer is no good, it's a personal preference I have, especially when rides get a bit rough. Most people would prefer the lighter option as shown in BBU's pic, even Scott.


----------



## blown240 (Nov 4, 2009)

mikesee said:


> Update: Took it to 14psi (Meiser low psi gauge) and left it overnight. 133mm casing width, averaged over 3 spots.


Any updates on total width? I am seriously considering a set of these for my FS bike I build a couple years ago...


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

blown240 said:


> Any updates on total width? I am seriously considering a set of these for my FS bike I build a couple years ago...


No change in all the intervening days. Could probably get a few more mm's out of it if I wanted to, but it's already at ~double the riding pressure it's ever going to see.


----------



## blown240 (Nov 4, 2009)

ok cool. Thats exactly what I needed to know. Im going to see if I have about 5.5 clearance on this bike, and if not, I may have to massage some metal....


----------



## blown240 (Nov 4, 2009)

I just measured my FS fat bike. I have 6" clearance in the rear, and 5 1/2 in the front. I may have to get some of these tires!


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

blown240 said:


> I am seriously considering a set of these for my FS bike I build a couple years ago...


Yeti 575? The height (31") of these tires might be a serious problem.


----------



## gridlok (Sep 12, 2009)

Welcome to the Dark Side.

The ultimate snow bike that you can build for yourself and make all your friends insanely jealous. That is if they will even talk to you anymore.

Phat Phuk : FB 5 2.0 Snowshoe 2XL DIY BBSHD 1000W 10 Speed ebike 51lbs ~$1850 w/ out battery | Electric-FatBike.com









Ride On.


----------



## blown240 (Nov 4, 2009)

Läskimasa said:


> Yeti 575? The height (31") of these tires might be a serious problem.


No, not the Yeti. I built a full suspension fatbike a few years back. It has room for these big tires!


----------



## gridlok (Sep 12, 2009)

Finally got around to writing a review of this tire. It did very well.

Vee Rubber Snow Shoe 2XL : Fatter Than Your Mom *ouch* | Electric-FatBike.com


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Also curious if these will fit on the 2016 Farley's

Mikesee, Thanks for dreaming big and pushing the envelope.

New wheels look very very rad!


----------



## ttakata73 (Feb 9, 2012)

*Moulton Spaceframe 2XL*

Well after being inspired by Mikesee's Meriweather fatbike that can take these tires I spent the weekend designing a fatbike that can take 5.47x32" tires.

A Moulton Douple Pylon is the most insane brazed stainless road bike I know of but is around $20K! 









So I thought it would be cool to have a similar design in a fatbike.
I got this as close to a Blackborow's geometry as possible. So this has a low standover and short stays; only the fork trail is a little shorter. It has a 120mm suspension correct fork and a T47x100 bottom bracket.

Imagine if this was made in titanium. Sadly I am not a welder or rich enough to pay for a custom. If any fabricators want to collaborate on a bike frame; please get in touch. I would love to see one of my ideas become reality. Maybe after you make a profit on a run of frames, then I can get a free one.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

Titanium welding is only a class away... Chromoly brazing is an even shorter class.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Some great designs and built frames. My only issue is how little clearance there is between the tires and the frame. Not only on the width but on the diameter on the mounted+inflated tire and wheel diameter. 
I'm sure that having the tire close to the seat post improves some feature of riding. But, riding off road and on wet snow, ie any snow other than Arctic style dry powder. Will pack plenty of snow or mud around the tire. Causing it to scrape off on the frame. Where as if there was some room there, say 2" it wouldn't bind things up. 
I'm wondering if anyone else considers that a valid issue. 
Not that I'm in any way disparaging anyone's design. Just wondering is all. What would be lost by stretching out the rear end lengthwise??


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

albystarvation said:


> Let's up the ante a little bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's upping the ante a little, but some people are blowing it out of the water.

Fork to run dually 2XL tires on clownshoes, in titanium.









And and the frame to go along with it, also running dually 2XL's:









I can't wait to see the finished product.


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

^So long as I don't have to pedal it. 

I test fit a tubed XXL on clown shoes on a BD carbon fork. It fit, with decent clearance on top and on the side, but it's very close on the corners. By eye, it looked like ~3/16" clearance on each side. This was a very true tire, and any amount out of round would make things real tight. 

Perhaps on an 80mm rim, it would fit the fork profile better. My buddy runs them on his blackborrow, and while they worked well on trail, he hated life on a mile or so of pavement. They also seem to pick up a lot of leaves, and lodge them in the tight clearances of the fork/frame.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Dilligaff said:


> That's upping the ante a little, but some people are blowing it out of the water.
> 
> Fork to run dually 2XL tires on clownshoes, in titanium.
> 
> ...


Holy crap! what's that, a 25" chain stay? good luck with that.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

middlewoodlands said:


> Will Qtubes 26" x 2.75" tubes work with the 2XL?


I used a Bontrager 2.8" tube to inflate and seat the beads of the 2XL's on my 105mm rims. They worked fine for that. But In the interest of actually having a tube that holds air indefinitely when needed, I'll be carrying Surly tubes as my spares when riding these tires.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Gigantic said:


> Holy crap! what's that, a 25" chain stay? good luck with that.


Rumor has it the chain will be between the two rear tires. It'll be interesting to see it when it's done but I wouldn't want to try and pedal it.


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

ttakata73 said:


> A Moulton Douple Pylon is the most insane brazed stainless road bike I know of but is around $20K!


Trailmaker built himself a similar frame earlier in the year. https://forums.mtbr.com/frame-building/trailmaker-3-black-ops-968953.html
He hasn't been around that much...?


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

I would totally trade longer chainstay for normal Q and super float/traction.

It's not like your going to breaking any speed records with a 2XL. Well maybe over the guys having to push/walk their bikes.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

ascarlarkinyar said:


> I would totally trade longer chainstay for normal Q and super float/traction.
> 
> It's not like your going to breaking any speed records with a 2XL. Well maybe over the guys having to push/walk their bikes.


What use is float/traction if the wheel is so far behind your center of mass that you spin the tire when trying to access it?

Point simply being that chainstay length is as important as tire width or pressure for soft surface riding.

We are agreed that riding beats walking, period.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

I posted my vendor's CAD work here without his permission.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

vadimhellbike said:


> I am putting my 2XL tires on two ebikes that can go up to 38mph, but I usually ride at 30-34mph. I am using Bud & Lou tires at 28psi for this task now and they do well at speed. Not the most practical tire choice, I know.
> 
> The motor supplier had to make custom axles (I circled the 190mm shoulder):
> View attachment 1031249


just stay off my trails with that motorcycle.....


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

We get it, now get over yourself....


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

That post was a mistake on many levels. My bad.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

vadimhellbike said:


> That post was a mistake on many levels. My bad.


You are not helping the ebike cause at all, please keep up the good work


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bdundee again.


----------



## gridlok (Sep 12, 2009)

These tires are unbeatable on soft sand tubeless with very low tire pressures. Check it out.

BBSHD & SnowShoe 2XL Rule The Beach ? Even In Soft Sand | Electric-FatBike.com


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

I took a Carver Ti bike on 2XL's out for a short spin not too long ago, it was incredible. The sheer size of these tires compared to others was noticeable. The bike rode fine but the additional rotating mass was too much for my riding. I could see having a set to ride on fresh powder but the times that would happen would be few and far between. I am no Lance Armstrong and would definitely have to build up to that much rotating girth.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

^ Are those white ones PSC Compound 2XLs? What´s the weight of them?


----------



## skywalkertrancex (Apr 9, 2012)

The 2XL's do not fit on the back of my 2015 907 (aluminum 197mm thru axle) It does fit their standard aluminum fork with plenty of room.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Whoa, what Carver frame fits the 2xxl's? What rims and what gearing? Thanks.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

I'm not sure of the frame but know Forrest was looking into making a frame around those tires a year ago when the prototypes were displayed on here. It's setup 1x11 and rides very well, with plenty of room in the back. I'll drop by and ask since I have to go by there tonight.
















Yes, they are the PSC tires. Oddly enough, they have no stud pockets like the folding 2XL's, probably due to the compound composition. I don't know the weights but can ask.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Dilligaff said:


> Yes, they are the PSC tires. Oddly enough, they have no stud pockets like the folding 2XL's, probably due to the compound composition. I don't know the weights but can ask.


The Bikeman pic shows the regular XL.
The prototype 5.6'' 2XL from March had stud pockets. I have one with the pockets and one proto that was studded at Vee. The knobs on the 2XL are too tall and skinny (the stud base was poking out through the side of several knobs) so I advised them to do the first generation 2XL without studs and rather add a model with the same size casing but wider knobs that would support studs better. Studs require a solid foundation so that they get a nice bite into the ice.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

The pic of the tires on the bike shows the 2XL tires, I'll have to see if they have any of the regulars upstairs when I stop by to look for the stud pockets but you're probably correct.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Yep, the PSC (Pure Silica Compound) white ones on the Carver Ti are 2XLs.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Once again you are correct, no stud pockets on the regular folding beads either. I find it interesting the XL's have the stud pockets though, on both the folding bead and the PSC's.









As to the weights, they said the PSC's were about 80g heavier than the folding bead.

And the bike is (I think, my memory isn't that great since I'm sick) the 'OverBeast'. There is plenty of room for even larger tires in there.









It does kinda stand out a little in the crowd.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Dilligaff said:


> Once again you are correct, no stud pockets on the regular folding beads either. I find it interesting the XL's have the stud pockets though, on both the folding bead and the PSC's.


Yep, I advised them to remove the studs/ stud pockets on the production 2XL as it would have required much bigger knobs, something that would have added significant weight on an already fairly heavy tire.

On the XL, that had lower and flatter knobs (much better suited for studs), my advise was to offer both a studded and studable version, which they did.

Great to see that he Carver can go even bigger than 5.2 (true casing width of the 2XL on a 100mm), as I and others are advising Vee to do a production version of the 5.6'' 2XL protos that I have. The more frames that can fit it, the more viable a ''3XL'' is.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

What is the overbeast? The ti obeast is 170mm rear which I highly doubt would fit a 2xl, and the carbobeast is 190mm.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

It's a bike built to accommodate the widest tires available. I know it uses the standard BB but I think it's a little wider. The 2XL's are mounted on standard Clownshoe rims. I don't know the specs but the guys at Bikeman.com do since they built it. I'm just a bike rat that stops by, buys a ton of stuff from them, and supplies them with beer and Christmas cookies from time to time. It's fun to stop by, they are anything but boring.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

So it's not in production yet; no Overbeast on Carver or Bikeman webiste?


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

No, it's not a production bike (yet?) but they would be happy to make you one if you wanted. Stuff like that is very specialized and they can customize it however you'd like. 

Since you're not that far away, it would be worth a drive up to test ride it, they have it sitting right out front for those interested. I'm sure they'd be happy to sell it to you as well since they can always make more.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

I think I'll wait till it comes out in carbon!


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

They can do that too.


----------



## blown240 (Nov 4, 2009)

Has anyone tried to fit the 5.05 in a Salsa Enabler fork? Preferably on a 100mm rim, but even a 50mm....


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Got a 5.6'' capable proto bike running now, so what better way to test it than in some soft and cold powder at high altitude.
Note: these are the 5.6'' 2XL proto monsters depicted early in this thread. Substantially bigger than the production versions. Hopefully Vee will make a 3XL based on that size since it truly is nuts. Completely rewrites the rules of powder riding.
Tire pressure here is 0.0psi, but due to the huge volume, once I get on the bike and load the tires, some pressure builds due to the smaller tire volume from being compressed. So much, in fact that I can't strike the rim when riding on firm, flat ground (ice). Later in the ride, I actually had a slight vacuum in the rear tire (when unloaded). At this pressure and with that footprint, it is no longer a bike, it turns into a frikkin unstoppable snowcat. Completely blows the mind and throws out every rule and limitation that I thought was there from years running ''skinnies'' (4.8s).






More vids from the testing session:


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

_*Are you freaking kidding me*_!!!


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

I hope we get more snow, because I am curious as to how this will do now that it's complete. Definitely not as fast I'll bet.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Dilligaff said:


> I hope we get more snow, because I am curious as to how this will do now that it's complete. Definitely not as fast I'll bet.
> 
> View attachment 1038798


I can sorta, kinda see how that would make sense in the NE.

Props to whomever dreamt it/paid for it/built it. That's an investment with a capital I.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

What is the rim/hub/wheel setup on that bike? Hard to tell from the picture.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> What is the rim/hub/wheel setup on that bike? Hard to tell from the picture.


I'd like to state up front that I have nothing to do with this other than them being my LBS.

The front is two carbon 90mm wheels laced together but the rear hub is a little different. The tires are 2XL silicas.

Quite ingenious really, using almost all off-the-shelf parts. I know some of the crew working on this is on the board and hopefully they will chime in if more detail is needed.


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Espen W said:


> Got a 5.6'' capable proto bike running now, so what better way to test it than in some soft and cold powder at high altitude.
> Note: these are the 5.6'' 2XL proto monsters depicted early in this thread. Substantially bigger than the production versions. Hopefully Vee will make a 3XL based on that size since it truly is nuts. Completely rewrites the rules of powder riding.
> Tire pressure here is 0.0psi, but due to the huge volume, once I get on the bike and load the tires, some pressure builds due to the smaller tire volume from being compressed. So much, in fact that I can't strike the rim when riding on firm, flat ground (ice). Later in the ride, I actually had a slight vacuum in the rear tire (when unloaded). At this pressure and with that footprint, it is no longer a bike, it turns into a frikkin unstoppable snowcat. Completely blows the mind and throws out every rule and limitation that I thought was there from years running ''skinnies'' (4.8s).
> 
> ...


It's hard for me to tell who is working harder, the guy on the bike or the walking guy.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

So, the big dually is a single speed ?


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

No, it's a Pinion Drive.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Never seen one of them . How do they work . What kind of gear ranges do they have ?


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

Hey espen, how much do you weigh?

I think that 5.5" or 6" tire is where I want to be to ride powder in my area. Hoping we are close to the same weight.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Lars_D said:


> It's hard for me to tell who is working harder, the guy on the bike or the walking guy.


Spoken from experience: About the same, but the rider is going 5-6x faster/farther for the same energy.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Espen W said:


> Got a 5.6'' capable proto bike running now, so what better way to test it than in some soft and cold powder at high altitude.
> Note: these are the 5.6'' 2XL proto monsters depicted early in this thread. Substantially bigger than the production versions. Hopefully Vee will make a 3XL based on that size since it truly is nuts. Completely rewrites the rules of powder riding.
> Tire pressure here is 0.0psi, but due to the huge volume, once I get on the bike and load the tires, some pressure builds due to the smaller tire volume from being compressed. So much, in fact that I can't strike the rim when riding on firm, flat ground (ice). Later in the ride, I actually had a slight vacuum in the rear tire (when unloaded). At this pressure and with that footprint, it is no longer a bike, it turns into a frikkin unstoppable snowcat. Completely blows the mind and throws out every rule and limitation that I thought was there from years running ''skinnies'' (4.8s).


That is a frickin' eye-opener!

-F


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

thanks for them videos. Please post info on the prototype bike running them original 2xl's/proto 3xl's


----------



## dirtdawg21892 (Jul 20, 2009)

Dilligaff said:


> No, it's a Pinion Drive.
> 
> View attachment 1038911


Sweet! Pinions are awesome. I want a gearbox fat bike pretty badly. 
I still cant see that bike riding well unless that chainstay gets significantly shorter. It could be camera angles or something, but it looks like a lot of your weight will be on the front wheel, which is terrible for snow riding. And the obvious geometry problem where it would ride like crap.
But i'm open minded. I love seeing innovation and would love to see this thing work.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

dirtdawg21892 said:


> I still cant see that bike riding well unless that chainstay gets significantly shorter. It could be camera angles or something, but it looks like a lot of your weight will be on the front wheel, which is terrible for snow riding. And the obvious geometry problem where it would ride like crap.


The bike will also be pulling a trailer, so that will add some weight to the rear end.

I agree, the bike will probably ride like crap anyway, but all it has to do is go in one direction for a few hundred miles and then turn around. It is purpose built and not a daily rider for recreation.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

ascarlarkinyar said:


> Hey espen, how much do you weigh?
> 
> I think that 5.5" or 6" tire is where I want to be to ride powder in my area. Hoping we are close to the same weight.


I weigh 145lbs.
The bike is currently 22.9lbs, but a lighter frame is in the works.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bighit said:


> thanks for them videos. Please post info on the prototype bike running them original 2xl's/proto 3xl's


Bike is actually pretty straightforward. Approx 22.9lbs as it sits now, with a fairly heavy (1840g) alloy frame. 197mm spacing and 120mm PF30 shell, and chainstay and seatstay clearance for 5.6'' wide tires.

A new one with higher grade tubing and some tweaks is in the works and will shed some weight.
The 5.6'' tires weigh 1680 and 1700g respectively, with the studded one being the lighter, so if I were to rip out the studs, it would likely be close to the 1500g range.
100mm carbon rims with ultralight steel spokes and American Classic hubs (150/197).
Carbon fork, Race Face NEXT SL crankset with some tweaks. 
XX1 RD and XO1 cassette and twister. Rest is ultralight stuff like a 95g Trigon saddle, 141g Woodman post, 95g C4 stem, etc.


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

Dilligaff said:


> I hope we get more snow, because I am curious as to how this will do now that it's complete. Definitely not as fast I'll bet.
> 
> View attachment 1038798


It looks like a big dummy but without any racks.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Dilligaff said:


> *It is purpose built* and not a daily rider for recreation.


What's the purpose?


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Looks to me like it would be a lot of fun to ride. Shouldn't have to worry too much about falling over at low speed. Kinda like a trike . I'm surprised it doesn't have a built on rear rack. Like a Da Phat. 
I was on the Pinion site and it looks like the lowest gear in the Pinion tranny is comparable to a 22 tooth front&36 tooth rear. May not be really fast, but it would beat walking and gain speed on the downhills.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

mikesee said:


> What's the purpose?


Ride to the south pole i think.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

solarplex said:


> Ride to the south pole i think.


Yes.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

2XL (protos) and skis in the powder:


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I put one on my Moonlander today, and I'm lovin' it!


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

Espen W said:


> 2XL (protos) and skis in the powder:


I get that both you and the bike are light (145 and 22.8 I think you mentioned earlier)... but this is still AMAZING!!!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

LCW said:


> I get that both you and the bike are light (145 and 22.8 I think you mentioned earlier)... but this is still AMAZING!!!


Thank you, Sir!
It is just en entirely new level. 
Here is a new one vs. regular snowshoes, (ie. the ones that you strap on your feet):






I still think the videos on the previous page best illustrate the capabilities of the tires, though, as the brave fellow w/o skis or snowshoes sinking in to his knees and sometimes to his thigs best shows how deep the snow is at this location.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

I'd need some XXXXXXXXL tires to do the same thing. No offense Espen, but I've shat heavier turds than you. 

Very impressive though, your videos show something I never thought possible and would not have believed had I not seen them. 

Keep up the great work and pushing those boundaries.


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

I wonder about comparative energy expenditure of such riding and walking on sufficiently wide skis 
Pretty sure skis are 3x easier, not to mention you can actually stop and rest without having to find a tree to lean on first


----------



## Polk (Jan 19, 2004)

There have been a few people asking if these tires will fit in a Trek Farley, and I have been wondering that myself since I bought a Farley 7 recently. Unfortunately nobody around me has these tires to try and I am not ready to buy new tires yet, but I have been doing some estimating if anyone cares. So put your thinking caps on and see if you can follow along.

The stock Barbegazi tires on the stock 80mm rims measured 110mm at the casing when new at 8psi. I did not measure the tread, but it is a little wider and I don't feel like going out to the garage right now.

I have seen two different people measure the 2XLs at 133mm (casing), on either 100mm or 103mm rims. One also measured the tread at 130mm. One of these people also measured a 2XL on an 80mm rim at 123mm (casing) and 127mm at the tread.

Most 4.8" tires seem to be measuring right about 30.0" tall. I did not measure the Barbegazis. The 2XLs seem to be about 31.5", which is about 38mm taller. Let's say that they will require an additional 20mm of height clearance in the frame/fork.

So what does all that mean? It seems to me that the 2XL is about 13mm wider than the Barbegazi, if mounted on 80mm rims. The 2XLs will need about 7mm more tire clearance in the sides. I could fit a 1/2" drill bit (12.7mm) between the tires and frame/fork with room to spare. The tightest spot was at the seat stays, with perhaps 2mm of extra room around the drill bit. So at the tightest spot there is ~15mm of clearance with the Barbegzai.

I also took some rough measurements of the frame and fork. The width of the fork is about 145mm. There is about 50mm of height clearance above the Barbegazi. So no problems there.

The chain stays measured about 140mm, with about 40mm of headroom. This is with the dropouts slid all the way back. The seat stays are more than 135mm and less than 140mm. I didn't take the wheel out, so I was measuring around the tire. It also has about 40mm of clearance above the tire.

Based on these measurements it seems like the 2XLs would also fit in the frame on 80mm rims, based on both my drill bit gauging and based on measurements. They would probably not touch if mounted on 100mm rims but would be too close to actually ride.

Maybe I will take some pictures and add them later, but for now you will have to just close your eyes and dream!


----------



## glockrocket17 (Aug 26, 2015)

Polk said:


> There have been a few people asking if these tires will fit in a Trek Farley, and I have been wondering that myself since I bought a Farley 7 recently. Unfortunately nobody around me has these tires to try and I am not ready to buy new tires yet, but I have been doing some estimating if anyone cares. So put your thinking caps on and see if you can follow along.
> 
> The stock Barbegazi tires on the stock 80mm rims measured 110mm at the casing when new at 8psi. I did not measure the tread, but it is a little wider and I don't feel like going out to the garage right now.
> 
> ...


Not that this is hard evidence but when I picked up my farley 7 last week I talked to the dealer and they seemed pretty sure it would fit. Unfortunately they didn't have a set to try though.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

The purpose is to make us ask? Carry on!


----------



## BikesOnSnow (Jan 23, 2004)

Got one on the back of my 18" Blackborow. Fits nicely if you pull the drops back 1/8". Running it with a tube on a Turnagain 100 at 2 psi. Significantly more float and traction than any other tire! Riding through 6" of sugary/crusty snow in the woods with no trouble at all.


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

Dammit you guys are making me want to sell my fatboy and buy a blackborow. 

But maybe I should stick with Bud and Lou for now and wait for a bike that fits the 3XL


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

kaleidopete said:


> I put one on my Moonlander today, and I'm lovin' it!


What's clearance like?
Hard to tell from the angle.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

matto6 said:


> Dammit you guys are making me want to sell my fatboy and buy a blackborow.
> 
> But maybe I should stick with Bud and Lou for now and wait for a bike that fits the 3XL


That's what I'm doing. Waiting for the 4XL or 29er 5" fat bike....dream big (I mean fat) or go home (walking in the deep snow)


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Zowie said:


> What's clearance like?
> Hard to tell from the angle.


Clearance is fine height wise, tight width wise. 
No rub at 12 psi, slight rub on sides at 20 psi.


----------



## skywalkertrancex (Apr 9, 2012)

Put a 2XL up front of my 907 and a 1XL at the rear to replace Bud and Lou. Great so far


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

kaleidopete said:


> I put one on my Moonlander today, and I'm lovin' it!


How the heck are you not rubbing??? I tried mine and it was way too tight if not buzzing. I know I'm a bit big at 240lbs and that may be why, but can you post your clearance.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

bighit said:


> How the heck are you not rubbing??? I tried mine and it was way too tight if not buzzing. I know I'm a bit big at 240lbs and that may be why, but can you post your clearance.


I agree...I don't exactly call that "fitting".


----------



## alias (May 9, 2005)

kaleidopete said:


> Clearance is fine height wise, tight width wise.
> No rub at 12 psi, slight rub on sides at 20 psi.


Why on earth do you run this tire at 20 (or even 12) psi??


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

alias said:


> Why on earth do you run this tire at 20 (or even 12) psi??


Indeed.

Someone needs to brush up on their pressure protocol.

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/lower-your-air-pressure-999102.html


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

alias said:


> Why on earth do you run this tire at 20 (or even 12) psi??


They do it because the side of the tire says 30psi max.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

skywalkertrancex said:


> Put a 2XL up front of my 907 and a 1XL at the rear to replace Bud and Lou. Great so far
> View attachment 1040031


 That is a real sharp looking bike you have there ! Really nice !


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

alias said:


> Why on earth do you run this tire at 20 (or even 12) psi??


for many conditions, 12 psi is certainly valid, but there's no reason to never run 20. 10-12 is my go-to pressure for just about every condition but snow, where I'll run anywhere from 4-6 psi. Occasionally, I'll run lower on the rear for really rough terrain, but the notion that you should run low pressures all of the time is ludicrous.


----------



## alias (May 9, 2005)

Gigantic said:


> for many conditions, 12 psi is certainly valid, but there's no reason to never run 20. 10-12 is my go-to pressure for just about every condition but snow, where I'll run anywhere from 4-6 psi. Occasionally, I'll run lower on the rear for really rough terrain, but the notion that you should run low pressures all of the time is ludicrous.


I sometimes wonder why some people even run fat tires. If its not for the float, shock absorbtion and traction offered by low pressure, whats the benefit?

Not trying to be confrontational, but really, why??


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

alias said:


> I sometimes wonder why some people even run fat tires. If its not for the float, shock absorbtion and traction offered by low pressure, whats the benefit?
> 
> Not trying to be confrontational, but really, why??


Wild guess:
He might not like destroying expensive rims repeatedly via rock strikes?

I run 10-12 in the summer... and I still manage to ding up rims.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Gigantic said:


> the notion that you should run low pressures all of the time is ludicrous.


So 12 is your "high" then.

Mine would be like, 8.

If memory serves, you're a bigger fella than me, so weight certainly comes into it too.

If I ran 12, I'd be hitting the moon on bumps.....

20 is insane, but at 12, you're still wayyyyy lower than 20 (which is still low by skinny standards), so I'd say you're still running low pressures all the time.....


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

I heard Mendon runs his at 65psi!!!


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Dude.

I ain't no roadie, aight?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

alias said:


> I sometimes wonder why some people even run fat tires. If its not for the float, shock absorbtion and traction offered by low pressure, whats the benefit?
> 
> Not trying to be confrontational, but really, why??





Zowie said:


> Wild guess:
> He might not like destroying expensive rims repeatedly via rock strikes?
> 
> I run 10-12 in the summer... and I still manage to ding up rims.


Boom.



MendonCycleSmith said:


> So 12 is your "high" then.
> 
> Mine would be like, 8.
> 
> ...


I'm 6'8" tall and weigh a bit over 260#s, I tend to destroy bikes. I may be an atypical user, but my fat bike is first and foremost, a mountain bike. I ride it all year round. I race it, mostly because it's what I have, mostly in the summer, because fat bikes are just now catching on in the SEPA/Philly area and as of yet, there are no winter race series. Most of my riding buddies are smaller and lighter than me, ranging in experience from fast cat 2 to current and former cat1 & nationally and internationally ranked pros. Their casual, "social rides" are often at a cat 2 podium pace and to keep up, or at the very least, not get dropped, I'll run slightly higher pressures to reduce my rolling resistance and I prefer 4" tires.

Until recently, there was just one other fat bike rider in our group of about 25-30 riders, and he runs about 10 psi in the summer, for the same reasons as me. Granted, I realize that I'm handicapping myself considerably, but fat is what I have and fat is what I like- I like the traction that the bigger tires offer, I appreciate the added protection that the tires offer and I like the flexibility that the platform delivers. I can clean things on my fat bike that many of my friends cannot, particularly technical climbs. Occasionally, I'll drop the pressure on the rear, like i did when I hit the lift runs at Wyndham, when I rode there during the MTB World Cup or on trails that are a bit rough, but usually 10-12psi is my go-to. even with higher pressures, I'm still not immune from strikes.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Dude.
> 
> I ain't no roadie, aight?


I just couldn't pass the opportunity for a clean shot across your bow! 
All in good fun..Rep thingy is no fun! Gotta spread some before I can hit with a green Chiclet. :/

And for those that just can't do it...
20 psi in a 4.something??? Why not fill it with concrete...


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

The fat tires have more floatation than skinny tires. Regardless of the tire pressure . . But I know what you mean.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

I run 20+ psi when I'm doing road rides with the fatty. The looks from roadies when I pass them is priceless.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

I run 20 on the road . at 260 lbs I still get shock absorbsion. . I had around 8 psi in my Nate's this fall and hit on the rim a few times on 4" minus river rock on the TAPS road. Getting a flat is like the worst day ever !! Wrecking a rim out in the middle of nowhere . Not an option. I can see lighter weight guys not wanting hard tires . Mine absorb shock at 20 psi . Not nearly as much as at 8 or 10 . The other big thing I have found comparing 4"+ tires to 2" tires on bare ground or loose ground. There is no comparison ! I can't afford to get hurt wrecking a bike . The fat tires just keep the rolling side down , and me on top. I wouldn't be riding a bike if it was just a mountain bike, yuk !


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Someone needs to brush up on their pressure protocol.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/lower-your-air-pressure-999102.html


Ha Ha...I don't run it at that pressure, that's when I first mount it so as to seat the bead of the tire. Just for fun I installed it on the bike at 20 psi just to see how it fit. It JUST rubbed a little on one side, then when I lowered the pressure to 12 psi there was no rub. To ride it I went down to 6.5 psi for my first ride on hardpack dirt just to see how it handles. I'm leaving it at 6.5 for now because I like it. I'll go lower when I snow ride.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

4 PSI front, 6 PSI rear in my 2XLs. Like them a lot.


----------



## Nefariousd (May 1, 2015)

bdundee said:


> I'm passing on this one and waiting for the 5.057 version.


Exactly


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

bdundee said:


> I'm passing on this one and waiting for the 5.057 version.




Espen W's running the 5.625...


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> Espen W's running the 5.625...


Can't be, they use the metric system. And what is the width with the current conversion rate?


----------



## skywalkertrancex (Apr 9, 2012)

6 psi for 2XL up front, 9 psi 1XL rear. I weigh 185 lbs


----------



## skywalkertrancex (Apr 9, 2012)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> That is a real sharp looking bike you have there ! Really nice !


thanks dude


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

bighit said:


> How the heck are you not rubbing??? I tried mine and it was way too tight if not buzzing. I know I'm a bit big at 240lbs and that may be why, but can you post your clearance.


I wonder if you could have nibbled in the insides of the fork where the tread touches?


----------



## Sven7 (Dec 16, 2014)

alias said:


> I sometimes wonder why some people even run fat tires. If its not for the float, shock absorbtion and traction offered by low pressure, whats the benefit?
> 
> Not trying to be confrontational, but really, why??


It sucks to use up all your energy on the way to the forest. I commute at medium pressure and drop it from there for difficul- ahem, FUN- stuff. But when I'm going longer distances it helps to bump it up a few PSI.

Even pumped up, they've got a better ride than a ten speed.


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

It seems there's no hope this will fit on the back of a Fatboy, given that I just measured the stays and they have only a hair over 5" clearance.

It should fit on the front rigid fork though. How much value is there in having a 2XL front / Lou rear for fresh snow? The rear caries most of the weight so would this really offer me much advantage over my current bud?


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I think it would be better, the 2XL blazes the way and the Lou then grabs and pushes. Just my opinion. This is what my setup is.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Sven7 said:


> Even pumped up, they've got a better ride than a ten speed.


My fatty is a 1x10, so what of it???


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Wade , your maybe too much of a cyclist to relate to the 10 speed. 
Yay know, before mountain bikes were invented :=) . 
As in road bike , drop bars etc.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Wade , your maybe too much of a cyclist to relate to the 10 speed.
> Yay know, before mountain bikes were invented :=) .
> As in road bike , drop bars etc.


Lol!! I had to run with it... 1xsomething is quite common these days. 
Another misnomer, "front fork". My bikes have no provision for a rear fork. But think how maneuverable it would be, hmmm!


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

matto6 said:


> It seems there's no hope this will fit on the back of a Fatboy, given that I just measured the stays and they have only a hair over 5" clearance.
> 
> It should fit on the front rigid fork though. How much value is there in having a 2XL front / Lou rear for fresh snow? The rear caries most of the weight so would this really offer me much advantage over my current bud?


Well this sort of throws some cold water on this tire as a front:

" Nothing I've ridden as a front tire works as well as the*Surly Bud*which is still the gold standard for fat bike front tires. On my*Phat Phuk*build I went swapped the front Snowshoe 2XL out with the Surly Bud on a 100mm rim which in my opinion works much better for a powder bike."

http://electric-fatbike.com/2015/11/14/vee-rubber-snow-shoe-2xl-fatter-than-your-mom-ouch/


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

kgjz67 said:


> View attachment 1021495
> 
> 
> Hooray! I have a Snowshoe 2XL (26 x 5.05) mounted on the front of my Mongoose Vinson without any special modifications. The rear tire is a Snowshoe XL 2(6 x 4.08). Unfortunately, the 2XL does not fit the rear tire. Additionally, it will not fit the front or back of my 18" Fatty Wompus.


Phew, mine is arriving mid day and I was sweating the fit!


----------



## Sven7 (Dec 16, 2014)

BansheeRune said:


> Lol!! I had to run with it... 1xsomething is quite common these days.
> Another misnomer, "front fork". My bikes have no provision for a rear fork. But think how maneuverable it would be, hmmm!


Well, my "ten speed" is currently a single speed, but if I said that you wouldn't know what I was talking about. Out of six bikes I only have one derailleur... 

I love when people talk about the "front forks" on their bike. As if there are two of them. When you're eating dinner, do you pick up forks, or do you pick up one fork with multiple tines?


----------



## empire_builder (Apr 10, 2008)

Sweet! This eliminates the need for a chainstay break when running belt-drive!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Sven7 said:


> Well, my "ten speed" is currently a single speed, but if I said that you wouldn't know what I was talking about. Out of six bikes I only have one derailleur...
> 
> I love when people talk about the "front forks" on their bike. As if there are two of them. When you're eating dinner, do you pick up forks, or do you pick up one fork with multiple tines?


Akin to "Hot water heater". If the water is already hot, what the hell do I need a heater for?



empire_builder said:


> Sweet! This eliminates the need for a chainstay break when running belt-drive!


It introduces gears and shafts as well as steering linkage to the equation tho'...:eekster:


----------



## empire_builder (Apr 10, 2008)

> It introduces gears and shafts as well as steering linkage to the equation tho'...:eekster:


I was referring to the elevated chainstay design (kind of an old post that I just now saw).


----------



## empire_builder (Apr 10, 2008)

bighit said:


> i wouldn't run out and grab one for the rear just yet. i think a standard qr may not have the clamping force to secure the rear axle. with the Lou i ran the tire all the way up front and now its 3/4 the way back. A bolt on hub would be the best setup.
> 
> View attachment 1010639
> View attachment 1010640


Not to mention it looks like you might want to make your chain a bit longer.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Damn, we coulda been going 2wd...


----------



## ten80 (Aug 16, 2014)

skywalkertrancex said:


> Put a 2XL up front of my 907 and a 1XL at the rear to replace Bud and Lou. Great so far


I take it from your post that the 2XL won't fit on the rear of your 907, right?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Sven7 said:


> Well, my "ten speed" is currently a single speed, but if I said that you wouldn't know what I was talking about. Out of six bikes I only have one derailleur...
> 
> I love when people talk about the "front forks" on their bike. As if there are two of them. When you're eating dinner, do you pick up forks, or do you pick up one fork with multiple tines?


Mhmm...

one of my ss bikes, note the freewheel lives in front to prevent explosion and worse. The collective is extensive.


----------



## Sven7 (Dec 16, 2014)

BansheeRune said:


> Akin to "Hot water heater". If the water is already hot, what the hell do I need a heater for?


Well to know that you'd need to access the VIN number from the ATM machine.



BansheeRune said:


> Mhmm...
> 
> one of my ss bikes, note the freewheel lives in front to prevent explosion and worse. The collective is extensive.


Forgive me- I'm having Front Freewheel/Positron flashbacks.

All my SS speed bikes are of the electro-forged persuasion... 451, 571 and 630mm BSD diameters. Funny how Schwinn's "lightweights" were always really heavy- maybe that's just the "forks" at work. 

Boy, I'm super off topic


----------



## empire_builder (Apr 10, 2008)

Dilligaff said:


> I hope we get more snow, because I am curious as to how this will do now that it's complete. Definitely not as fast I'll bet.
> 
> View attachment 1038798


How the heck are you supposed to turn that thing? The only wheels on an 18-wheeler that aren't duallies are the ones that steer, and I'm pretty sure there's a reason for that.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Sven7 said:


> Well, my "ten speed" is currently a single speed, but if I said that you wouldn't know what I was talking about. Out of six bikes I only have one derailleur...
> 
> I love when people talk about the "front forks" on their bike. As if there are two of them. When you're eating dinner, do you pick up forks, or do you pick up one fork with multiple tines?


End of dry humor...



empire_builder said:


> Sweet! This eliminates the need for a chainstay break when running belt-drive!





Sven7 said:


> Well to know that you'd need to access the VIN number from the ATM machine.
> 
> Forgive me- I'm having Front Freewheel/Positron flashbacks.
> 
> ...


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

I've got to take the wheel back off the bike, when I exceed the 2XL's maximum pressure by 5 psi it hits the fork crown! I wonder if 30 psi will get that stubborn bead seated? I'll leave a trail of bubbles with the amount of dish soap on the bead! WTF? I can deal with the noise, but it will saw it's way through the fork!


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

Ok, I've slathered them with soap, brought the pressure up and down many times, manipulated the bead as much as I can without jumping on the wheel... I've gotten it up to 30 psi... F#ck it, I have disc brakes, I think I'm going to straighten the damn tire with a spoke wrench!


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

I can't believe I just did that. Well, it's F'n straight now.


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

KB1JKI said:


> I've got to take the wheel back off the bike, when I exceed the 2XL's maximum pressure by 5 psi it hits the fork crown! I wonder if 30 psi will get that stubborn bead seated? I'll leave a trail of bubbles with the amount of dish soap on the bead! WTF? I can deal with the noise, but it will saw it's way through the fork!


Seat the beads with the wheel off the bike at high pressure. Lower the pressure to normal and reinstall the wheel on the bike.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

KB1JKI said:


> Ok, I've slathered them with soap, brought the pressure up and down many times, manipulated the bead as much as I can without jumping on the wheel... I've gotten it up to 30 psi... F#ck it, I have disc brakes, I think I'm going to straighten the damn tire with a spoke wrench!


Bounce the wheel on the ground.


----------



## skywalkertrancex (Apr 9, 2012)

ten80 said:


> I take it from your post that the 2XL won't fit on the rear of your 907, right?


that is correct, I originally bought it for the back to replace a Lou (blew a hole in it) The 2XL fit no problem width wise on the back, it was the height. Needed a half cm. Maybe with sliding drop outs it could fit? I have thru axle though


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Very interesting forum, thanks to everyone who has taken the time. I already have a 2015 khs 1000 that wont fit 2xls. Im ready to buy another bike that could run front n rear 2xls, but seems theres limited options. Ive read that Quiring Triple B and Reeb Donkadonk are built to handle these tires, and Salsa blackborow can with a tight fit. And maybe a few others but the fit is so tight that any wobble, mud or snow means frame/chain contact. Just wondering if anyones heard of more production frame options?


----------



## cmanios (Jan 20, 2015)

Looks like the latest RSD Mayor can accept the 2XL's on 80mm rims front and back


__
http://instagr.am/p/_LOP06IqKW/


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

They fit on an Ice Cream Truck also . And apparently the 2016 KHS 1000 and 3000 . 
As everyone seems to want as short a chain stay as possible, the height seems to be the critical factor in the rear. I'm hoping Design Logic will make a cargo bike for me with plenty of room to fit the 5.6" original 2XL Snowshoe. 

As to getting the tire to bead up straight , I let most of the air out then with the heels of my hands on the knobs , I use my fingers and push in and pull up in the places where the need is too far down in the rim. I don't know if that's the correct way to do it. But it works.
Then I add a little air and bounce it on the floor several times and check it. If it looks good I air it up and mount it on the bike. If not I drop the air pressure and push pull again until it looks good. 
If anyone has a better technique I'm all ears !!


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Fork clearance on my Moonlander is 1/2 inch on top and 1/8 inch on side knobs



Compared to my Bud on my other bike.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Wow,, that's cool !!!


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

That

Is

F'in

*HUGE>....*


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

Reviving the relevance of raised chainstays! Meriwether Cycles | MC?s elevated chainstay 2XL fatbike


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

bme107 said:


> Seat the beads with the wheel off the bike at high pressure. Lower the pressure to normal and reinstall the wheel on the bike.


30 psi? 50 psi? the max is 20 and 30 isn't doing it! as far as bouncing it... I've thrown it!


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

KB1JKI said:


> Reviving the relevance of raised chainstays! Meriwether Cycles | MC?s elevated chainstay 2XL fatbike


 I wonder what the cassette gear range is. Thanks for posting this . I read thru.it and REALLY like the concept of building a bike to run in the lowest gears instead of the highest. It will be great to see the future write up on this bikes adventures.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> I wonder what the cassette gear range is. Thanks for posting this . I read thru.it and REALLY like the concept of building a bike to run in the lowest gears instead of the highest. It will be great to see the future write up on this bikes adventures.


Then go here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/brrrrly-995339.html


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

KB1JKI said:


> 30 psi? 50 psi? the max is 20 and 30 isn't doing it! as far as bouncing it... I've thrown it!


More soapy water, windex, Uncle dick's bead slip? I've never had to go more than 10 over, momentarily, to get it popped in place. Did you pre-stretch the tire with a tube in it for a few days, maybe at 15-20psi?


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

Maybe this is a question for the end of the season, but how are the sidewalls holding up? Cracking? Threads showing? The few riding these are getting massive sidewall wrinkle.


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

bme107 said:


> More soapy water, windex, Uncle dick's bead slip? I've never had to go more than 10 over, momentarily, to get it popped in place. Did you pre-stretch the tire with a tube in it for a few days, maybe at 15-20psi?


I will have another crack at it, thank you for the new suggestions! Gonna ride it for 4-6 hours tomorrow over the rocks to see if that does it first! Thank you for the ideas!


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Thanks cmanios looks good.


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Thanks cold trigger finger, the more options the better. I actually measured a 2016 khs 1000 today and the 2xl will fit nicely up front but its a no go in the back. Not sure the 3000, none available, and hard to tell from their website. Even so im all for even fatter tires, a 5.6" tire and some frames that can handle them. Nice pics kaleidopete pretty tight fit in your fork. I run a lou up front and wow what a volume difference compared to 2xl from your pic.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

The guy at the lbs where I got my XL Snowshoes said he mounted a set of 2xl on a 2015 KHS 3000. Said they were snug , but the worked. I wonder when Nokian is going to venture into fat tires,? It would be awesome if they would also come out with a 5.6" or larger. And some 4-4.8 s


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

bme107 said:


> Maybe this is a question for the end of the season, but how are the sidewalls holding up? Cracking? Threads showing? The few riding these are getting massive sidewall wrinkle.


While I don't have the 5.05's yet, if the tires are not neglected and well cared for the sidewalls should hold up fine. I have Bud/Lou in like new shape and halfway through the second season of snow riding at 2-5 psi depending on conditions. My fatty is a daily driver. I don't run em as flat as Mikesee and Espen have been doing with those 5.6'ers, but they wrinkle all winter long.


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

From the Onyx facebook page. 197 top, 217 bottom








I'm assuming one of you guys ordered this. I demand to see pics. Also, how do you get skewers for this?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Volsung said:


> From the Onyx facebook page. 197 top, 217 bottom
> View attachment 1041428
> 
> 
> I'm assuming one of you guys ordered this. I demand to see pics. Also, how do you get skewers for this?


The 217 is mine. Not going to be silver when 'done'.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Is this a custom or is 217 going to be a 'thing' ( I'm not using the standar* word... ;-)~ )


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

dRjOn said:


> Is this a custom or is 217 going to be a 'thing' ( I'm not using the standar* word... ;-)~ )


Whit @ Meriwether is getting orders for 2XL capable bikes. He can fit the tires using a 197 rear end, but the chainstays end up long (for snow), the chainline is less optimal than it could be, and they won't be able to fit the 3XL tires that we assume (fingers crossed) are coming.

Thus, he's filling these orders by building around a 217mm O.L.D. And I'm lacing the wheels for them with 217mm hubs.

No doubt Specialized will eventually decide that 216+ is actually '1% lighter and 99% as stiff', and then Giant will tell us that 'Boosh 218' is more betterer somehow, while Trek sticks with 197 but goes to 27.5 x 5" (<- which I'm truly excited about).

For now, and for the foreseeable future, 217 is our answer.


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

KB1JKI said:


> Reviving the relevance of raised chainstays! Meriwether Cycles | MC?s elevated chainstay 2XL fatbike


Looks awesome - but not too good for people wanting to run a frame bag.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

LCW said:


> Looks awesome - but not too good for people wanting to run a frame bag.


Que?


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Are you getting any noticeable flex of the bottom bracket shell?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Lars_D said:


> Are you getting any noticeable flex of the bottom bracket shell?


Nope. Haven't once thought about (or noticed) it when riding, including today's ride on hardpacked snow, where most of the climbing was done out of the saddle.


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

LCW said:


> Looks awesome - but not too good for people wanting to run a frame bag.


Not too shabby...


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

I stand corrected!


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

I want it.


----------



## pro_ohp (Feb 7, 2013)

anyone tried it on 9:zero:7 190mm frame? On 65mm or 80mm rim and lauf fork?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

pro_ohp said:


> anyone tried it on 9:zero:7 190mm frame? On 65mm or 80mm rim and lauf fork?


It will fit the Lauf on an 80mm rim, no problem.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

pro_ohp said:


> anyone tried it on 9:zero:7 190mm frame? On 65mm or 80mm rim and lauf fork?


9Zero7 says it's a no go.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Super cool bike Mike ! When your riding snow, what gears do you normally run in ?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

pro_ohp said:


> anyone tried it on 9:zero:7 190mm frame? On 65mm or 80mm rim and lauf fork?


The most hideous fork ever made. Thinking I'll wait for a bona fide squish fork to hit the market.

Perhaps a Lauf will be a good fit on a SoftRide...


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> The most hideous fork ever made. Thinking I'll wait for a bona fide squish fork to hit the market.


Then don't buy one, eh?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Not even an option, real fork will, however.


----------



## skywalkertrancex (Apr 9, 2012)

pro_ohp said:


> anyone tried it on 9:zero:7 190mm frame? On 65mm or 80mm rim and lauf fork?


I have clownshoes on a 190mm 907 Wouldnt fit on the back. Lots of room on the front


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> The guy at the lbs where I got my XL Snowshoes said he mounted a set of 2xl on a 2015 KHS 3000. Said they were snug , but the worked. I wonder when Nokian is going to venture into fat tires,? It would be awesome if they would also come out with a 5.6" or larger. And some 4-4.8 s


Thanks amigo hope so, just im trying to get frame options for a set of 2xls. Snug fit wont work riding in mud as you get that grinding effect on your frame from glopped on tire mud. So far i've only found Quiring Triple b and Reeb Donkadonk frames with decent clearance. Good looking frames/bikes but pricey, hope a big name company will step up soon. So us masses can enjoy 5.05" and 5.6" riding☺.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Super cool bike Mike ! When your riding snow, what gears do you normally run in ?


26t up front, and I have a 10-44 spread out back. I'd say I'm in the 44, 42, or 36t cogs 95% of the time spent out riding.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Mikesee, I'd love to ride that elevated cs bike! It just looks bytchen! How ya liking it so far?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Did approx 10 hours on the 2XLs over the weekend.
Ultra fluffy conditions (very unusual over here).
Pretty much like good ol' Utah powder conditions these days:





Trail grooming with 5.6'':


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Good stuff Espen! Glad you're out powder hounding!


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

Thx espen, you my new hero


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Thanks for the videos Espen, keeps us salivating dont you know☺. Im from Grand Junction Colorado so i know what you mean about fluffy snow.


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

Please film yourself breaking trail uphill (or trying to), Espen


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bruto said:


> Please film yourself breaking trail uphill (or trying to), Espen


Incline in this one. Steeper than it looks.
Will see if I can find another one as well:


----------



## pro_ohp (Feb 7, 2013)

26x5.05 XXL on marge lite?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

KB1JKI said:


> I will have another crack at it, thank you for the new suggestions! Gonna ride it for 4-6 hours tomorrow over the rocks to see if that does it first! Thank you for the ideas!


In addition to a soapy sponge on the bead, take the core out of the valve and use an air compressor? Maybe you are already doing this?


----------



## Johanneson (May 24, 2012)

pro_ohp said:


> 26x5.05 XXL on marge lite?


Works great. Nextie 65mm, run them flat-toobless no fiddle effing required.


----------



## KB1JKI (May 1, 2015)

leeboh said:


> In addition to a soapy sponge on the bead, take the core out of the valve and use an air compressor? Maybe you are already doing this?


That's a quick and simple solution. Funny, tubeless and car tires are seated that way! That's a great idea! a couple weeks of trail riding hasn't sorted it still, so I will try this now! Of course, should I bring my air tank to 40 psi, or does the tire have more air volume?


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

Espen W said:


> Incline in this one. Steeper than it looks.
> Will see if I can find another one as well:


you're right it doesn't look like a climb at all in the video 
showing some skill there starting the bike from standstill, by the way, even if the snow is only ankle deep


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

Looks like the 2XL might be as fast or faster then a pair of XC skis. Impressive!


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Nice new writeup on 2xls handling at fat-bike.com, i want some☺


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

Charliegreen said:


> Nice new writeup on 2xls handling at fat-bike.com, i want some☺


Not seeing it. Link?


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

I found this one:

https://fat-bike.com/2016/01/vee-tire-2xl-midterm-report/


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

What's the consensus on the silica compound? Yay or nay? For a snow-only bike. I finding very few opinions on it. 

I'm getting one of these for the front of my fatboy. The only question is silica or not. If silica isn't a clear winner I'll get black because.... it'll look better.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

My 2XL today in New Jersey, we finally got some snow. 9 inches so far.


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

alexkraemer said:


> I found this one:
> 
> https://fat-bike.com/2016/01/vee-tire-2xl-midterm-report/


Hi guys sorry about missing link, thanks alexkraemer. Same matto6 havent seen any writeups on the white silica tire. It being the more expensive and faster wearing i wasnt really considering it anyway. Even black 2xl writeups are few and far between.


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Nice snow pic pete, do you run a 2xl on the rear? Surly which model please?


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

The bike is a Moonlander and a 2XL won't fit on the rear, just the front. I put either a Bud or Lou or Dillinger 5 on the rear


----------



## Fuzzwardo (Oct 16, 2013)

I got to see a pair of tires in person yesterday, wow. I can't believe how massive they are. I heard that the tires don't run very true. Is this true?


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Ah ok thanks pete well nice pic anyway, what can you say about the 2xl?


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

Fuzzwardo said:


> I got to see a pair of tires in person yesterday, wow. I can't believe how massive they are. I heard that the tires don't run very true. Is this true?


Sadly yeah, ive noticed a few posts and videos alluding to that fact fuzzwardo. Vee has been out of stock lately of 2xls so maybe they are addressing that problem.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

ok im gonna try mine in front again. last time it was buzzing the fork.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I think it's the best tire I've ever run on my bike. It rolls over everything, just slowly, it's not a fast tire for sure, and noisy. But I'm a slow rider anyway, not out to win any races, I just like to plod along through the woods, so this is perfect for me.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

As we have seen, the 2XLs, particularly the 5.6'' protos have an insane amount of flotation when run at crazy low pressures, like 0.0psi.

However, sometimes you just hit that patch of bottomless powder.

Like the other day in the mountains:






Still from the above Endo:


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

Espen W said:


> As we have seen, the 2XLs, particularly the 5.6'' protos have an insane amount of flotation when run at crazy low pressures, like 0.0psi.
> 
> However, sometimes you just hit that patch of bottomless powder.
> 
> ...


Lol

I can do that just running into a snow drift and no downhill. But yes all your weight on one tire as opposed to distributed over two...

Maybe the 4XL snowshoe will be able to stop that.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

empire_builder said:


> How the heck are you supposed to turn that thing? The only wheels on an 18-wheeler that aren't duallies are the ones that steer, and I'm pretty sure there's a reason for that.


It looks like it's as easy to turn as it is to clean the chain


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen, I don't care what anyone says, you're alright, mate!!!


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

BansheeRune said:


> Espen, I don't care what anyone says, you're alright, mate!!!


On the pre view of the video on my computer it looks like his body floats much better than the XXL.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

I thought about goin there...


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

2xl moonlander update. I tried them again.
they totally fit the rear with room to spare. However when i applied torque they rubbed. Its the steel flexing. I imagine a rear bolt on hub with a lighter rider would be better. 

I tried one up front with the stock fork yesterday and it fit. Its still very close, but it works. I have two tires and the one i tried only had one knob that had a wobble and touched the fork leg. A little snip would cure that. The ICT fork i have has tons of room. It jacked up the front end, but that may or may not be a bad idea. 

My advise to moonlander owners is get one tire. Try it on the rear and see if you can make it rub. If it does then put it up front and see how that works. If all else fails go to the ICT fork for winter riding. hope that helps. 

btw i was down to 1-2 psi and it was crazy!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

How much you weigh, bighit?

How about clearance with the ole Bud/Lou Vs. the snowshoe?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

BansheeRune said:


> How much you weigh, bighit?
> 
> How about clearance with the ole Bud/Lou Vs. the snowshoe?


im 240lbs. i have some photos on pg 11-12.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

mikesee said:


> 26t up front, and I have a 10-44 spread out back. I'd say I'm in the 44, 42, or 36t cogs 95% of the time spent out riding.


 Ok, I don't feel as bad then . I thot I was way off the mark because the highest gear I could run being in 36 front was the 32 T rear. 
Since its not looking like I'll get to a bike shop anytime soon I'm going to put The Nate back.on the rear. I've got to study it yet. I won't have the float I don't with the XL Snowshoe , but I'll be able to.use my 22T front ring. . 
The bike looks weird with the XL in front and the Nate in the rear. But it works till I can go single in front. 
Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

So, has anyone that has the 2XL, 5.05" on an ICT or Da Phat had any troubles with the tire rubbing the frame or fork ?


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

kaleidopete said:


> I think it's the best tire I've ever run on my bike. It rolls over everything, just slowly, it's not a fast tire for sure, and noisy. But I'm a slow rider anyway, not out to win any races, I just like to plod along through the woods, so this is perfect for me.


Thats what i wanted to hear, thanks Pete. Because im same as you, out to enjoy stable, scenic rides on fat tires. When they are available again im going to get some. Would be nice if there was a 5"+ tire with less rolling resistence for summer riding.


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

bighit said:


> 2xl moonlander update. I tried them again.
> they totally fit the rear with room to spare. However when i applied torque they rubbed. Its the steel flexing. I imagine a rear bolt on hub with a lighter rider would be better.
> 
> I tried one up front with the stock fork yesterday and it fit. Its still very close, but it works. I have two tires and the one i tried only had one knob that had a wobble and touched the fork leg. A little snip would cure that. The ICT fork i have has tons of room. It jacked up the front end, but that may or may not be a bad idea.
> ...


Thanks Espen you gave us a good chuckle hehe...the preview frame looks like an old Far side cartoon☺. Good writeup Bighit yes that helps us out, your running 100mm rims? My tires dont rub, but I can get my brakes to rub slightly just from hard out of saddle riding too, and i have an aluminum frame.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

sryanak said:


> On the pre view of the video on my computer it looks like his body floats much better than the XXL.


Hmm...


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> So, has anyone that has the 2XL, 5.05" on an ICT or Da Phat had any troubles with the tire rubbing the frame or fork ?


I'll ask Lance (design logic's owner/designer) next time I see him about the tires on the da Phat platform. I down they're rubbing, as he's kinda specced the frames specifically for being as fat as possible.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I wouldn't exactly call this "floating" over the snow with my 2XL, but it did go like hell and rode me proud.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> So, has anyone that has the 2XL, 5.05" on an ICT or Da Phat had any troubles with the tire rubbing the frame or fork ?


The bikes I am building have ICT forks and Da Phat frames made in Dec. 2015 for these tires, but the frames are at the powder coater and the forks are awaiting shipment (and then on to the powder coater). Hopefully it has been established that the 2XL on a Clownshoe does not rub in an ICT fork.

The cargo frame was built around the 2XL on a 100mm Clownshoe, and the tire does _not_ rub. I have several pictures of my bare frames at Photos of the production of high power fat tire cargo e-bikes

















I will upload the unboxing video of the frames when the powder coater finally finishes.


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

kaleidopete said:


> I wouldn't exactly call this "floating" over the snow with my 2XL, but it did go like hell and rode me proud.


Nice pics, like the in the footprint pic. Yeah at least your going forward thats what matters.


----------



## Charliegreen (Jan 7, 2016)

vadimhellbike said:


> The bikes I am building have ICT forks and Da Phat frames made in Dec. 2015 for these tires, but the frames are at the powder coater and the forks are awaiting shipment (and then on to the powder coater). Hopefully it has been established that the 2XL on a Clownshoe does not rub in an ICT fork.
> 
> The cargo frame was built around the 2XL on a 100mm Clownshoe, and the tire does _not_ rub. I have several pictures of my bare frames at Photos of the production of high power fat tire cargo e-bikes
> 
> ...


Thanks for keeping us updated vadimhellbike, looking good☺.


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

kaleidopete said:


> I wouldn't exactly call this "floating" over the snow with my 2XL, but it did go like hell and rode me proud.


Is this freeze/thaw cycle, wet granular mash potato snow with a slight skim of crust on top? And did you bottom out on the ground or are there several inches of snow still under the tread?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

bme107 said:


> Is this freeze/thaw cycle, wet granular mash potato snow with a slight skim of crust on top? And did you bottom out on the ground or are there several inches of snow still under the tread?


Looks like mash potato snow, and maybe slightly too high pressure in the tires.. 

Imagine where ever the limit is where you can ride (terrain, snow, etc) on 4.8" tires and add 1/3 more to that limit. They are a head above everything if you like exploring.

Way much more rubber though, so a lot more to "carry" when you try to climb steep hills. They are 31.5" diameter so they are very different than regular 4.8" tires that lands around 30".


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

Charliegreen said:


> Thanks for keeping us updated vadimhellbike, looking good☺.


I can confirm that it does work with tons of room on the ICT fork.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

bme107 said:


> Is this freeze/thaw cycle, wet granular mash potato snow with a slight skim of crust on top? And did you bottom out on the ground or are there several inches of snow still under the tread?


There is only about 1/2 inch of snow under the tread. It has melted down from about 18 inches to about 9 or 10 inches. I'm running about 3psi


----------



## Chemandy70 (Nov 16, 2013)

For Sale: an unused, brand new snowshoe 2XL. $100

SOLD


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

Chemandy70 said:


> For Sale: an unused, brand new snowshoe 2XL. $100


PM'd.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Wow, that lasted 1whole hour. ! 

Thanks for the replies on the Da Phat frame and 2XL Snowshoe fit !


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Wow, that lasted 1whole hour. !
> 
> Thanks for the replies on the Da Phat frame and 2XL Snowshoe fit !


It took 5 months, but I finally got all the parts to assemble these two bikes. I will post pics in this thread in about 3 weeks.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Espen W said:


> As we have seen, the 2XLs, particularly the 5.6'' protos


Espen, what kind of Nakamura fatbike you have? Some custom made? 5.6" fits at rear too?


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Charliegreen said:


> Thanks for keeping us updated vadimhellbike, looking good☺.


Here is a 4130 chromoly steel Design Logic frame built for the 2XL:


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Läskimasa said:


> Espen, what kind of Nakamura fatbike you have? Some custom made? 5.6" fits at rear too?


According to Espens previous posts he runs a prototype alu frame that fitts 2xl with good margins and also manages to squeeze in the prototype 2xl (5.6" version) both front and back.

He's recently posted some powder demo videos and he's running them both in those vids as far as I know


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> So, has anyone that has the 2XL, 5.05" on an ICT or Da Phat had any troubles with the tire rubbing the frame or fork ?


Here's a setup with 2xl on surly ict: https://www.bcsport.no/go-fat (norwegian site)

According to the site they did the following mods (no frame rubbing):

"Replace dropout to sliding dropout from Surly, art.no FS2008 and put on medium cage rear derailleur. Because rear derailleur originally sitting on ICT is too short, and conflict so that there is no space. We also had to space out cassette with just over a millimeter. Then the space."


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Läskimasa said:


> Espen, what kind of Nakamura fatbike you have? Some custom made? 5.6" fits at rear too?


2017 aluminum prototype with 197mm spacing.
Yep, 5.6 front and rear.


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

Espen, 

I love the experimenting you do and that you share the videos here. And that you chat and answer people's questions. It's fat bike pron and it's a great contribution to the forum. 

That said, you're riding the 5.6 version, not what is actually available for sale. It's cool that you can do these things, but for now it's you and only you. Until they hit the market you're just teasing us!

I'm sure it's an attempt to gauge market interest... or seed future interest. But I'm going to stick with TEASING!

When do we get them?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

matto6 said:


> When do we get them?


Personally I doubt we'll ever see these in production. Bigger than 5 inch (2xl) will fit very few frames, if any.

Apparently 2xl measures 5.1-5.2" on 100mm rims (I'm currently running mine on 80mm so I haven't bothered measuring) and the 5.6 are probably truer to size so they are approx 0.4" bigger which will create issues on frames like blackborrow and ict.

Since there's already a small market for this size tires and rumor has it that 2xl barely got a second production, I do not see vee bothering with anything more than prototypes. (unless Espen and. Nakamura manages to really mass produce something cool)

That said, I'm in love with 2xl and I really hope we'll see more tires of this size


----------



## SADDLE TRAMP (Aug 26, 2010)

For those who have mounted them up; in single or both positions, what are your impressions in venues other than deep powder? If we want to see more of tires like this, the base appeal should be widened. Bogs, deep mud, ocean and river estuaries, etc?

How terrible are they on hard pack, loose gravel over a firm surface, exposed river beds, etc? 

Is the expenditure of energy such that it diminishes the fun factor too much?


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

SADDLE TRAMP said:


> How terrible are they on hard pack, loose gravel over a firm surface, exposed river beds, etc?
> 
> Is the expenditure of energy such that it diminishes the fun factor too much?


I can recommend these. ? I like them everywhere else but on asphalt. They'll take a little more energy, but it's worth it.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Läskimasa said:


> I can recommend these. ? I like them everywhere else but on asphalt. They'll take a little more energy, but it's worth it.


Jepp, if your frame can take these, go for it. Loads of fun, and you can go further exploring more new terrain than ever before on any other tire.

Yea, the thread pattern is not perfect, something similar to bud/lou could might be better, and they are heavy.

Yet I wouldn't run anything else in the winter. My go to tires for snow, no competition.


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

If like to see a comparison to dual fbr on 100mm rims. I suspect the FBR might mush thru more snow for heavier riders who can't float.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

*Espen, do you agree with this?*



Andy81 said:


> Personally I doubt we'll ever see these in production. Bigger than 5 inch (2xl) will fit very few frames, if any.


Wondering if you have some insights to the marketability of the 3xl's. Should I delay gratification until the 3xl's and compatible frames are available, or pull the trigger and get a 2xl compatible frame.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

campykid said:


> Wondering if you have some insights to the marketability of the 3xl's. Should I delay gratification until the 3xl's and compatible frames are available, or pull the trigger and get a 2xl compatible frame.


I am saving my money and betting on the 3 XL snowshoe size tire. Even if it means having a custom bike built like mikesee.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

campykid said:


> Wondering if you have some insights to the marketability of the 3xl's. Should I delay gratification until the 3xl's and compatible frames are available, or pull the trigger and get a 2xl compatible frame.


Mate, I got no special insight, just looking at the facts:

1. Most people ride around on 4-4,5 inch tires. The biggest selection is around this size. 
We got 1 tire over 5" (2xl)
We got probably 4-5 tires in real 4.8" (jj, xl, etc) and a few more that's close to 4.8"
We got dosens of tires in the 4-4.7" range

2. We got 3-4 factory frames that actually fits 2xl (albeit pretty tight) and a couple of custom ones that's made for it where it fits well.

3. We got no factory frames that fitts the 2xl prototype (3xl), so the likelyhood of seeing 3xl is small since nobody can run them = nobody will buy them.

4. 3xl will also be problematic on factory bikes with conventional gearing due to the chainline on 197mm rear, so until we see 217mm or something like that as the new standard then again I see it as unlikely we'll see it in production.

Personally though I'd love to see more frames built for 2xl (and bigger), and there's no reason not to be able to fit these on the frames with 190mm crank spindles:

Atm 190mm cranks with q factor of 222 (turbine cinch and next xl) fitts well on frames that can take 2xl yet for some stupid reason many factory frames ship with these cranks without the frames being optimized for big tires. So instead of having 1.5cm clearance for tires they have 1.5cm clearance between crank arms and frame. That's just stupid and poor design. (rant over)

When more frames comes "optimized" like I mention above so that more people can run 2xl perhaps more tire manufacturers will jump on the 5.1" size. Then perhaps we'll then see 3xl.
Hopefully we'll see more "optimized" frames, but in general I think manufacturers rather go in the direction of trek and do smaller q factor and limits to 4.8" tires

If you have the money, go custom and make sure there's room for 3xl (just in case)
If not, go for a nice factory frame that can fit them. I like blackborow and would probably be rinding shurly ict if it wasn't for the 2.9kg frame only weight.

Since fatbike is "winterbike" then we're going towards the "end" of the 2016 season now, meaning we probably won't see anything new and special this year. Next winter there will probably be a few more frames compatible with 2xl (see the mentioned "optimization") 
But atm the only person I have heard about running "3xl" is Espen W in Nakamura prototype and the earliest we'll see that is 2017. IF Nakamura start mass produsing this bike AND if it either gets popular overseas AND more manufacturers jump on 5-6" then yea more options, more sizes. My crystal ball says earliest 2017, maybe 2018 
But remember atm 3xl doesn't exist.

Don't sit around waiting for 3xl, go ride on 2xl!
Get one of the following:

Shurly Ict (heavy but very affordable)
Salsa blackborow
RSD Mayor (limited to 80mm rims)
Quiring Triple B (beware: qr dropouts)
REEBadonkadonk
Meriwether Cycles
Design Logic Bikes


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Don't forget Carver bikes. I've ridden theirs with 2XL on both ends.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Dilligaff said:


> Don't forget Carver bikes. I've ridden theirs with 2XL on both ends.


Carver? I didn't know they could fit 2xl. Nice. 
Which one? The carbon version?

I see the titanium version is specced with 170mm rear, but I assume they do custom work.. Adjustable dropouts?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

I see a Surly Moonlander 2.0 that fits the 2xl and has room for the 3xl. No way they are falling off the back of the pack.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Andy81 said:


> Carver? I didn't know they could fit 2xl. Nice.
> Which one? The carbon version?
> 
> I see the titanium version is specced with 170mm rear, but I assume they do custom work.. Adjustable dropouts?


Titanium, and they do custom work. It may even fit a 3XL. I don't think their website is updated. I think once it's sorted out in titanium they'll make it in carbon if you want.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Dilligaff said:


> Titanium, and they do custom work. It may even fit a 3XL. I don't think their website is updated. I think once it's sorted out in titanium they'll make it in carbon if you want.


Nice bike man.

Custom titanium? Looks like a very nice option for 2xl that should definately be included in the list.

I dubt they can do custom carbon since that requires a mould and that is the expensive bit.. Titanium can be welded and shaped by hand so it's much mor applicable for custom work.

Anyways, thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

They work with an independent shop and can do just about anything, it all depends on how deep your pockets are.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Eventually, I hope, Vee will release a front-specific mate to this current rear tread pattern.

Until that day, this current one is just too slow -- on both ends of the bike.

So I spent an hour with some nippers and made them faster, with an eye toward keeping _enough_ traction and control.

















5 rides in with them this way, and it's a great compromise. Waaaaaaaay faster, yet they still have good manners when it gets deep or wind affected.
​


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

the white is growing on me.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

mikesee said:


> Eventually, I hope, Vee will release a front-specific mate to this current rear tread pattern.
> 
> Until that day, this current one is just too slow -- on both ends of the bike.
> 
> ...


I could see it being a slow tire in packed conditions, but I would think you'd want giant paddle blocks on the rear tread for this tire's intended usage cases.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

bighit said:


> the white is growing on me.


Same here..

This is mine, and I almost like it


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Edit. Double post


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Andy81 said:


> Ekke said:
> 
> 
> > Same here..
> ...


----------



## OfficerFriendly (Apr 16, 2014)

Dilligaff said:


> They work with an independent shop and can do just about anything, it all depends on how deep your pockets are.
> 
> View attachment 1048563


What in the name of god is that. i don't understand. two 2XL tires on what looks like one rim with the chain going through at the back???


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Willum said:


> I would think you'd want giant paddle blocks on the rear tread for this tire's intended usage cases.


Sometimes, yes.

Other times the big tread blocks disturb the surface so much that you end up punching deeper, working harder, and going slower. I rode sand dunes just last week where this was the case.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Andy81 said:


> Very nice looking bike mate, is that m size frame?
> It looks pretty tight around the rear wheel, got any more shots?
> I also see you're running 2x gear up front,any issues in 1st gear?


Thanks, it's L / 20". I will try to take some pics tomorrow, only one 1h test ride so far, no issues yet... seems to be very nice tires, we have ~50cm of snow here 

It has 22-36t stock setup in the front, but I have tried only 36t, I think the chain hits the tire. Planning to go 1x10 with these tires in the winter, but haven't got the parts (30t or 32t oval, not sure yet) and I need 2x10 next weekend, so have to change Lou(s) back, back at least.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Andy81 said:


> It looks pretty tight around the rear wheel, got any more shots?
> I also see you're running 2x gear up front,any issues in 1st gear?


Here's some, it was getting dark..

Alternators in "all-the-way-back"-position:















Matchbox (a little bit "squashed") for reference:








Chain with big ring:














Chain with small ring (too tight, but was able to "drive" 50m without chain rub):


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Recently filmed two episodes for the ''Fatbike fever'' series for the #1 Norwegian MTB magazine, ''Terrengsykkel''.
Brought the 2XL proto 5.6'' equipped bike for comparison with a 4.2'' and a 4.8'' bike both running in the low 2psi range. Wanted to see the reaction of the magazine editor after him testing the 5.6'' bike at 0psi and it went as expected. He was at a complete loss of words after floating through close to 1ft of fresh, moist snow on the 5.6'' bike.
The improvement over the 4.8'' bike was bigger than in his wildest imagination.
Phrases like ''different universe'' vs. the 4.8'' setup.
Here is the link to the first of the two episodes, discussing rim and tire sizes (in Norwegian...). Not sure if the clip can be viewed outside of Norway, though:

Velg-saa-bredt-som-mulig | Fatbike | Telex | TERRENGSYKKEL.NO

On Facetube: https://nb-no.facebook.com/Terrengsykkel-127974157972/


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

*Design Logic Frames for 2XL*

I have received both of my frames from the powder coater and I prepped them for my individual needs. Here are some pictures of the prepped frames. I have ordered *all* of the parts I need to build the bikes, but the machine shop and powder coater will take me into late May.

BTW I have come to realize that all ebike stuff should be in the Off Camber section. Having said that, I have more info and pictures at High quality car replacement e-bike.

I ended up using a 58T 110 BCD chainring and 14-28T 5-speed freewheel. I had a really hard time choosing a crankset because I was trying to run two chainrings up front--that didn't work out. I settled on a Surly Mr. Whirly with a Moonlander spindle and 58/110mm spider.

I also had a hard time choosing a freewheel that would fit in there with no spacers, thus the 5 speed freewheel.

Finally, the rear brake rotor spacers were a challenge. I had to buy two 21mm, eight 5mm, two 2mm, two 1mm and sixteen 0.2mm rotor spacers to have enough spacers on hand to get just the right spacing for the Tektro Dorado 203mm rotors.


----------



## x3speed (Jan 18, 2012)

How much will those cost?


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

x3speed said:


> How much will those cost?


Each bare frame was $1,450 and my *total* cost for these new bikes is $9,000 each.


----------



## x3speed (Jan 18, 2012)

They are cool

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Temps stay above freezing 24-7 up here at 60 North these days, so got
12 hours of partly tricky condition riding on the 2XLs over the weekend.
Some good, old fashioned fun in deep, moist snow:






Two bonus clips:


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

OfficerFriendly said:


> What in the name of god is that. i don't understand. two 2XL tires on what looks like one rim with the chain going through at the back???


It's a custom bike for someone biking to the South Pole. It's actually two different carbon rims that are laced together. It uses two hubs and mostly standard off the shelf parts, which is pretty ingenious by itself.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen, that snow's looking very heavy. Those 5.6" tires are looking sweet!

Good times!


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Espen W said:


> Temps stay above freezing 24-7 up here at 60 North these days, so got
> 12 hours of partly tricky condition riding on the 2XLs over the weekend.
> Some good, old fashioned fun in deep, moist snow:
> ...


If Espen had bigger feet, that vid would be less impressive. 
You really sank in there after you dismounted the bike.

-F


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

mikesee said:


> Eventually, I hope, Vee will release a front-specific mate to this current rear tread pattern.
> 
> Until that day, this current one is just too slow -- on both ends of the bike.
> 
> ...


I have been thinking about modding a Surly Bud but after your post I took out the sidecutters and modded my 2XL front tire. Can't comment on the ride yet but here is a pic. Mounted on a 80mm mulefut rim. The studs are BestGrip/GripStuds.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

enemy1 said:


> I have been thinking about modding a Surly Bud but after your post I took out the sidecutters and modded my 2XL front tire. Can't comment on the ride yet but here is a pic. Mounted on a 80mm mulefut rim. The studs are BestGrip/GripStuds.
> View attachment 1057025


I like mine just the way they are. If I wanted faster I'd get different tires. 
I just love the way they grip on dirt and mud and snow, and GROWL on pavement.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I just noticed my new Vee 2XL sidewall is lumpy and bumpy. It looks like a manufacture defect. It is on four places on the tire. Two across from each other on either side of the tire and in two places. In the photos the tire is at 19 psi. I noticed the problem as it was inflating and I thought it might flatten out with pressure, bit it didn't. Vee says max 20 psi, so I didn't go higher. I also have a second 2XL and that one looks fine. Should I be concerned about this or is it just crappy quality control as with a lot of things.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

That's normal for tires. See it all the time.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Thanks! ride it 'till it pops!


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

I would demand new one, it should not look like that when it's new.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

*26x5.05 XXL on Design Logic frame*

Here is my new bike. I still have yet to install the rear brakes, spider and 58T chainring.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Cool looking packer! What do u mean , 58 tooth chain ring. 

Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Cool looking packer! What do u mean , 58 tooth chain ring.
> 
> Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


It's an electric motorcycle.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Cool looking packer! What do u mean , 58 tooth chain ring.
> 
> Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


I need to multi task and get my daily cardio during my commute. The 58T chainring is a function of the 31.5" tire diameter and 14T small cog in the freewheel:


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

As someone who's ridden fixed gears for years over thousands of miles and done a few centuries, I can say without bias or ridicule: "Good luck with that combination". Even on level ground it'll be an issue trying to pedal it. For comparison, borrow a road bike and put it in the big ring, then three up from the smallest in the rear and see how difficult it is to pedal.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Dilligaff said:


> As someone who's ridden fixed gears for years over thousands of miles and done a few centuries, I can say without bias or ridicule: "Good luck with that combination". Even on level ground it'll be an issue trying to pedal it. For comparison, borrow a road bike and put it in the big ring, then three up from the smallest in the rear and see how difficult it is to pedal.


It's got an electric hub motor for assist. I hope it has ALOT of assist to use that gear combo!


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

bikeny said:


> It's got an electric hub motor for assist. I hope it has ALOT of assist to use that gear combo!


It does have 6000W (8 HP) of assist, but I think all ebike matters belong in the Off Camber section. I anticipate contributing 150W for exercise. My commute time needs to be as short as possible because I have stupidly long days at work.

I have a practice of posting any *pure bike stuff* on mtbr, but I won't post any electronics stuff on here. I posted the picture here to show people what these tires look like on a midtail cargo frame.

The greatest challenges have been with brake rotor spacing (I settled on 21mm) , fitting as wide of a freewheel as possible (5 speed) and my *failed* attempt to put two chainrings in front (I couldn't find a huge chainring in 94 BCD). If it were a traditional bike, I obviously would not have chosen a 58T chainring.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

You oughtta see Vadim do a Gas Monkey burnout with that fatty!!!


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

To me it's a really good looking frame. Any type of motor or engine would not work for my use . But I do like that frame. 

Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> To me it's a really good looking frame. Any type of motor or engine would not work for my use . But I do like that frame.
> 
> Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


Design Logic makes strong, beautiful frames. I have four and I am looking for any excuse to buy more--he says he "can do more frames". The Vee 2XL is a perfect tire to build it around--these tires are friggin' huge on a Clownshoe!


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

https://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/fat-bikes/1057025d1458074763t-26x5-05-xxl-p5pb13273583.jpg

So after a couple of rides in crusty and slushy snow I think that this "semislick" mod is great (at least as a front tire). Better rolling, doesn't break the crust and still has enough grip when cornering. 
I think that the same mod would be great also on a Surly Lou as the tread pattern is almost identical.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

What rear tyre do you have? How about pressures? I can't fully understand these with 80mm rims.. my rear tyre leaves 150mm track with current pressure..


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Ekke said:


> What rear tyre do you have? How about pressures? I can't fully understand these with 80mm rims.. my rear tyre leaves 150mm track with current pressure..


Surly Bud with 120 BestGrip/Gripstuds. Have you tried these on 80mm rims? Some people run Bud and Lou on 52mm rims and think they work nicely. You should know better because 65mm Nextie hoops are so popular in Finland.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

No, I haven't, I have only 24 & 100mm. 

But those side slugs looks a little bit funny with so narrow rim.. but with Bud (or similar 4.8") in rear, I understand why you want better rolling resistance.. I rode 40-50km that way 2 weeks ago (Lou in the rear) and it just doesn't handle soft snow as 2x2XL..


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Bud/Lou work better in terms of float on an 80mm or 100mm rims. 65 would be the narrowest I would entertain running 4.8's, simply because they would require higher inflation pressure to prevent foldover during cornering. Some folks like em on North Paw rims which are 47mm wide. I personally hate riding concrete filled tires (Overinflated). All that so a silly roadie can say they saved a few milligrams offa their bike.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> All that so a silly roadie can say they saved a few milligrams offa their bike.


My rear tyre:










Time to start saving?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

These tires does not get a nice shape on rims smaller than 90mm! 
I've destroyed two 2xl running them low pressure on 80mm rims..

They get a very "light bulb" shape on 80mm rims, and with pressure below 5psi (kinda the point with these tires is to run them below 5psi..) they can easily get pulled off the rim with aggressive riding. 

It happened to me twice with the back wheel (two different 2xl tires). 
Running 4.8's on the same rims, same pressure, same path, same speed, no issues at all. 

I'd say minimum 90mm, preferably 100mm+ rims if you wanna ride these properly.


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Andy81 said:


> These tires does not get a nice shape on rims smaller than 90mm!
> I've destroyed two 2xl running them low pressure on 80mm rims..
> 
> They get a very "light bulb" shape on 80mm rims, and with pressure below 5psi (kinda the point with these tires is to run them below 5psi..) they can easily get pulled off the rim with aggressive riding.
> ...


What rim are you using?
I haven't had any problems (never any sealant leak or burping) on Mulefut rim and last time I checked tire pressure it was 3 psi.

Haven't tried these on wider rims but I also think they might work better. But still the tire works good enough for me on 80mm rims with the "semislick" mod.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Trickiest part about riding on weak crust with the 2XL/''3XL'' is to get back on the bike after having stepped off for a pit stop.

Testing various techniques for getting back on the bike:





Close up of the ''3XL'' 5.6'' at 0.7psi while rolling on crust:





The tires allowed 40+ hours of this kind of riding during the week of Easter (ie. last week)





Some more crust ridin':













With a tailwind:


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Bebop pedals! Blast from the past!


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

^Crust riding is the bees-knees!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Looks like Espen's gonna have to redesign his bike to accept HED 150 rims and Dilly 7's!
Just think, Espen may be able to pump up these tires rather than ride flat...

https://fat-bike.com/2016/04/fat-biking-denali-wtf/


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> Looks like Espen's gonna have to redesign his bike to accept HED 150 rims and Dilly 7's!
> Just think, Espen may be able to pump up these tires rather than ride flat...
> 
> https://fat-bike.com/2016/04/fat-biking-denali-wtf/


Hmm, wonder what the date is today...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Lol!!!

I was waiting for that question...


----------



## JayBrown (Feb 14, 2015)

I was wondering if the 2XL would fit on a 2016 Trek Farley 5 with 80mm rims?


----------



## ro7939 (May 25, 2009)

His IS bigger than mine!!!


----------



## rjedoaks (Aug 10, 2009)

Pedaling


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

JayBrown said:


> I was wondering if the 2XL would fit on a 2016 Trek Farley 5 with 80mm rims?


I read a post the other day where someone had stated that running them at low pressures on a small rim didn't work very well (the shape was super round and at low pressures caused premature side-wall damage). I tried to find the link, but couldn't track it down.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

JayBrown said:


> I was wondering if the 2XL would fit on a 2016 Trek Farley 5 with 80mm rims?


Nope. These tires are huge. Even on 80mm.

I'd say you don't have a chance to run these. 
31,5 inches in diameter, and approx 4.9 actual inches wide on 80mm rims. 
You can measure your chainstay width and distance from the rear axel to seatstay and see if your within these numbers, but I'd bet you need way more space. 


alexkraemer said:


> I read a post the other day where someone had stated that running them at low pressures on a small rim didn't work very well (the shape was super round and at low pressures caused premature side-wall damage). I tried to find the link, but couldn't track it down.


I've had that issue running them on 80mm.

Some people run these tires fine on 80mm rims, I wouldn't (or at least not with pressure under 5 psi). I don't care for the shape and I've destroyed the sidewall on two 2xl tires by aggressive riding on low pressure. On rims that narrow they also get very very squirmy compared to "regular 4.8's" on low pressure. 
It's probably comparable to putting bud/lou on 50-60mm rims.

But again, several people happily run these on 80mm, so this is just my experience/opinion.

Here's my 2 cents: Since these are humongous tires made for float they deserve the biggest rims possible for a nice wide print and less squirming on low pressure.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> Looks like Espen's gonna have to redesign his bike to accept HED 150 rims and Dilly 7's!
> Just think, Espen may be able to pump up these tires rather than ride flat...
> 
> https://fat-bike.com/2016/04/fat-biking-denali-wtf/


Wade; that guy is a lucky duck!! He gets to ride the first true Tundra Bike. !! 
If those Dillinger 7s are truely 2" wider than the 2XL Snowshoe , that would make it a full 7" wide. That would float even my lard ads. 

Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

And Gomez must not b old enough to remember the AMC Pacer commercials on tv . 
They are the ones who coined the term "Wider Is Better !"

Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Werd!

I think the article has something of a 4/1 theme! I just had to mess with Espen cause he won't let us ride his bike!


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

That is a cruel joke. 

Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


----------



## iCollector (Nov 14, 2012)

...ya know - I actually DO have a cold trigger finger.... damaged a nerve, and now in cool weather - in in decent weather, my right index finger sometimes is physically cold to touch.... winter sports hurt now! Its the weirdest thing!


----------



## JayBrown (Feb 14, 2015)

Ironically, I don't run my tires that low. I tried 7-10 psi once and found it a little weird on my old fat bike (26x4). I think that was the cause of the cracks on the rim around the spoke. With my latest purchase (Trek Farley 5), I run the tires at or close to 20 psi and have not had any problems riding over snow or sand. So I guess my question would be at 20 psi, could the 2xl's work?


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

20 PSI?!? Why an earth? It's max. recommended pressure for 2XL. I've tried that pressure once at longer asphalt trip. I don't like, rather 4-7 PSI and off the road. I think max. reasonable is 10 PSI on the road.

You can't compare 4" tire and this, they are so different.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

JayBrown said:


> Ironically, I don't run my tires that low. I tried 7-10 psi once and found it a little weird on my old fat bike (26x4). I think that was the cause of the cracks on the rim around the spoke. With my latest purchase (Trek Farley 5), I run the tires at or close to 20 psi and have not had any problems riding over snow or sand. So I guess my question would be at 20 psi, could the 2xl's work?


First of all, running 7-10 PSI did not cause cracks in your rim, probably the spoke tension was too high or something. Second, even on a 4" tire, 20 psi is crazy high pressure(unless you weigh 400lbs). I wouldn't even run that much on pavement. Sounds like you are riding hardpacked snow and sand, otherwise you would be literally spinning your wheels and going nowhere. For soft conditions, a 4" tire should be run around 5psi, depending on rider weight etc. On those 2xl tires, you can actually run 0.0psi for REALLY soft conditions!

Also, how are you measuring your pressure? The pressure gauge on normal bike floor pumps is wildly inaccurate down at fatbike pressures. Get a good stand alone low pressure gauge.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

iCollector said:


> ...ya know - I actually DO have a cold trigger finger.... damaged a nerve, and now in cool weather - in in decent weather, my right index finger sometimes is physically cold to touch.... winter sports hurt now! Its the weirdest thing!


 I have done more damage to my hands than I care to remember. The scars and pains do not let me forget for long tho. Decades of making a living with power saws with a direct connection to the carb have really done a #on my trigger finger tho. 
Hence , My handle. 

Sent from my E6782L using Tapatalk


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Yeah, me too! 
I ran my finger into a table saw two years ago and now that it's healed, t's cold.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

kaleidopete said:


> Yeah, me too!
> I ran my finger into a table saw two years ago and now that it's healed, t's cold.


Pete, when you do it, you do it right.

Time for the safety meeting, who has the bong?


----------



## iCollector (Nov 14, 2012)

LOL - yeah.... and we *mountain bike* no less!

Great pic BTW! Glad that sucker healed!


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

Is this the finger thread? Last summer I caught mine in a hedge trimmer. The green ring is a tourniquet.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)




----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Volsung said:


> Is this the finger thread?


Actually...


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

Ekke said:


> Actually...
> View attachment 1062976


 That is a Really cool pic !!! 
Thanks for steering us back onto the trail . :=)


----------



## Saw (Mar 24, 2012)

Page 60 of the Mongoose Vinson thread shows one wearing 2XLs with a 1x10 setup.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Here's a some kind of size comparison with an U-lock. I have Lou in the front and 2XL in the back at the moment..


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

Here are my Design Logic eBikes with Vee 2XLs, 58T chainrings and 14-28T 5-speed rear freewheels. They go 41 mph--exciting!














And with that, I will only post in the eBike section because all of my bikes have motors. Happy riding, y'all!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

vadimhellbike said:


> Here are my Design Logic eBikes with Vee 2XLs, 58T chainrings and 14-28T 5-speed rear freewheels. They go 41 mph--exciting!
> View attachment 1066326
> 
> View attachment 1066327
> ...


Vadim,

It looks like a fatbike to me... Oh, coulda swore this was the fatbike forum. Aaannnddd,
it has 5.ohsofat tires, guess it qualifies for the 5.ohsofat thread too!


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

*Sand duning*



mikesee said:


> Sometimes, yes.
> 
> Other times the big tread blocks disturb the surface so much that you end up punching deeper, working harder, and going slower. I rode sand dunes just last week where this was the case.


I'm finding in really coarse sand like the ILRA gravel pit work really well with these tires. So far I've done some nearby MTB trails with finer sand and that can be a bit of a workout. Getting these tires to spin out is almost impossible they have so much grip. Not having the tire dig itself in is priceless. I haven't hit any beaches yet, but I've heard the float is fantastic. I doubt I'll do a knobectomy on these, I'm having too much fun seeing what I can actually climb with them, even if the pace may be a bit slow.

I've also done a few descents I've never attempted on my other fat bike.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

That just flat looks Cool ! . THAT'S what a FAT bike should look like ! . Great pic. 

I wonder what the story is with the weird chopping marks on the bumper log ?


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

mikesee said:


> Sometimes, yes.
> 
> Other times the big tread blocks disturb the surface so much that you end up punching deeper, working harder, and going slower. I rode sand dunes just last week where this was the case.


 Mike, I found this with boots also. In dry snow like we have in the Interior and you have at the high elevations you ride . A deep lug sole just digs a hole with every step. Where as the shallow tread of a bunny boot , you get more true traction and propulsion from every step.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Cold Trigger Finger said:


> Mike, I found this with boots also. In dry snow like we have in the Interior and you have at the high elevations you ride . A deep lug sole just digs a hole with every step. Where as the shallow tread of a bunny boot , you get more true traction and propulsion from every step.


Yep, noticed this especially on semi crusty groomed trails back in the day when going from a Vee Mission to a Lou. The more aggressive knobs would crush the surface layer and create its own powder, while more shallow knobs would keep the surface undisturbed and stay on top.

However, in most other conditions, the bigger knobs are usually better for propulsion.


----------



## memmot (Aug 13, 2010)

Any rumblings of manufacturer othe than Vee making a tire in this size class, 26x5.something? I think a larger Maxxis Colossus would be sweet. Skimmed the thread and didn't see anything.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

we should compile a list of which forks and frames these tires fit.

ICT fork with ease on 100mm rim.


----------



## Benskoning (Nov 11, 2015)

bighit said:


> we should compile a list of which forks and frames these tires fit.


+1000 to that, I have been looking for a list ever since I found these tires.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

bighit said:


> we should compile a list of which forks and frames these tires fit.
> 
> ICT fork with ease on 100mm rim.


There was a list approx in the middle of this thread..

Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork 
Surly ict frame and fork
Quering Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
Rst Mayor frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims) 
Meriwether frame and fork
+one more I've forgotten

Moonlander fork
907 fork
Lauf carbonara fork (limit to 90mm rims)


----------



## Guy.Ford (Oct 28, 2009)

Andy81 said:


> There was a list approx in the middle of this thread..
> 
> Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork
> Surly ict frame and fork
> ...


I believe you meant RSD Mayor.  RST is a crap fork mfg.


----------



## Saw (Mar 24, 2012)

Andy81 said:


> There was a list approx in the middle of this thread..
> 
> Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork
> Surly ict frame and fork
> ...


Add:
Mongoose Vinson frame and fork
Design Logic frame

My Tommy Sea frame and fork would probably fit them as well although the bike is more of a cruiser/potential cargo bike rather than a MTB.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Saw said:


> Add:
> Mongoose Vinson frame and fork
> Design Logic frame
> 
> My Tommy Sea frame and fork would probably fit them as well although the bike is more of a cruiser/potential cargo bike rather than a MTB.


Can the mongoose Vinson frame really fit 2xl on 100mm rims? 
There's a pic earlier in the thread with the mongoose with a 2xl front and xl rear, looks very tight around the fork though.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

maybe i got some odd ball tires, but once seated they don't fit my moonlander fork with 100's


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

they fit the moonlander frame if you push the wheel all the way to the end of the dropouts.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

I think there should be info if they fit with 2x/stock setup or what cranks/spacers if diy-build.. And what kind of chain clearance. 

Not sure how about tubeless setup.. I have run mine with tubes only.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Carver Ti omegabeast


----------



## Saw (Mar 24, 2012)

Andy81 said:


> Can the mongoose Vinson frame really fit 2xl on 100mm rims?
> There's a pic earlier in the thread with the mongoose with a 2xl front and xl rear, looks very tight around the fork though.


My apologies, you're correct. It's an xl on the back, not a 2xl.


----------



## Fattt (Nov 30, 2014)

Any idea if they'll fit a Diamant F3?


----------



## enemy1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Andy81 said:


> There was a list approx in the middle of this thread..
> 
> Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork
> Surly ict frame and fork
> ...


Some updates...


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Fattt said:


> Any idea if they'll fit a Diamant F3?


No, there's absolutely no way they'll fit. Neither frame nor fork.

Regular vee xl is the biggest you can run, and they are pretty tight if you run tubeless on stock rims. Even with those you'll need to restock the cassette or remove the granny gear to avoid chain rub.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

enemy1 said:


> Some updates...


Great work mate. 
I've edited the list a bit..
Everyone feel free to copy it an add to it

Unless specified the bikes will fit 2xl on 100mm rims:

Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork
Surly ict frame and fork
Quiring Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
RSD Mayor frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims)
Meriwether frame and fork
Design Logic frame and fork
Carver Ti omegabeast frame and fork

Moonlander fork (might get tire rubbing) 
907 fork
Lauf carbonara fork (limit to 90mm rims)
Mongoose Vinson fork (frame is a no go) 
Kona Wo 2016 fork (frame is a no go)


----------



## Yoreskillz (Feb 10, 2011)

Steve Balogh said:


>


WOW, What a sharp looking ride! Envious.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

memmot said:


> Any rumblings of manufacturer othe than Vee making a tire in this size class, 26x5.something?


Yes. 
Another manufacturer is launching a new tire branded as a 5.5.
I measured the production version of it to around that size as well. They slimmed it down from the prototype that I have here that measures more than 6.1'' at 20psi on a 100mm rim. That proto really belongs on a 120 to 130mm rim as its bead to bead width is north of 340mm. Likely 6.5'' on a 130mm rim.
Proto is extremely heavy (2800g), thick 60tpi casing and knobs that are ramped on all sides. Nice volume, but will likely have worse flotation than my 5.6's since the casing of the big ones is so stiff and unyielding as well as worse grip with the flat, shallow and ramped knobs.


----------



## Cold Trigger Finger (Aug 4, 2015)

That is great news. Wider is better


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

http://www.classic-cycle.de/en/Rims...-inch/Alu-rim-26-inch-132-mm-black-matte.html

What other 130mm rims there are and what frames those will fit?


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

*Motobecane FB5 or Lurch*



gridlok said:


> Welcome to the Dark Side.
> 
> The ultimate snow bike that you can build for yourself and make all your friends insanely jealous. That is if they will even talk to you anymore.
> 
> ...


According to this previous post (on the above blog) the Motobecane FB5 or Lurch from Bikes Direct can be added to the list.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

*Frame/Fork List*

So...

Unless specified the bikes will fit 2xl on 100mm rims:

Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork
Surly ict frame and fork
Quiring Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
RSD Mayor frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims)
Meriwether frame and fork
Design Logic frame and fork
Carver Ti omegabeast frame and fork
Motobecane FB5 frame clears, fork rubs
Motobecane Lurch frame (seat tube cable ferule rub). Fork??

Moonlander fork (might get tire rubbing) 
907 fork
Lauf carbonara fork (limit to 90mm rims)
Mongoose Vinson fork (frame is a no go) 
Kona Wo 2016 fork (frame is a no go)


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

RSD Mayor will do a 5.05 on 80's


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

Pole bicycle company's Pole Taiga snow comes equipped with PSC 5.05

And i have mine ordered.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

brilleaux said:


> Pole Taiga snow comes equipped with PSC 5.05
> 
> And i have mine ordered.


Looks like it only ships with 80mm rims, so that might be the supported limit on that bike.. 
(dt Swiss are great wheels though)

Strange to only have 80mm rims on a bike with 467mm chainstay, 233mm q factor and claimed slogan "ride everywhere". 
Have you checked if it supports 2xl on 100mm rims?

Nice with more 2xl compatible bike options though.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

Andy81 said:


> Looks like it only ships with 80mm rims, so that might be the supported limit on that bike..
> (dt Swiss are great wheels though)
> 
> Strange to only have 80mm rims on a bike with 467mm chainstay, 233mm q factor and claimed slogan "ride everywhere".
> ...


I haven't checked that. 80mm rims are enough for me.  
But i assume that there's enough clearance for 2XL on 100mm rims.

That's my assuming, not a fact.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

brilleaux said:


> I haven't checked that. 80mm rims are enough for me.
> But i assume that there's enough clearance for 2XL on 100mm rims.
> 
> That's my assuming, not a fact.


80mm rims is enough for most people, just remember most people don't ride 2xl...

I love 2xl, and they are my goto winter tire, but I hated them on 80mm rims. (You can probably compare it to riding something similar to bud/lou on 65mm rims)

I don't want to make you regret your purchase, and the DTSwiss are fenomenal rims, but I believe Polebicycles made some poor choices on the setup since they brand it as a pure winter bike and only gave it 80mm rims:

Personally I felt the 2xl tires being way too big for 80mm, giving lots of squirming with low psi, and I also ripped the bead on two different occasions while riding snowy downhill (they where mounted tubeless on fatlab rims). 
I blame the combination of low psi and narrow rims for those accidents.

I now use my 80mm rims with jj4.8 for summer and will be riding 2xl on either 90mm hookless or 100mm rims next winter where they belong.

I'm sure you'll be perfectly happy on your new bike, but I just wanted to warn you that my personal belief/experience is that 2xl and 80mm rims is a very bad marriage the moment you drop below 5 psi.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

I just informed that 2XL fits on Pole, i don't think in my case they are going to be my tires anyway. 

I have Bud/Lou with spikes and Bud/BigFatKnard already waiting in my corners. 

There was a few other things why i decided to buy Pole Taiga. Previously i had a Specialized Fatboy Expert and riding with Pole's prototype was enough to convincing me.
Geometry is stunning. And a frame is stiff. Stiff like an upper lip.

Edit: Maybe i give a try 2XL on 80mm rim, next winter. 
Who knows..


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

any info on how they fit on the ICT. The search feature didn't give me any good results.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

bighit said:


> any info on how they fit on the ICT. The search feature didn't give me any good results.


You need sliding dropout from Surly, art.no FS2008, and you need to change to medium cage derailer due to length issues.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

bighit said:


> any info on how they fit on the ICT. The search feature didn't give me any good results.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

I hope i don't regret my 9:zero:7 frame purchase. 

I was thinking that the XXL was too tight a fit for practical purposes on the above listed frames but it is looking pretty appealing on that there ICT!

The chain stay length was lengthened by how much w the MDS sliding dropout chip?


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

Does the chain rub in the largest cog and granny ring?

Pic shows third lowest cog...


----------



## peter337 (May 23, 2016)

Does this tire fit the 2016 SE [email protected] or the Motobecane FB4?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

I got a great idea, but it would ultimately get screwed up. We start a list of people who would ride this tire and their bike with rim width of at least 100mm. Each person chip in some bucks for the tire. Send out one loan 2xl to see if it fits. Then when it was confirmed or denied that person sent it to the next person on the list. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

bighit said:


> I got a great idea, but it would ultimately get screwed up. We start a list of people who would ride this tire and their bike with rim width of at least 100mm. Each person chip in some bucks for the tire. Send out one loan 2xl to see if it fits. Then when it was confirmed or denied that person sent it to the next person on the list. Just thinking out loud.


It's good with ideas, and I agree that the ultimate test is to actually mount the tire. But anybody that owns a bike and is just wondering if the tire will fit can just pull out their toolbox and grab the measurement. 
The tire is 5.2" wide and 32" in diameter on 100mm rims.

Basically you only need to measure from the rear axle to the seatstay and from the rear axle to the chainstay. If any of these distances are less than 32" the tire won't fit. 
Then measure the width between the chainstay where the tire runs. If it's less than 5.2" means the tire won't fit.

It's exceptionally big, so most frames won't fit it. If in doubt, most likely it's a no go.

The list of bikes that can run this is more for people wanting to purchase a new frame that can run the tire..


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

What I did was buy one and put it on the front of my Moonlander. It fit, then I installed it on the rear as a test, and it fit. So I then bought a second tire.


----------



## nelzbycks (Jun 3, 2011)

It fits on the moonlander!?


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

you can't say just because its width fits the tire fits. There are people on here with it on the front and back of their moonlanders. I can't mount it on the rear of mine and it has plenty of room. The second i get on the gas it rubs like heck. I tried it on the front and mine rubs,but some folks say it dosent on theirs. Ultimately you just should buy one and try it then buy another if it fits.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Here it is on front.


On rear





The rear DID rub until I made spacers to bring the wheel back about 3/8 inch.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

My front rubs like a buzzsaw. I may have gotten an odd ball, but i will mount it up again and post pics. I was wondering if a bolt on would help i guess it does. The qr set up with monkey nuts ruled as i applied the power. Might have to make me some of them spacers ad then we can ride NJ!


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I love this tire, BUT, it sure holds the mud! Had so much mud it jammed up at the fork.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

kaleidopete said:


> I love this tire, BUT, it sure holds the mud! Had so much mud it jammed up at the fork.


where are you riding in Nj?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Pete's out mud bog racing...AGAIN! 
Pfft, I'm glad I am not tasked with cleaning that bike.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

bighit said:


> where are you riding in Nj?


Wawayana Park, this remote trail is only used by hunters and quads. 
I figured I'd give it a try.


----------



## ice-bike (Oct 22, 2015)

Icebreaker frame to fit with 2XL at 20psi on 80mm rims. The shoulder knob width is 124mm. The clearance between CS/SS is about 5mm. 
The problem is that the rear triangle does not have enough radius, so the center knob rubs the seat tube. But problem solved by itself at pressure ~10psi or less. To cut the knobs is maybe also an option  
So, considering 2XL to be more like winter tire, it can be said that frame could be compatible with 5,05" tires on 80mm rims. 

Icebreaker fatbike carbon fork with 2XL at 20 psi with tube on 100mm rim.


----------



## ct90768 (Aug 16, 2016)

Has anybody mounted 2xl on 100mm rim on the rear of a motobecane fb5? All of the ones I've seen where on a 80mm rim.


----------



## Negotiator50 (Apr 21, 2012)

Some of these pics show very little clearance. Do these tires stretch a bit when set up tubeless? I know I have had that problem with tight fits before with other tires.


----------



## ice-bike (Oct 22, 2015)

This is what like very little clearance looks like. 2XL at 20psi on 100mm rim. They fit, but you would not be able to ride them without periodically rubbing the seat-stay or chain-stay. Besides, the center knobs rub the seat tube.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

skoroed said:


> This is what like very little clearance looks like. 2XL at 20psi on 100mm rim. They fit, but you would not be able to ride them without periodically rubbing the seat-stay or chain-stay. Besides, the center knobs rub the seat tube.


Because of course you need 20psi in a tire that big.


----------



## ice-bike (Oct 22, 2015)

20psi is only for the test to check the clearance at maximum pressure.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

skoroed said:


> 20psi is only for the test to check the clearance at maximum pressure.


And my point is that the tire is so stretched at 20psi that it's not an accurate test.

Even 10psi is too much in this tire unless you're riding it places it wasn't intended/designed to go.

Test fit at reasonable pressures and it'll have a lot more clearance.


----------



## ice-bike (Oct 22, 2015)

mikesee said:


> And my point is that the tire is so stretched at 20psi that it's not an accurate test.
> 
> Even 10psi is too much in this tire unless you're riding it places it wasn't intended/designed to go.
> 
> Test fit at reasonable pressures and it'll have a lot more clearance.


It looks better at 10 psi with clearance about 3mm on each side and enough space between seat tube to keep it rolling. 
Originally the frame was not designed to fit 5,05" tires, but if to choose to go that way, so I would recommend to use 2XL with 80mm rims to be ridden from a practical point of view.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

mikesee said:


> And my point is that the tire is so stretched at 20psi that it's not an accurate test.
> 
> Even 10psi is too much in this tire unless you're riding it places it wasn't intended/designed to go.
> 
> Test fit at reasonable pressures and it'll have a lot more clearance.


Exactly! idk why someone would even post clearance pics with the tire @ 20psi. You will NEVER need to ride that tire at 20psi. Some peoples kids....I tell ya!


----------



## SADDLE TRAMP (Aug 26, 2010)

jonshonda said:


> Exactly! idk why someone would even post clearance pics with the tire @ 20psi. You will NEVER need to ride that tire at 20psi. Some peoples kids....I tell ya!


Took a visit to the Surly tire geo chart the other day....measurements taken at max psi! My thought was WTH? Perhaps they were trying to out guess the "will this tire fit on my bike" guys?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

jonshonda said:


> Exactly! idk why someone would even post clearance pics with the tire @ 20psi. You will NEVER need to ride that tire at 20psi. Some peoples kids....I tell ya!


Max pressure is what some peeps think is required or the tire pressure cops will put em in jail for a minimum of 10 years. Similar to tags that cannot be removed under penalty of law. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Testing fit at 20 psi will take into account tire movements/wheel flex at lower pressures.


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

mikesee said:


> And my point is that the tire is so stretched at 20psi that it's not an accurate test.
> 
> Even 10psi is too much in this tire unless you're riding it places it wasn't intended/designed to go.
> 
> ..


Will be a few months before I get to try it in snow, but over the last 6 weeks I've used 5-10psi around trails and beach over in the Manistee Michigan area. Not sure what I used on the beach yesterday, but I just went by squishing the tires by hand having not put any air in the bike over several weeks. I've used 10 psi also around some of the sandy local trails as well, and they work fine on these 100MM rims. Wet sand in some areas may be a bit of a drag depending on location, but yesterday I was getting pretty good float and speed. As expected, with lower pressures I could get higher up off the waterline in the deep sand on the beach.

A few weeks back I did the NCT and a dirt/sand road on the way back to the car and I was around 10 psi, and was good for that ride.

Agree, no reason to ride these at 20 psi, they would be hard as rock and would dig in to the point it would be hard to pedal in soft conditions.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Steve Balogh said:


> I was around 10 psi, and was good for that ride.
> 
> Agree, no reason to ride these at 20 psi, they would be hard as rock and would dig in to the point it would be hard to pedal in soft conditions.


I have not found any reason to pump these tires to 10 PSI, even 5 PSI is too much at front, about 6-7 PSI is enough at rear.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

I discovered the sweetness of the lard a$$ 5.05's! They are fantastic on sand, indeed. 4.5 psi and good to ride. 
20 psi would be absurd for anyone less than 400 lbs. Mayor with 5.05's = piss poor fuel economy, but fun they are.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

Pictures of 2XL fitted on Pole Taiga. Rims are 80mm DT-Swiss, runs tubeless and 10Psi. Pressure and pics are right after installation.


----------



## zoomin (Mar 16, 2010)

Looking to maybe upgrade my 2014 Blackborow with a carbon fork.

Anyone know of a place to get a salsa carbon bearpaw?

Salsa doesn't seem to offer them through regular channels, just on newer Blackborows.

Second option might be to pick up one of these Framed Alaskan Carbon forks:

https://djsboardshop.com/collections/250-300/products/framed-alaskan-carbon-bike-fork-1

but I am unsure if they will fit a 2XL Snowshoe - does anyone know for sure?

Thanks.


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

isn't Framed just a rebranded generic open mold fork from China?
of which there're countless copies available, for less
or not copies, but similar enough and with a drawing like this: AMC-D9016-ShenZhen YiErLan Sports Equipment Technology Co.,Ltd


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Andy81 said:


> You need sliding dropout from Surly, art.no FS2008, and you need to change to medium cage derailer due to length issues.


I got some PSC 2XLs off eBay and a size Large Ice cream truck off craigslist, confirmed that they fit in the rear of the ICT without a sliding dropout chip. They spin with at least a couple mm of clearance everywhere I look. I had about 12 PSI in them with a tube on a 90mm rim (specialized fatboy rim).

I have yet to test ride them, and maybe tubeless/stretching will help, but these tires are pretty far from round - one of them has a pretty big "hop".

Also, both of the PSC tires I got were right around 2100 grams on my kitchen scale.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Willum said:


> I got some PSC 2XLs off eBay and a size Large Ice cream truck off craigslist, confirmed that they fit in the rear of the ICT without a sliding dropout chip. They spin with at least a couple mm of clearance everywhere I look. I had about 12 PSI in them with a tube on a 90mm rim (specialized fatboy rim).
> 
> I have yet to test ride them, and maybe tubeless/stretching will help, but these tires are pretty far from round - one of them has a pretty big "hop".
> 
> Also, both of the PSC tires I got were right around 2100 grams on my kitchen scale.


I got a 2XL with a hop last year. Vee replaced it quickly. I'd contact the seller you bought from first, to have them take care of it.

Just be sure the bead is seated and it's actually the tire causing the hop, and not an incomplete install.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Willum said:


> Also, both of the PSC tires I got were right around 2100 grams on my kitchen scale.


Wow, I weighted my rear tire with kitchen scale: 1825g

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

zoomin said:


> Looking to maybe upgrade my 2014 Blackborow with a carbon fork.
> 
> Anyone know of a place to get a salsa carbon bearpaw?


I asked them recently. Reps told me 'early next year'. Their distributor/manufacturer switch caused them a lot of grief and they are completely out of stock of a heck of a lot of stuff until then.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

brilleaux said:


> Pictures of 2XL fitted on Pole Taiga. Rims are 80mm DT-Swiss, runs tubeless and 10Psi. Pressure and pics are right after installation.
> View attachment 1102103


That bike is totally bad-ass.

Can you write it up after you have some good miles on those tires? I'm curious - I'm contemplating that exact frame so I can get some 2XL action. Really curious how it rides.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

I emailed Pole to see if they could substitute100mm rims. Haven't heard back yet.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

^Why 100mm? 80mm is enough. According to Vee Tire also.
There's no problem with 80mm rims. I rode tubeless and 80mm, tires work fine.

They are even better when you choose to ride rocky trails.
Sidewalls are protected with sideknobs.

I don't believe that tires are going to be broken if you use 80mm rims. It's caused by something else, not 80mm rim.

100mm rims gives you a little wider profile. And unprotected sidewalls. Nothing else much. Imho.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

schnee said:


> That bike is totally bad-ass.
> 
> Can you write it up after you have some good miles on those tires? I'm curious - I'm contemplating that exact frame so I can get some 2XL action. Really curious how it rides.


Yes it is. 
I'll write up, when i have more to tell.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

campykid said:


> I emailed Pole to see if they could substitute100mm rims. Haven't heard back yet.


By the looks of clearance on the 80mm rims on this bike I'd say 100mm rims is out of the question. Those extra 20mm of rim width makes a massive difference in width on the 2xl's

Maybe 90mm could be the sweetspot though, especially with low sidewall hookless rims which gives quite a nice profile.. It'd still be close in terms of clearance though.

Personally I don't like 80mm rims with 2xl tires. They get way too wobbly on low psi due to the light bulb shape on rims that narrow, and for a winter tire that isnt optimal. 
I do really enjoy 80mm rims though for most riding, just not pared with 2xl's


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

zoomin said:


> Looking to maybe upgrade my 2014 Blackborow with a carbon fork.


2014? The 1st modelyear for Blackborow is 2015. 


> Anyone know of a place to get a salsa carbon bearpaw?
> 
> Salsa doesn't seem to offer them through regular channels, just on newer Blackborows.


I haven't found it too. But it exists also in 2016 Mukluks.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Andy81 said:


> By the looks of clearance on the 80mm rims on this bike I'd say 100mm rims is out of the question. Those extra 20mm of rim width makes a massive difference in width on the 2xl's


2XL is 130 mm wide on 100mm rim. So, 5 mm more, 2.5 mm for each side, not a massive difference.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

Maybe the pics dont show reality; on 80mm rim there's about 1cm clearance. At least. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Läskimasa said:


> 2XL is 130 mm wide on 100mm rim. So, 5 mm more, 2.5 mm for each side, not a massive difference.


Yea, "massive" is perhaps the wrong word, but since they're close to 5.2″ wide on Clownshoe rims (100mm) and approx 4.9" on 80mm rims then depending on stretch and converted to mm that gives (as you say) minimum 5mm difference in width, perhaps on some setups closer to 7-8mm difference (looking at hookless 100mm carbons that will widen them slightly more than clownshoes)

Regardless, .3" is something that on a lot of bikes can be the difference between rolling unhindered and giving a slight rub either on chain or frame (that to me is a "massive" difference).

We talked about the lauf you run in another thread, that's a good example on something that'll run 2xl fine on 80mm, can clear them on 90mm rims and does rub on 100mm..

Since most manufacturers wants a good margin the bike mentioned above will probably not officially support 2xl on 100's (my bet). It'd be nice to see it tried though, because we need more production frames to fit this tire, but the trend seems to go the other way though now that we "lost" the salsa blackborow.

Also on a different note: 
People who run these tires on narrow rims normally uses high tire pressure. 
Like for instance mentioned earlier 10 psi (to me that's crazy high) I'm sure these will run great. I've even seen someone fitting these tires on 65mm rims and squeezing them on a Canyon dude.

The problem appears when going below 5 psi. I've ran these on 80's in the 1-2psi range and that wasn't nice. For that pressure I'd probably prefer 100-120mm rims (if that existed and my frame could clear it) 
I happily run true 4.8's on 80mm in summer in the 6-8psi range, but for my type of riding in snow the 2xl's will never have more than 4psi ever and on 80mm rims that just takes me to wobblytown;-)


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

My front pressure, last ride. It perfomed very well. Rear i had 4psi. 










And what comes to Poles clearance:










Picture maybe lies a bit, 155mm may be correct.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Mine are only ~125mm on 100mm CS rims with inner tube..

But yeah, sadly there aren't any real options for >100mm rims, 105mm carbon is the widest I know of, but too pricey..

And this is a little too much for rear:

http://www.classic-cycle.de/en/Rims-Wheels-Parts/Alu-rim-26-inch-132-mm-32-holes-black-matte.html

110-120mm would be nice.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

brilleaux said:


> Maybe the pics dont show reality; on 80mm rim there's about 1cm clearance. At least.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nice. That's good clearance. As long as there's no chainrub when going wider, 100mm rims should then be fine regardless of what the manufacturer supports.

That's a huge plus in my book, and it places that frame into the "rare and not too expensive factory frame with proper clearance" category where I've only got ict at the moment. Hehe.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

There's about 7mm to chain on 80mm rim and absolute black's chainline. You can flip the chainring if there's not enough room. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I DO get slight chain rub on my Moonlander with 100 mm rims. Only in two low gears. 
No fork rubs though.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Andy81 said:


> ...it places that frame into the "rare and not too expensive factory frame with proper clearance" category where I've only got ict at the moment. Hehe.


Why not Blackborow? It's cheap now..


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I have been waiting for over a year (Canada) for a pair of these. I ordered them at my LBS last fall but I have given up.
I want to put a set on my Farley 7 and from all the measurements it seems like they should fit fine.
I just can't find any to buy


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

I will probably test these (with 100mm rim) with Farley this week. Not sure what version..


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> I have been waiting for over a year (Canada) for a pair of these. I ordered them at my LBS last fall but I have given up.
> I want to put a set on my Farley 7 and from all the measurements it seems like they should fit fine.
> I just can't find any to buy


Shazam: Vee Snowshoe 2XL 26 x 5.05" Folding Fat Bike Tire Tubeless Silica Black or Cream | eBay


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

headwind said:


> I have been waiting for over a year (Canada) for a pair of these. I ordered them at my LBS last fall but I have given up.
> I want to put a set on my Farley 7 and from all the measurements it seems like they should fit fine.
> I just can't find any to buy


I'm very curious about this, since the measurements doesn't really seem to add up on my end..

You should have at least 150mm between the chainstays and you need approx 460 chainstays + to clear the diameter (depending on the shape of the yoke) And that will still be a tight fit. 
Considering wobbles etc, I'd say no way can you fit 2xl on a Farley, but I'm happy to be proven wrong☺


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Tested with a Farley 5, not very succesful:

Some photos

It hits front derailleur so didn't rotate at all. And pretty close to the cable holder. Chainstay is a pretty tight too, but cleared the chain like a champ. :thumbsup:

Might fit carbon frame with 1x setup better?


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

mikesee said:


> Shazam: Vee Snowshoe 2XL 26 x 5.05" Folding Fat Bike Tire Tubeless Silica Black or Cream | eBay


Or much cheaper seller: Vee Tire Co. Snowshoe 2XL Fat Bike Tire: 26" x 5.05" 120tpi Folding Bead Silica | eBay Wrong picture at the ebay site.

Edit: oh, there was price for 2 tires in mikesee's link.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Finally got my first ride in on the PSC 2xls with my ice cream truck and they felt great. Despite the weight (each tire weighs literally twice as much as the tire I'm coming from, Jumbo Jim) they roll just fine tubeless on Nextie hundos. Trail surface was icy, rooty Singletrack, most of which was frozen dirt. They did ok on the icy patches (I never crashed, even in the icy hills) but the PSC compound is no substitute for studs. Just can't wait to try em in some fresh snow.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Willum,

I'm still waiting for some snow to arrive! I think it's on back order this year. Can't wait to try the 5.0fat tires out in good snow. They are like riding on a cloud and do nicely on sand.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Season starts with a bang over here at 60NRTH in Oslo, Norway with a 1-2' dump of fresh powder this weekend. Close to 10hours of snow riding and got to do plenty of testing of a popular 4.8'' tire vs the (extremely rare) Snowshoe 3XL 5.6'':





Mo':





Even mo':


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Good stuff, Espen!! Enjoy the ride.


----------



## jludwig (Jan 24, 2015)

I have read some differing opinions on 2XL's on 80m rims. I have 80mm rims and I'm pretty sure 2XL's would clear fine on my bike, Motobecane Boris the Brut (not the Evil Brut). I am also considering Bud and Lou. I am only interested in riding in the snow, which is mostly powder where I live, Salt Lake City area. Any suggestions on which tires would work best on 80mm rims in powder?

Actually, I also sometimes ride softer snow later in the year. I prefer my normal MTB bike with 2.35" Schwalbe Ice Spiker Pros when the snow gets packed or icy. So I'm looking for a tire that's good for mostly powder and sometimes softer snow.

I currently have Vee Bulldozers. They usually float well enough for me. My biggest problem is climbing traction. Because flotation has not been my biggest problem, I'm leaning toward the Bud and Lou. Does the 2XL have better or comparable climbing traction than the Lou or is the biggest difference flotation?


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

jludwig said:


> Does the 2XL have better or comparable climbing traction than the Lou or is the biggest difference flotation?


If your frame and rims can handle it, 2XL is superior in everyway (except weight of course). Just go with it..


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

jludwig said:


> I have read some differing opinions on 2XL's on 80m rims. I have 80mm rims and I'm pretty sure 2XL's would clear fine on my bike, Motobecane Boris the Brut (not the Evil Brut). I am also considering Bud and Lou. I am only interested in riding in the snow, which is mostly powder where I live, Salt Lake City area. Any suggestions on which tires would work best on 80mm rims in powder?
> 
> Does the 2XL have better or comparable climbing traction than the Lou or is the biggest difference flotation?


Also in the Salt Lake area - I started with Bud and Lou, and while they're great tires, the 2XL is just that much better. I get up hills and through conditions at 2.5-3psi on 2XL that i could never get through with Lou at 4psi. For example, you open up opportunities in Round Valley trail system with the extra flotation that you wouldn't have with a Lou in the back.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 21, 2015)

Do folks find snow sticking to the XXLs like it does the XLs? Wondering if it's a problem with the XXLs due to the same silica rubber and extra-fine tread.


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

dayooper said:


> Do folks find snow sticking to the XXLs like it does the XLs? Wondering if it's a problem with the XXLs due to the same silica rubber and extra-fine tread.


I've got the PSC variant and I haven't noticed any issues.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

dayooper said:


> Do folks find snow sticking to the XXLs like it does the XLs? Wondering if it's a problem with the XXLs due to the same silica rubber and extra-fine tread.


----------



## Utahbikemike (Sep 11, 2014)

Have you tired bud/Lou at any lower psi? Last winter i was running a bud/ground control at 2psi front and 1psi rear in American fork canyon and i was able to bump up the rear a bit riding the groomed stuff in corner canyon. 

The 2xl seems pretty tempting though


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

Utahbikemike said:


> Have you tired bud/Lou at any lower psi? Last winter i was running a bud/ground control at 2psi front and 1psi rear in American fork canyon and i was able to bump up the rear a bit riding the groomed stuff in corner canyon.
> 
> The 2xl seems pretty tempting though


That was about as low as I could go with having the tire collapse.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Some fun powder action at 1.0psi on Saturday:


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Anybody enlarged their 1up racks for these tires? I've been cramming them into mine (it has the spacers for "4.9 inches") but it doesn't feel like a long-term solution, there's a lot of friction on the sidewalls getting them in and out.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen W said:


> Some fun powder action at 1.0psi on Saturday:


Mhmm! You have all the snow and aren't sharing. :/


----------



## Utahbikemike (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm about 185 with gear. I could hit .5psi on the ground control but the sidewalls would crinkle way too much


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

Willum said:


> Anybody enlarged their 1up racks for these tires? I've been cramming them into mine (it has the spacers for "4.9 inches") but it doesn't feel like a long-term solution, there's a lot of friction on the sidewalls getting them in and out.


Yes - but you gotta ask them for a custom spacer kit. I asked if they could send me a wider one - and they replied "how wide?" My older kit was 4.75", the current kit is set to 5.1", but I asked them to get me to 5.25" in order to clear things better. if I were to do it again, I would probably go just a hair bigger to 5.5", as I have the tires set to higher pressure for transport and that pushes the OD out a bit.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> Mhmm! You have all the snow and aren't sharing. :/


It is melting away quickly right now...


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Espen,
Are your 2XL prototypes PSC? Any problem with snow sticking? I am expecting delivery today of a Blackborow adorned with 2XL's on Clownshoes. Can't wait for the snow to fly!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

campykid said:


> Espen,
> Are your 2XL prototypes PSC? Any problem with snow sticking? I am expecting delivery today of a Blackborow adorned with 2XL's on Clownshoes. Can't wait for the snow to fly!


Standard Silica (black) compound.
Snow will stick at certain temperature ranges/snow conditions.
Mike (C) reports the PSC's to be much better in that regards.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Has anybody studded a 2XL? I may attempt it tonight with some 45nrth studs and a drill, curious if anybody else has tried it. The tread blocks look smallish but I'm hopeful.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Willum said:


> Has anybody studded a 2XL? I may attempt it tonight with some 45nrth studs and a drill, curious if anybody else has tried it. The tread blocks look smallish but I'm hopeful.


2XL's knobs are pretty anemic for supporting a stud. Not sure how you'd do it with the 45N versions anyway -- you'd need a Grip Stud or Kold Kutter to have any chance of it staying in.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Yeah the 45nrth studs are a no-go. Knobs on this tire are tall, but with a relatively slim cross section - that and the PSC compound is really soft, so combined with the knob height even with the tire at high pressure I couldn't get the knob to hold still while I was drilling and again while I tried to cram the stud in.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Time for Gripstuds

Tire Studs | Grip Studs® Screw-In Tire Studs | Traction in Ice, Snow and Dirt


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

My 2XL prototypes have studs (the one that I run on the front, rear is studable).
However, once i got them I told Vee right away to drop studs for the production version. 
Knobs are too tall and too skinny. In fact, the stud base was peeking out through the side of some of the knobs.

In order for a stud to work well, it needs a firm base so that it is pushed straight into the ice. With a flimsy knob, the stud will hit the ice at an angle, making it much less effective.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

More info for 2XL and Pole Taiga:
2XL is now 128mm wide(knob to knob) on 80mm rim, tubeless mode and 10Psi.

There's 4-5mm to chain. Chainstays have plenty of room.
Taiga's 467mm CS combined with 2XL and going uphill depends only your own fitness! Sick grip! :thumbsup:


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Espen W said:


> My 2XL prototypes have studs (the one that I run on the front, rear is studable).
> However, once i got them I told Vee right away to drop studs for the production version.
> Knobs are too tall and too skinny. In fact, the stud base was peeking out through the side of some of the knobs.
> 
> In order for a stud to work well, it needs a firm base so that it is pushed straight into the ice. With a flimsy knob, the stud will hit the ice at an angle, making it much less effective.


Your prototypes sound sweet: bigger, lighter, studded. Odd that they downgraded the tire across the board for the production version (although an even bigger tire would probably require a bike designed for them).


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

kaleidopete said:


> Time for Gripstuds
> 
> Tire Studs | Grip Studs® Screw-In Tire Studs | Traction in Ice, Snow and Dirt


If the knobs are too skinny to drill with a 1/8 bit I suspect they won't accept a Gripstud well either.


----------



## thenry (Jun 1, 2008)

Just ordered a set of these for my Fugi wendigo with 100mm weinmann rims. I know it will fit the fork and feel fairly confident that it will fit the rear as well. I may have to shim the drive side Bb cup over as I am running 2x10 and I think the chain will just barely rub. I will post Pics regardless of if its a go or no go.


----------



## frl (Jul 22, 2014)

thenry said:


> Just ordered a set of these for my Fugi wendigo with 100mm weinmann rims. I know it will fit the fork and feel fairly confident that it will fit the rear as well. I may have to shim the drive side Bb cup over as I am running 2x10 and I think the chain will just barely rub. I will post Pics regardless of if its a go or no go.


In the rear. I doubt it. Hopefully I wrong.


----------



## thenry (Jun 1, 2008)

frl said:


> In the rear. I doubt it. Hopefully I wrong.


It's going to be close. Width wise I've got over 140 mm. Chainstays are 467mm. Just depends on how the tire sits in there.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

frl said:


> In the rear. I doubt it. Hopefully I wrong.


That's what I instantly thought reading this.

I have Bud/Lou on Clownshoes on a Fatboy -tight but works.
Same thing on a 9:zero:7 and definitely much roomier.
Both Blutoed.

I just can't imagine how bigassed the 2xl by comparison is after measuring geometry on both frames and seeing how badly it'd never work.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

thenry said:


> It's going to be close. Width wise I've got over 140 mm. Chainstays are 467mm. Just depends on how the tire sits in there.


Those sounds like it can fit. How about chainline? I think 2x-setup is too much for these tires in any factory frame..


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

thenry said:


> It's going to be close. Width wise I've got over 140 mm. Chainstays are 467mm. Just depends on how the tire sits in there.


Remember it has to have space for wobble, snow, mud, etc.

I'd say minimum 150mm between chainstays are needed for 2xl, AND due to the enormous diameter on these tires they fit only a handfull of all frames in existence (I'll try to get some pics of measurements to show what I'm referring too). A few more frames can fit them if you limit them to 80mm rims, but on 100's there are like 3 or so production frames that can run them and a few custom bikes.

I'd love to see pics once you get them mounted, but I have low hopes for you being able to ride these.. Not meaning to rain on your parade though.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

thenry said:


> It's going to be close. Width wise I've got over 140 mm. Chainstays are 467mm. Just depends on how the tire sits in there.


You're right. It might fit just ok. The chainstays inside width is 140 mm in Blackborow, but the narrowest point is the seatstays.


----------



## thenry (Jun 1, 2008)

Ekke said:


> Those sounds like it can fit. How about chainline? I think 2x-setup is too much for these tires in any factory frame..


This is my largest concern. I have the option to run two more drive side spacers. The crank arms on the non drive side has about 5 mm more clearance from the bike shop build. I may be out of luck and have to go 1x. I have the spare parts to do it if it fits. 


Andy81 said:


> Remember it has to have space for wobble, snow, mud, etc.
> 
> I'd say minimum 150mm between chainstays are needed for 2xl, AND due to the enormous diameter on these tires they fit only a handfull of all frames in existence (I'll try to get some pics of measurements to show what I'm referring too). A few more frames can fit them if you limit them to 80mm rims, but on 100's there are like 3 or so production frames that can run them and a few custom bikes.
> 
> ...


I will post pics either way. Just so there is record of the attempt for future reference.

No worries on the rain: ). I know this is a long shot but I figured I have to give it a go. I only ride this bike in the snow and it was a low priced purchase as far as my bike addiction goes. If it barely clears and does not rub I will run them. I don't think I will be able to truly appreciate the hugeness of these things until I see them in person. I figured I had to give it a try. The chainstays are 467mm long for craps sake. My current tire a 4.7 VEEvbulldozer doesn't even round out in the largest section of clearance on the chainstay. It is about 1 1/2 short of the widest section of the chainstay. There is loads of clearance around the entire thing. I realize the bulldozers are not huge tires compared to others. I am concerned I am going to clear all the way around but run into my seat tube. From what I have read I may barely make it.



Läskimasa said:


> You're right. It might fit just ok. The chainstays inside width is 140 mm in Blackborow, but the narrowest point is the seatstays.


My seat stays have just about 150mm of clearance as well. I am hoping it looks just like your Blackborrow. Those big fat beasts will keep my string bean body floating on top of the Colorado snow all winter long.

Thanks to everyone for all of the input. If it does not work they go back to performance bike(on sale right now for $105.00 each). At which point I will most likely give bud/Lou a go.


----------



## thenry (Jun 1, 2008)

*Fuji Wendigo and 2xl worth a try*

Currently 4.7 VEE bulldozer on 100mm rim


----------



## thenry (Jun 1, 2008)

thenry said:


> Currently 4.7 VEE bulldozer on 100mm rim
> 
> View attachment 1106333
> View attachment 1106331
> ...


Upon further searching on the interweb I have come to the conclusion that my Fuji Wendigo is a Motobecane Fb5 with a different name. Sounds like I should clear in the rear but will buzz on the front fork. I will still have a go at it but will more than likely return them and go with something else.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

thenry, you can do a fork swap and be good to go. But there goes the budget!


----------



## thenry (Jun 1, 2008)

BansheeRune said:


> thenry, you can do a fork swap and be good to go. But there goes the budget!


It's called mountain biking, I am not familiar with this "budget" thing you refer to.

Wait a minute I do have some recollection of my my wife telling me I had blown a budget out before. I assumed she was using the wrong term for a suspension component. I will research this next on the Internet.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> thenry, you can do a fork swap and be good to go. But there goes the budget!


This. And not need a much more, e.g. https://www.ebay.com/itm/282233297225


----------



## thenry (Jun 1, 2008)

Läskimasa said:


> This. And not need a much more, e.g. https://www.ebay.com/itm/282233297225





BansheeRune said:


> thenry, you can do a fork swap and be good to go. But there goes the budget!


Thanks to both of you. I could go with that fork and new end caps for my front hub as well as a thru axle. Not sure at this point. I do love carbon fibre but I am trying to avoid sinking a bunch of cash into this bike. I think being a light weight I could get away with other options with less headache. I am going to have to see the tires and decide what I want to do.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

My ride today I was running 3 psi and float was fine, but sticky snow made it heavy!


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

This tire is definitely weird! Today I rode snow at 4 to 6 inches deep, great. Icy chunks are just fine. Then I was on the tarmac for 1/4 mile and the steering was all over the place, like hanging onto something that wants to do it's own thing. I'm running 3 psi. Two days ago I was running 6 psi and it was too bouncy. I feel like I need a system like a dropper post to adjust air pressure to match conditions every mile or so. I still love the tire, but it is definitely weird.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

kaleidopete said:


> This tire is definitely weird! Today I rode snow at 4 to 6 inches deep, great. Icy chunks are just fine. Then I was on the tarmac for 1/4 mile and the steering was all over the place, like hanging onto something that wants to do it's own thing. I'm running 3 psi. Two days ago I was running 6 psi and it was too bouncy. I feel like I need a system like a dropper post to adjust air pressure to match conditions every mile or so. I still love the tire, but it is definitely weird.


Rim width?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

kaleidopete said:


> This tire is definitely weird! Today I rode snow at 4 to 6 inches deep, great. Icy chunks are just fine. Then I was on the tarmac for 1/4 mile and the steering was all over the place, like hanging onto something that wants to do it's own thing. I'm running 3 psi. Two days ago I was running 6 psi and it was too bouncy. I feel like I need a system like a dropper post to adjust air pressure to match conditions every mile or so. I still love the tire, but it is definitely weird.


Yea, they've got so much volume that even the slightest change in psi will influence everything. 3 sounds nice for most snow conditions, but
Running these on tarmac will be an issue even in itself. Even groomed tracks are difficult since they stick (black not PSC version) to the ground like glue and self stear like a maniac.

Hardpacked snow and especially tarmac will never be nice, and I see your point with the psi adjustments: I have a lap that's deep snow/Forrest path, groomed Road, back to deep snow again and finishing on groomed. Basically that's 4 adjustments on a ride.

Normally I just go low pressure and bite the bullet for the groomed path, and if I know I'll be a while on hard packed/groomed I inflate for it.

They are nicer on wider rims though, just going from 80 to 90mm makes positive difference.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

These babies are huge. On 90mm rims they are way bigger than my "summer" setup of jj4.8s on 80mm rims. And that's without being stretched.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

kaleidopete said:


> This tire is definitely weird! Today I rode snow at 4 to 6 inches deep, great. Icy chunks are just fine. Then I was on the tarmac for 1/4 mile and the steering was all over the place, like hanging onto something that wants to do it's own thing. I'm running 3 psi. Two days ago I was running 6 psi and it was too bouncy. I feel like I need a system like a dropper post to adjust air pressure to match conditions every mile or so. I still love the tire, but it is definitely weird.


Something like this. Adaptrac - Adaptable Traction Control for Mountain Bikes


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

100 mm Clownshoe rims

Rim width?​

R&D Manager
Diamant & Nakamura bikes (until mid-December 2016)
http://www.youtube.com/user/NDprototyping?feature=mhee​


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> Something like this. Adaptrac - Adaptable Traction Control for Mountain Bikes


That looks great......I'm afraid to look at the price


----------



## spruceboy (Feb 18, 2008)

Will these tires fit an XL icecream truck, with the stock 2x10 gearing and 100mm rims?

It seems like it has enough clearance on the sides, but it is unclear how much taller this tire is vs a bud or lue. 

(I tried wading through this thread to find the answer, but alas my searching abilities suck )


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

spruceboy said:


> Will these tires fit an XL icecream truck, with the stock 2x10 gearing and 100mm rims?
> 
> It seems like it has enough clearance on the sides, but it is unclear how much taller this tire is vs a bud or lue.
> 
> (I tried wading through this thread to find the answer, but alas my searching abilities suck )


Almost 2" taller than Bud/Lou.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

spruceboy said:


> Will these tires fit an XL icecream truck, with the stock 2x10 gearing and 100mm rims?
> 
> It seems like it has enough clearance on the sides, but it is unclear how much taller this tire is vs a bud or lue.
> 
> (I tried wading through this thread to find the answer, but alas my searching abilities suck )












It can be done, but might need special dropouts, if I remember right..


----------



## spruceboy (Feb 18, 2008)

mikesee said:


> Almost 2" taller than Bud/Lou.


Thanks - that is a no then, I have at most a 1/2 inch of frame clearance from the top of the tread on the buds I have in there now. Perhaps with the (mythical? ) 12mm MDS chips it would fit, but it will be very tight.

This dashes my dreams of floating over the southern route without pushing


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

spruceboy said:


> Thanks - that is a no then, I have at most a 1/2 inch of frame clearance from the top of the tread on the buds I have in there now. Perhaps with the (mythical? ) 12mm MDS chips it would fit, but it will be very tight.
> 
> This dashes my dreams of floating over the southern route without pushing


Just get the dropouts. I don't remember the part number just now, but I'll find it for you. Easy peasy and just a few bucks. 
Edit: sliding dropout from Surly, art.no FS2008
You might wanna get this anyway, sliding dropouts are the bees knees.

The ict is able to run these tires fine. You won't have the best clearance, but out of all the factory bikes the ICT is probably amongst the best fit for these tires. To run 2x front you might have to space out your cassette a few mm though to avoid chainrub.










Here is a better shot next to jj4.8 (they're about the same size as your bud/lou) and even though the diameter is approx 32" vs 30", you "only" need 1" more space to clear them, and the sliding dropouts will give you that.


----------



## spruceboy (Feb 18, 2008)

Andy81 said:


> Edit: sliding dropout from Surly, art.no FS2008
> You might wanna get this anyway, sliding dropouts are the bees knees.
> 
> The ict is able to run these tires fine. You won't have the best clearance, but out of all the factory bikes the ICT is probably amongst the best fit for these tires. To run 2x front you might have to space out your cassette a few mm though to avoid chainrub.


Oh yeah - I tried to find a set of these dropouts when I first got my ICT, but couldn't locate anyone who had them in stock. I will swing by my lbs and see if I can get them to do a catalog search for me.

Thanks!


----------



## fthefox (Nov 27, 2005)

You can run 2XLs on Clowshoes without the slotted MDS chip. Using the dropout for QR, there is plenty of room.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

spruceboy said:


> Thanks - that is a no then, I have at most a 1/2 inch of frame clearance from the top of the tread on the buds I have in there now. Perhaps with the (mythical? ) 12mm MDS chips it would fit, but it will be very tight.
> 
> This dashes my dreams of floating over the southern route without pushing


I have 2XL on 100m rims in my size large ICT with the non-adjustable through-axle dropout chip. It's 1x11 though, might not clear a front derailleur or 2x chainline.


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

Well seeing as my Bud and Lou wont work tubless for me, Im looking to get something as good (or better?)

I have a norco Sasquatch But unsure of fitment. 197mm rear end but chain stays are short at 440mm. Bud and lou fit just fine with room to spare but the front has to be wiggled past the brake caliper as its only a 235mm fork
Archives - Norco Bicycles
I break lots of trail so I wanted the good float and good tread depth/traction. The only thing left for me is the Beist combo but I worry about overall size being a bit small.

Thoughts on how to measure before ordering? Oh 80mm rims.
Thanks


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

so far what are the frames will clear this tire? and any one try using it with a rst renagate ?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

machine4321 said:


> Well seeing as my Bud and Lou wont work tubless for me, Im looking to get something as good (or better?)
> 
> I have a norco Sasquatch But unsure of fitment.
> Thoughts on how to measure before ordering? Oh 80mm rims.
> Thanks


I can almost guarantee that you won't be able to fit these. (I'm not saying that to be an xxxhole, just to save you forking out lots of dough on something unusable). I've managed to get these tires to fit on 455 chainstay length, but that's a rarity.









I'd say you need width close to this as a minimum to run these tires fine. Anything less is borderline..









Due to the huge diameter these normally hit the seatstays..









Again, this is next to jj 4.8, which are the same as your bud/Lou on 80mm.



akacoke said:


> so far what are the frames will clear this tire? and any one try using it with a rst renagate ?


Search this thread, a list was compiled earlier mentioning all custom and factory bikes that can fit these tires. (there are only a handful in existence) 
I'll see if i can find it for you..

Edit:
Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork 
Surly ict frame and fork
Quering Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
Rst Mayor (alu) frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims) 
Meriwether frame and fork
Carver (titanium) frame and fork
Pole taiga (frame and fork) 
+
1 more I've forgotten

907 fork
Lauf carbonara fork (limit to 90mm rims)
Moonlander fork
Fatlab fork (one of the few (only?) squish forks that will fit these tires)

Bluto: absolutely not, so The renegade fork: no


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

Thanks, I didnt think it would go due to the stays being pretty short. Its a tight fit getting pas the caliper on the carbon fork with jims.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Andy81 said:


> Search this thread, a list was compiled earlier mentioning all custom and factory bikes that can fit these tires. (there are only a handful in existence)
> I'll see if i can find it for you..
> 
> Edit:
> ...


A few more out of Norway:
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X1 (455mm CS)
-Nakamura Big Bob F50 (455mm CS)
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 (467mm CS)
-Plus the blue anodized one pictured above.

X1 and F50 come stock with JJ 4.8 on 90mm rims, but frame accepts 2XL on 100mm. Fork (Bluto) limited to 4.8'' on 100mm rims.

X2 comes with 2XL on 100mm rims, ie. 5.2'' casing width. Both frame (aluminum) and fork (carbon) fit up to 5.6'' (ie. ''3XL'' on 100mm+rim)


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Espen W said:


> A few more out of Norway:
> -Diamant BLCK Diamond X1 (455mm CS)
> -Nakamura Big Bob F50 (455mm CS)
> -Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 (467mm SS)
> ...


New bikes this year? 
Finally more bikes made for 2xl, I like that.. 
Carbon with 3xl support, frikkin awesome. Reckon you can talk vee into production?

Sounds very nice! Do you have a link to pictures, specs and geometry?


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

GiantTurd said:


> Is the Blackborrow okay with 100mm rims? Or do they need to be 80mm to fit, read for hours but no one mentions their rim width or maybe I missed it.


Yes, I have (stock) 100mm Clownshoes..


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

Would this tire fit a SE [email protected] fork on stock 102mm rims?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

sissypants said:


> Would this tire fit a SE [email protected] fork on stock 102mm rims?


Assuming you have the fork, try this:

1. Find the widest point of your current tire, and make note of where that is on the inside of the fork. 
2. Find a point approx 1" higher on the fork and measure the inside width of the fork at this point. Less than 5.2" is a NO.

Next time I pull my wheel off I'll take measurements with pics to show what to look for to see if it'll fit.


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

Well by that standard I should be able to get by, but I was told by the SE staff that the [email protected] was not recommended to run with the 2XL as it might rub--so vague. I asked if they had ever tested it, and no reply.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

These fit on a Farley 7. Put them on last night. Lots of room to the seat tube and about 1/4-1/2 inch clearance to the seat stays and chain stays. Front is a non issue.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Tested with a Farley 5, not very succesful:
> 
> Some photos
> 
> ...


Do you have adjustable dropouts like the Farley 7? If so, slide them all the way to the rear. My bike has over an inch over clearance to BB/chain stay brace.


----------



## glockrocket17 (Aug 26, 2015)

That's awesome! Thanks headwind for showing these work on the Farley 7. I want to get a set for my winter tires. Did you use the mulfut wheels or something else. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

Hmmm......

I have been waiting three months for a D5 warranty claim and don't like what I'm hearing. 

Maybe this is an alternative with some DIY studs. Likely overkill for what I use the bike for though.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 21, 2015)

Jeff_G said:


> Hmmm......
> 
> I have been waiting three months for a D5 warranty claim and don't like what I'm hearing.
> 
> Maybe this is an alternative with some DIY studs. Likely overkill for what I use the bike for though.


Interesting...can you provide more detail about your issue?


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> Do you have adjustable dropouts like the Farley 7? If so, slide them all the way to the rear. My bike has over an inch over clearance to BB/chain stay brace.


They were in back position, just a quick test in lbs with my 2XL on their bike and Mulefut. Don't know what's going on, what size frame do you have?

I run those on 2016 L-size Blackborow with CS. Might test them again with Farley 9.6 when I mount them, currently on Bud+Lou..


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

The mules that came with the bike.
Beads were tight to get on and off though. Plan on using some soapy water.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

headwind said:


> Do you have adjustable dropouts like the Farley 7? If so, slide them all the way to the rear. My bike has over an inch over clearance to BB/chain stay brace.


Are those really 2xl tires and not only "two xl" tires? They look tiny on your bike, but perhaps its just the angle of the photos😉 
Please post some more close up shots of clearance around the bb and chainstays. It'd be nice to see how much space is there for mud/snow pileup..

I still can't believe my eyes that the Farley can fit those tires, the numbers doesn't add up. Due to the narrow bb and crank option (it's supposed to be able to run next sl on a short spindle) and having space for 2xl just blows my mind.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

The only difference between a 170 and 190 crank is spindle and spacers. Take out the spacers, flip the chainring around and use a shorter spindle. You have 190mm chainline still (so no change from stock) but narrower q factor for people that are bothered by wide.

The new Farley's are 190mm rear, not 170mm like the first versions, so the 2xl snowshoe is NOTHING for the bike to fit them with plenty of room.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

tigris99 said:


> The new Farley's are 190mm rear, not 170mm like the first versions, so the 2xl snowshoe is NOTHING for the bike to fit them with plenty of room.


And still they didn't rotate in 17.5" Farley 5..


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

dayooper said:


> Interesting...can you provide more detail about your issue?


Trying to give my LBS and 45North some leeway by being patient but......

I rode studded D5's for about 600+ miles last year. Admittedly and as intended 75% on tar with varying amounts of snow, ice slush but often just bare tar.

The center studs did not wear at all. They did however seat so far into the rubber that when I took them off in the spring the studs couldn't have snagged a silk shirt.

45North said they are warrantying them but did not expect them until November. (this was in August)

I may just ask for my money back and try to get an unstudded set and the XL studs (which aren't available either) or go a completely different route.

There is a winter fest this weekend at my LBS and last year I talked to the 45North rep who talked me into spending $500 on these tires. I told him how I was going to use them. So I will have a chat with him.

To be fair, I really liked these tires initially but they were noticeably less effective as the winter went on.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> And still they didn't rotate in 17.5" Farley 5..


Did that bike have the drop outs all the way to the rear?
Does the Farley 5 have the same dropouts the 7 has?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Andy81 said:


> Are those really 2xl tires and not only "two xl" tires? They look tiny on your bike, but perhaps its just the angle of the photos😉
> Please post some more close up shots of clearance around the bb and chainstays. It'd be nice to see how much space is there for mud/snow pileup..
> 
> I still can't believe my eyes that the Farley can fit those tires, the numbers doesn't add up. Due to the narrow bb and crank option (it's supposed to be able to run next sl on a short spindle) and having space for 2xl just blows my mind.


Haha
Nope. Those are 2XL pure silica tires. And they fit. No chain rub either.
I will take some pics in the daylight outside.
Mud clearance does not matter to me. There is no mud in a Saskatchewan winter when its -35. No sticky snow either.


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Jeff_G said:


> Trying to give my LBS and 45North some leeway by being patient but......
> 
> I rode studded D5's for about 600+ miles last year. Admittedly and as intended 75% on tar with varying amounts of snow, ice slush but often just bare tar.
> 
> ...


I put spacers under mine and it made a world of difference. I made them from some fiber gasket sheets and punched them with a paper punch, then put them under each stud.

I put them under just the outside rows and was still able to climb up a small ice flow that I previously had issues with.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

tigris99 said:


> The only difference between a 170 and 190 crank is spindle and spacers. Take out the spacers, flip the chainring around and use a shorter spindle. You have 190mm chainline still (so no change from stock) but narrower q factor for people that are bothered by wide.
> 
> The new Farley's are 190mm rear, not 170mm like the first versions, so the 2xl snowshoe is NOTHING for the bike to fit them with plenty of room.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Assuming this was the answer to my narrow bb/crank on farley post, I'll explain (nerd alert☺) :

The reason bb and cranks got everything to do with vee 2xl is when you get to this size you need room. There's a remarkable difference between bikes (yea, the 190mm rear ones) at this point, and off course170mm rear is out of the question here.

The way it works is like this:

First off bb, with 100mm you need more bend at the chainstays than say 120mm or the surly/salsa offset 132mm

More bend means you've gotta have longer chainstays to fit 32" wide tires like the 2xl. Due to the bend. That's why on so many bikes there's the rubbing/space issue due to the tire diameter when trying vee 2xl.

Now lets talk width:

Say you have 130mm tire width. Add 10mm each side for clearance, that takes you to 150mm. Then add roughly 10mm frame on each side (chainstays x2) that takes you to 170-175mm then add space to clear the crank arms, that takes you to 180-185 at the minimum between the crank arms.

This is the space you need between crank arms to fit your bike and those tires.

Now lets look at cranks. 
Next sl on 169,5 spindle gives roughly 175-180mm between crank arms. 
Turbines on 169,5 gives roughly 185-190mm
Next sl on 189,5 gives roughly 195-200mm
Turnines on 189,5 gives roughly 205-210mm 
This is space between crank arms, not q (q is 203, 213, 223 and 233 on the mentioned setups.

Most factory frames want more clearance than minimum. Since frames vary in shape, bend, width, etc you can normally say that a frame made for a narrow crank/spindle will have less room for tires than a fame made for a wide crank/spindle..

Let's apply this to frames:

Quering (tripple b) for instance is made solely for the RF turbine cinch and the 190 spindle. That is to have room for tires, it's not due to the rear spacing. That particular setup gives 233mm q and roughly 205-210mm between the crank arms. This is a "190mm" rear bike.

That bike has room for 3xl with good clearance.

The Farley:

Made to fit next sl on a 169,5mm spindle. That gives q203mm and roughly 175-180mm between the arms. Since this is a factory frame they want more clearance everywhere 
Let's work it down; 175mm between the crank arms -10mm clearance (5mm each side) - 20mm frame (chainstay x2) - 20mm tire clearance (10mm each side) = 125mm max tire width. (if the frame is optimised in terms of shape, bend, width, etc)

These are rough numbers, so perhaps even more mm should be removed..

Anyway. 125mm is approx what 2xl on 80mm rims builds too, so that's not 'plenty of room'. Tire stretch, untru/wobble, etc is not taken into consideration here.

With the shape of the chainstays and the bb on the Farley, I'd thought it would look like it did on the Farley 5 that was posted earlier, but apparently it fits OK on the Farley 7. The frames should be identical, so here I'm at a loss. But I guess pictures never lie so it's nice to see Farley as an option for 2xl. Based on numbers I'd say 100mm rims is out, but by the looks on those pictures 80mm is somewhat safe.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> They were in back position, just a quick test in lbs with my 2XL on their bike and Mulefut. Don't know what's going on, what size frame do you have?
> 
> I run those on 2016 L-size Blackborow with CS. Might test them again with Farley 9.6 when I mount them, currently on Bud+Lou..


I have a 17.5. And even with tire wobble ect they seem to fit just fine.
So add the Farley 7 to the list.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Andy81 said:


> Assuming this was the answer to my narrow bb/crank on farley post, I'll explain (nerd alert☺) :
> 
> The Farley:
> 
> ...


The Farley 7 does not have 20mm wide chainstays. More like 5mm wide where they curve around the tire. Tall and narrow. Maybe this is where the missing mm are coming from.
Also the Farley 7 is 197mm rear, not 190 as mentioned earlier.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> I have a 17.5. And even with tire wobble ect they seem to fit just fine.
> So add the Farley 7 to the list.


Tested with Farley 7 and 9.6, both 17.5": didn't fit with 100mm rim (125mm width only). Pressure was 0.4bar. I can't understand how these fit in yours.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Tested with Farley 7 and 9.6, both 17.5": didn't fit with 100mm rim (125mm width only). Pressure was 0.4bar. I can't understand how these fit in yours.


Well, fit they do!


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> Well, fit they do!


How wide that is?

Not the best photos, but...


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Another pic until I get outside.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

GiantTurd said:


> LMAO, THAT is not fitting!


Yeah, I can't understand this at all..

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

I'm so confused. The only way this makes sense is if one bike has the dropouts all the way back and the other doesn't.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Jeff_G said:


> I'm so confused. The only way this makes sense is if one bike has the dropouts all the way back and the other doesn't.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Couple more pics.
The rims are what came with the bike which are the Mulfut 80's I believe.


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

GiantTurd said:


> Maybe the other has 65mm or 70mm rims.


I'm no expert but wouldn't the narrow rim width narrow the width of the tire and increase the diameter? The picture of it fitting shows there is plenty of room diameter wise.

Whoops, edited it.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Jeff_G said:


> I'm no expert but wouldn't the rim width narrow the tire and decrease the diameter? The picture of it fitting shows there is plenty of room diameter wise.


A wider rim will make the tire a bit wider, a narrower rim will make the tire a bit taller.
Both have their advantages based on your riding.
Where I ride I would rather have the 80 for more sidewall protection and height. If I was flying around on hardpack the 100 would probably handle better.
But this is a snow bike. It never gets ridden on dirt.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

headwind said:


> Another pic until I get outside.


Dude, guard that frame and those tires with your life. That's a nice fit.

There's something special going on though, ekke's photos, and the Farley 5 posted earlier is how 2xl are "supposed" to (not) fit the Farley frame. The length of the chainstay, the width of the bike, etc dictates that they should not fit.

I really like the Farley, and I think it's a sweet ride. The reason why I'm not riding it is due to the (normally) lack of 2xl support. Seeing them on yours made me slightly jealous ?

How you've managed a fit that nice is beyond me, but I believe you've got something special. Wrongly branded tires? special edition frame? some manufacture mistake? 
Whatever it is keep it and ride it.

For everyone else getting their hopes up, having seen one 5, one 7, and one 9.6 not fitting 2xl, makes me think they normally does not fit the Farley.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I bought the Farley from my LBS and I ordered the 2XL's from them as well. Had to wait a year to get the tires.
Nothing special about either purchase though.
If anyone with a Farley 7 wants to run them I say buy one and fit it on the back first.
My Farley 7 is a 2016. The tires came in a week or so ago.
Maybe Vee has reduced the sidewall height? In the pics of the Farley 5 and 9.6 the tire seems to be rubbing above the notch where the frame is widest.
Maybe Vee reduced the sidewall height so the tire isn't as tall?
Trek says the Farley 7 can fit 5 inch tires, and these tire are 5 inches wide. But as you can see with the pics these are the biggest tires that can be fitted to this frame.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Test ride went great. No rubbing at all and the tires handle well at 5 psi rear 4 psi front. Its a gloomy dark day here. Now we need some snow.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

headwind said:


> I bought the Farley from my LBS and I ordered the 2XL's from them as well. Had to wait a year to get the tires.
> Nothing special about either purchase though.
> If anyone with a Farley 7 wants to run them I say buy one and fit it on the back first.
> My Farley 7 is a 2016. The tires came in a week or so ago.
> ...


This all sounds very weird. Headwind, can you tell us how wide your tires are and at what PSI?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

bikeny said:


> This all sounds very weird. Headwind, can you tell us how wide your tires are and at what PSI?


The pics in the basement are at 20psi.
I'm at 4 and 5 psi now.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

headwind said:


> The pics in the basement are at 20psi.
> I'm at 4 and 5 psi now.


But how wide are they?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Tape measure says 5 inches.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> Tape measure says 5 inches.


How about diameter? I bought mine in february..


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> How about diameter? I bought mine in february..


No idea on that.
These are just off the shelf 2XL tires. The lbs ordered 4 and I picked 2 boxes at random.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

OK I went and pumped one back up to 20 psi.
My digital caliper says 5.02 inches wide.
With a tape measure and a level the tire appears to be over 31 inches tall. It's kind of hard to be exact but 31 1/4 to 31 1/2 would be pretty close.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Andy81 said:


> Dude, guard that frame and those tires with your life. That's a nice fit.
> 
> There's something special going on though, ekke's photos, and the Farley 5 posted earlier is how 2xl are "supposed" to (not) fit the Farley frame. The length of the chainstay, the width of the bike, etc dictates that they should not fit.
> 
> ...


Well, these tires will never fit the Farley 5 due to the fork. The 5 fork is not the same carbon fork the 7 has. It is aluminum and has a cross brace above the tire. The Farley 9.6 is carbon and has smaller inside dimensions and its a 27.5 with 4.5 inch tires. Never could you squeeze these tires in that frame. The seat stays are thicker and even looking at the 4.5 tire in there I can see there is not enough room. I don't even think the tires that come on a 7 would fit in the 9.6.


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

Just wanted to say that the 2XL fits [email protected] frames with about 0.2" to spare on either side. Fits at all pressures, running this on stock 102mm rims with a Nashbar 4-4.9" tube. I'm now running the stock Bulldozer in the rear and the 2XL in the front--amazing combo!


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

sissypants said:


> I'm now running the stock Bulldozer in the rear and the 2XL in the front--amazing combo!


Swap them, I have Bud in the front and 2XL in the rear


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

GiantTurd said:


> Yea, most people are using these with 100mm rim, with a 100mm there would no chance of fitting.


Maybe. They would certainly be wider. My bike came with 80's and that's what I'm going to use.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

RST renegade should clear these tires. it says 5" clearance on their website, bluto wont clear because fork arch looks completely different


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

GiantTurd said:


> Yea, most people are using these with 100mm rim, with a 100mm there would no chance of fitting.


Only a little difference in the widht or height, it's more the shape of the sides. Mine 2XLs are settled to Ø800 mm and 130 mm at 4-7 PSI tubeless.


----------



## Johanneson (May 24, 2012)

Bought a set last season. Rode them maybe 10hrs, always at crinkly sidewall low psi, and they both started to delaminate this last week.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

Like this?









This was after 7 months/620 km at May 2016. I got a new one directly from Vee Tire/Taiwan, but it took several months. I have not changed it yet, it's looked about the same after that.


----------



## Johanneson (May 24, 2012)

Yep.


----------



## Johanneson (May 24, 2012)

And I'm not hating on Vee, it's a cool tyre. Stuff happens.


----------



## Luis_fx35 (Sep 1, 2015)

sissypants said:


> Just wanted to say that the 2XL fits [email protected] frames with about 0.2" to spare on either side. Fits at all pressures, running this on stock 102mm rims with a Nashbar 4-4.9" tube. I'm now running the stock Bulldozer in the rear and the 2XL in the front--amazing combo!


Just to clarify. Are you saying that the 2xl snowshoes fit the front and rear of the [email protected] and [email protected] even on 20psi?


----------



## sissypants (Sep 7, 2016)

I am saying I am physically running the 2XL snowshoe on the front of the [email protected] and it looks like it will fit in the rear as well. I have yet to try that but all my measurements predict it will fit just fine.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> OK I went and pumped one back up to 20 psi.
> My digital caliper says 5.02 inches wide.
> With a tape measure and a level the tire appears to be over 31 inches tall. It's kind of hard to be exact but 31 1/4 to 31 1/2 would be pretty close.


Mine is 125mm and 791mm so about 4.92" & 31.14" and doesn't fit in 2017 Farley 5, 7 or 9.6.. Have Trek changed Farley stays 2016->2017?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Mine is 125mm and 791mm so about 4.92" & 31.14" and doesn't fit in 2017 Farley 5, 7 or 9.6.. Have Trek changed Farley stays 2016->2017?


I went and remeasured the tires at 4 psi. Now I get 4.9 inches or so to the treads. 
The lbs where I bought these from may mount another set on a 17.5 Farley that they have on the floor. That bike is a 2017. I am interested to see if they fit and I have no reason to doubt they won't.
Unless Trek has changed the stays slightly. 
In the meantime I'm riding mine. These big tires have totally changed how I ride in deep snow.


----------



## Mr. Doom (Sep 23, 2005)

Velobike said:


> The 6" tyre can only be a year away now...


And no fat Pike either.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

GiantTurd said:


> View attachment 1108814
> 
> 
> View attachment 1108815
> ...


I have an ICT and the 2XL fits fine tubeless on hundos (Nexties) with no rubbing. I have the tires on 80mm mulefuts now and as some others have mentioned, the size doesn't change much between 80mm and 100mm rims; it's more the shape of the sidewall being more vertical with hundos.


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*width*



Läskimasa said:


> Mine 2XLs are settled to Ø800 mm and 130 mm at 4-7 PSI tubeless.


As measured using a brake rotor digital caliper, my XXL is also 130mm at widest point on sidewalls at 3psi with tube on a 100mm rim after about 50 hours of beach riding over 10 weeks.


----------



## fthefox (Nov 27, 2005)

I have Clownshoes and it fits.


----------



## ronnieb (May 8, 2009)

thank you for posting the photos. What dropouts do you have on the ICT?


----------



## ronnieb (May 8, 2009)

Doesn't Surly have a slotted version which would allow some more room for the 2XL?


----------



## ronnieb (May 8, 2009)

I assumed these Surly slotted thru-axle MDS chips would work on an ICT
https://www.modernbike.com/surly-mds-12mm-thru-axle-slotted-with-hanger

Is that a wrong assumption?


----------



## Luis_fx35 (Sep 1, 2015)

Have anyone tried the 2xl on the rear of the [email protected] or [email protected]? I read a couple of posts here and on the [email protected] thread but nobody has actually tried the tire in the rear, no pics either. Can someone confirm this? I need to know if the Fuji wendingo/[email protected]/[email protected] frames fit the 2xl in any pressure up to the max psi without rubbing on the frame. Thanks


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

From yesterdays ride @ 0.15bar:


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

Did my first snow ride in today's winter storm on these tires. Works fantastic. This particular trail is hard clay soil with a few roots under the snow. 100MM rims with 5.05" tires works really well, more time pedaling than slipping around on 3.8's.


----------



## Luis_fx35 (Sep 1, 2015)

*4.5 snowshoe and 2xl snowshoe combo*

Fits my 250mm Sarma fork with 100mm wheels (up to 15 psi) and fits 80mm any psi . I regret not getting the 265mm or the 290mmm but the 250 was the only one in stock back in the summer. I have a ICT thru-axle fork on the way because I thought my Sarma fork was not going to work.


----------



## Xethur (Dec 6, 2014)

Wow, a huffy with 5s. Thats pretty awesome.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I'm at 3psi now and may go even lower. These tires have very good grip on the snow and ice. It was -28 and the tires just folded over the snow and ice chunks in the frozen creek.


----------



## fthefox (Nov 27, 2005)

Best tyre for floatation but too much tyre for my riding. Very specific tyre. They are for sale. Two rides. Pm me. $200/pair.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

First ride on my brand new 2016 Blackborow with 2XL's this AM. We have 5" of wet snow and I was late for work so only had 3 minutes to ride! First ride through yard with 6psi and tires behaved like my Bud/Nate combo in fresh snow: front wheel washout and no traction. Deflated to 1 psi and it was a new bike: floated on top with endless traction and no wash-out! I'm psyched! May have reached free-range snowbike nirvana.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Another Trek Farley 7 at the lbs with Snowshoe 2XLs.
Clearance is the same as on my bike. They fit well with the 80mm rims that come with the bike.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Madness, maybe those fit with 80mm rims then.. But not in 5, without modifications at least.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

GiantTurd said:


> Sad day. Went to ride this morning and the rear tire had swelled to the point in was stopped by the seat tube. No go, had to put a JJ 4.8. Need different drop outs.


Yea, you need these dropouts: Surly, art.no FS2008, when pushed back the wheel will easily clear the seat tube.


----------



## jludwig (Jan 24, 2015)

I installed the 2XL on my 2016 Motobecane Boris the Brut. They fit within the stays well, but the chain in lowest gear (smallest chain ring/largest cog) is within 2-3 mm. I have modified the chainline with spindle spacers out about 4 mm. Is 6-7mm enough clearance off of the chain? This is at the closest point as the tire rotates; I see about a 2mm variance. BTW, my drive train is 2x10.

Also, is there a way to space the freewheel body out from the hub so I can keep the chainline the same as it was? I don't know if this will matter, but I'd like to do it if it is possible. I can't space the cassette of of the freewheel body, because there is no room.


----------



## jludwig (Jan 24, 2015)

I have the tires at 10 psi.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

I have mine a little bit lower..

Front:


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

jludwig said:


> I installed the 2XL on my 2016 Motobecane Boris the Brut. They fit within the stays well, but the chain in lowest gear (smallest chain ring/largest cog) is within 2-3 mm. I have modified the chainline with spindle spacers out about 4 mm. Is 6-7mm enough clearance off of the chain? This is at the closest point as the tire rotates; I see about a 2mm variance. BTW, my drive train is 2x10.
> 
> Also, is there a way to space the freewheel body out from the hub so I can keep the chainline the same as it was? I don't know if this will matter, but I'd like to do it if it is possible. I can't space the cassette of of the freewheel body, because there is no room.


The lockring has only so many threads to grab. Some cassettes already have a spacer (Mavic for example) and you can remove that to run an 11 speed cassette.
So no, it won't work for you in this situation.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

headwind said:


> Another Trek Farley 7 at the lbs with Snowshoe 2XLs.
> Clearance is the same as on my bike. They fit well with the 80mm rims that come with the bike.


Tubeless?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

brilleaux said:


> Tubeless?


Nope. Installed with tubes. Its a brand new bike so that makes sense.
I will be going tubeless this weekend if I get some time.


----------



## jludwig (Jan 24, 2015)

The Snowshoe 2XL is not going to work for my bike. Even with spindle spacers the chain is too close. Is anyone in the Salt Lake City area interested in buying it? I paid $104, but I'm going to lose a fair amount sending it back. I'd be willing to sell it locally for $85. Otherwise, I'll just send it back. I put it on, tried to move the crank out to make it fit. I rode it on my driveway and decided I didn't want to risk the tire hitting the chain.


----------



## jludwig (Jan 24, 2015)

Here is my KSL classifieds listing for my tire in case anyone in the SLC area is interested: https://www.ksl.com/classifieds/listing/42583554


----------



## Outsider (Jan 1, 2007)

Got my Surly ICT frame today and started assembling the bike. 2XL on Clownshoes fit well with the rear wheel furthest back in the dropouts (12 mm slotted MDS dropout). The tires had been aired up to about 0.7 bar for two weeks, so they should have stretched a little by now.


----------



## Saw (Mar 24, 2012)

I don't know if this has been stated yet on this thread but you can add another bike frame that will fit the 2XL come April 2017. 
That is when Surley will release the Big Fat Dummy with 197mm rear axle which will be able to fit up to 5.25" tires. 
I've dreamt of this bike for years now. Can't wait to see it.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Saw said:


> I don't know if this has been stated yet on this thread but you can add another bike frame that will fit the 2XL come April 2017.
> That is when Surley will release the Big Fat Dummy with 197mm rear axle which will be able to fit up to 5.25" tires.
> I've dreamt of this bike for years now. Can't wait to see it.


no offense, ^ this bike looks hideous.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

specalized fatboy carbon fork clears these tires when you remove brake caliper first

and i contacted rst usa, they send me RST renegade production dimensions. looks like RST renegade wont clear by about 5mm at the arch

i bought a wren inverted fork. should come in soon, will test it out and report back

here are couple of pictures of clearance on specalized fatboy fork @12psi on mulefut rims


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Beside the flotation, these tires (the PSC) are very good in extreme cold. I got to ride them in -47 temps this weekend. They stay pliable and grip the ice and snow very predictably. It's not all marketing hype when Vee says these things work in the cold. I've spent many winters on bikes in this weather and all the tires I've ridden get as hard as the ice they are being ridden on. I even road on the frozen creek on the way back with little trouble.


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

2017 Rocky Mountain Blizzard 30 degree build. 2XL will fit the front fork with at least 10mm clearance on each side. No go on the back, tire is too tall.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

It's so easy with 2XL


----------



## jludwig (Jan 24, 2015)

I no longer have the 2XL. I traded it locally for a Surly Lou.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

I'm now the proud owner of a 2016 Blackborow with 2XL tires on Clownshoes, running 1x10 with Next SL crankset. Here's my initial ride reports: 
Set up tubeless in front easily, haven’t gotten around to doing the rear yet. First ride was on about 3” of very firm snow running 4psi. Amazing traction and great ride. 2nd ride on 5” dry powder on technical single track with some steep climbs. Ran < 1psi. Very slow going and had to walk steeper climbs. My buddies riding up to 4.8” did much worse and walked a lot more. I was a little disappointed that I had to walk at all but it was clearly an advantage over the lesser tires. 3rd ride was the next day after significant warm-up (mid 40’s) and rain. I thought the ride would be terrible in what we call “sherbert” snow; tires were great. Much better than previous day; great ride and I could climb all but the steepest punchy climbs. No one else came out that day so no basis for comparison. Changes in the works: going to replace the 28t with 26t chainring; limiting factor of propulsion is the motor more than traction, so I need help! Surprisingly cramped cockpit for a medium frame as I’m 5’6” and could theoretically fit on a small frame. Going to replace the 70mm stem with a 100mm. Keeping weight forward in the snow reduces front wheel washout and balances weight to reduce rear wheel digging a trench, so the longer stem will help there too. Also, when in largest cog, chain slips down the cassette if I backpedal due to the chainline. This is a problem because whenever I dismount, I need to backpedal to get the pedal in a power position to get started, and inevitably the chain slips down to mid-cassette. I’m thinking that when I replace the chainring I’ll try moving a spacer from drive side to non-drive side to bring the chainline closer to the large cog (hopefully without causing chain-tire rub).


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Pics please.. 

And buy 26t oval, it's A LOT better in deep snow. And in hard surface with low pressure. And better in "normal" riding too.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Ask and you shall receive!


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

campykid said:


> Ask and you shall receive!


Thanks, nice to see others black Blackborows, I love mine. 

Have you tried those tires otherway? I haven't tried mine that way..


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

campykid said:


> Ask and you shall receive!


Beautiful!! And pretty much exactly what I want to set up for myself, once I find a BB frame that I can afford. For now I'll keep slogging along on my Bikes Direct fatties with a big smile...


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

campykid said:


> I'm now the proud owner of a 2016 Blackborow with 2XL tires on Clownshoes, running 1x10 with Next SL crankset. Here's my initial ride reports:
> Set up tubeless in front easily, haven't gotten around to doing the rear yet. First ride was on about 3" of very firm snow running 4psi. Amazing traction and great ride. 2nd ride on 5" dry powder on technical single track with some steep climbs. Ran < 1psi. Very slow going and had to walk steeper climbs. My buddies riding up to 4.8" did much worse and walked a lot more. I was a little disappointed that I had to walk at all but it was clearly an advantage over the lesser tires.


Dry, fluffy powder can be very challenging, but with these tires in these conditions, you can take them down to 0psi, huge difference vs for example 1psi.
Lift the rear tire, push on the valve until no more air.
(reason why you should lift the tire is to avoid introducing a vacuum, ie negative pressure, even though that works too. One you get on the bike, a slight pressure will form in the tires due to volume changing from compression of the tire.
Remember to let air out of the front as well, as that makes a huge difference in the loose stuff, it slows down twitchyness and gives you time to correct. A more stable and straighter tracking front front end improves drive traction as well.
This is why running a 2XL on the front of bikes that can not run it on the rear is helpful in loose snow as you can take it down to lower pressures than any other tire.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

headwind said:


> Beside the flotation, these tires (the PSC) are very good in extreme cold. I got to ride them in -47 temps this weekend. They stay pliable and grip the ice and snow very predictably. It's not all marketing hype when Vee says these things work in the cold. I've spent many winters on bikes in this weather and all the tires I've ridden get as hard as the ice they are being ridden on. I even road on the frozen creek on the way back with little trouble.


-47 actual temperature???

You have my respect! I would have been at home stoking the fire at those temps!


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

headwind said:


> I went and remeasured the tires at 4 psi. Now I get 4.9 inches or so to the treads.
> The lbs where I bought these from may mount another set on a 17.5 Farley that they have on the floor. That bike is a 2017. I am interested to see if they fit and I have no reason to doubt they won't.
> Unless Trek has changed the stays slightly.
> In the meantime I'm riding mine. These big tires have totally changed how I ride in deep snow.


I have the same bike as you Headwind. but in a 19.5.

Let us know how it goes running tubeless

I can't believe these may fit my bike but it's an expensive trial.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Espen,
Thanks for the tips. 1 psi was a rough guess; I can compress the tire to the rim with 1 finger but was not brave enough to let all the air out while holding the tire up as you have described before. I will try that next time. Alas, the powder is gone, now firm crusty snow that the tires break through and bogs you down. Need some good grooming!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

campykid said:


> Espen,
> Thanks for the tips. 1 psi was a rough guess; I can compress the tire to the rim with 1 finger but was not brave enough to let all the air out while holding the tire up as you have described before. I will try that next time. Alas, the powder is gone, now firm crusty snow that the tires break through and bogs you down. Need some good grooming!


Try super low pressure on that crust as well:




That is 0psi in my 5.6's in the vid above.
The bike was 22.9lbs, I was 148lbs then (last Easter)
(approx 133lbs now for even mo' betterer crust/powderability  )


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

I want those 5.6's! I also want a 22.9 lb bike. What rims are you using? My powder bike (Blackborow/2XL's) weighs 33 lbs; my packed snow bike (carbon frame/Hed 85's/Next SL/Bud/Dunderbeist) is 23.5 lbs. Depending on how much I like the powder bike I may splurge and get Hed 100's; maybe next year.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

campykid said:


> My powder bike (Blackborow/2XL's) weighs 33 lbs


How have you weighted that? With 2XL and pedals? That's light.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

campykid said:


> I want those 5.6's! I also want a 22.9 lb bike. What rims are you using? My powder bike (Blackborow/2XL's) weighs 33 lbs; my packed snow bike (carbon frame/Hed 85's/Next SL/Bud/Dunderbeist) is 23.5 lbs. Depending on how much I like the powder bike I may splurge and get Hed 100's; maybe next year.


570g carbon rims, but who knows who makes them 
(OEM secret)
My packed snow bike (has 4.5'' effective tire width on 100mm carbon rims) is 17.9lbs with pedals and bottle cage, so the 22.9lb aluminum bike with 5.6'' tires in the video above is my heavy one, but still the one that I pick for almost any ride on snow, as you get spoiled by the ability to go virtually anywhere.
5.6 (and also the 5.2'' of the production 2XLs) is just in another universe vs medium sized tires (4.8 and smaller).

The single ply construction of my 5.6's adds flotation and grip vs the production 5.2'' 2XL, in additition to more volume, of course (315mm bead to bead vs 298mm)

Tell Vee Rubber that you want them 
(I'm doing my part to get them into production, but the more the merrier as they say)


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

I feel a trip to Norway evolving. I just may have to slip into your garage and "borrow" your bikes!


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Ekke said:


> How have you weighted that? With 2XL and pedals? That's light.


Weighed with relatively heavy aluminum ATAC pedals and 2XL, tubeless front, tubed rear. Running 1x10 with Next SL cranks which knocks significant weight off of stock. Hope to lose 1/2 lb when I go tubeless rear.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

campykid said:


> Weighed with relatively heavy aluminum ATAC pedals and 2XL, tubeless front, tubed rear. Running 1x10 with Next SL cranks which knocks significant weight off of stock. Hope to lose 1/2 lb when I go tubeless rear.


You can probably run the 2XLs tubeless vurtually without any sealant.
I run 1oz in my front and less than 2oz in the rear, and they are single ply, so the production 2 ply will likely hold air better with even less sealant.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Espen W said:


> 570g carbon rims, but who knows who makes them
> (OEM secret)
> My packed snow bike (has 4.5'' effective tire width on 100mm carbon rims) is 17.9lbs with pedals and bottle cage, so the 22.9lb aluminum bike with 5.6'' tires in the video above is my heavy one, but still the one that I pick for almost any ride on snow, as you get spoiled by the ability to go virtually anywhere.
> 5.6 (and also the 5.2'' of the production 2XLs) is just in another universe vs medium sized tires (4.8 and smaller).
> ...


Espen, 
Thanks for posting all the videos and photos of these tires. I've literally spent hours reading, watching and researching bikes mentioned in this thread. I've got a single 2XL on the way but it certainly doesn't look promising that it will fit the rear of my Fatboy. I'm going to try and am good with shaving off side knobs for additional clearance but will likely just end up running it in the front with my Lou in back.

Do you have a contact for Vee rubber to send my request that they come out with the 3XL's? Those look perfect for my conditions in Alaska. I'm thinking skip the 2XL phase and go straight to the 3XL's because for my weight and conditions, the more float the better. Is Nakamura planning to come out with a bike?


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

*One Up Expansion Surgery for 2XL's*

To carry my 2XL's on my One Up Roof Rack I had to do some expansion surgery. I machined four 3/8" spacers and two 3/4" spacers and replaced the 6" bolts with 7" bolts (5/16" x 18tpi) and the tires fit nicely.


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

ak-rider said:


> I've got a single 2XL on the way but it certainly doesn't look promising that it will fit the rear of my Fatboy. I'm going to try


Sorry, but you have NO any kind of change, 2XL is way too tall and chainstays inside width is very close the same than 2XL's width.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Läskimasa said:


> Sorry, but you have NO any kind of change, 2XL is way too tall and chainstays inside width is very close the same than 2XL's width.


I agree, but even though you told me that before months ago in my Fatboy thread I didn't want to believe it. I want bigger tires that bad! 😄 Now that I aired up my Lou to 30 psi, it's obvious that a larger tire won't fit on my small frame Fatboy as a 30 psi Lou is too big to rotate without rubbing. Now I'm looking at what bike to buy that could take 3XL's.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

ak-rider said:


> I agree, but even though you told me that before months ago in my Fatboy thread I didn't want to believe it. I want bigger tires that bad! 😄 Now that I aired up my Lou to 30 psi, it's obvious that a larger tire won't fit on my small frame Fatboy as a 30 psi Lou is too big to rotate without rubbing. Now I'm looking at what bike to buy that could take 3XL's.


Either buy quering tripple B or wait for Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 if you want 3xl support


----------



## frl (Jul 22, 2014)

Andy81 said:


> Either buy quering tripple B or wait for Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 if you want 3xl support


I'm waiting for x2. And I hope vee makes the 3xl 5.6" with single ply. Or shwalbe makes jumbo jim in 5.5". That would be awesome


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Is there any word on the production of 3XL?
After spending time on these 2XL I am very intrigued. But what current frames could fit this monster?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Headwind, I believe the Quiring Triple B supports 3XL's.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

BansheeRune said:


> Headwind, I believe the Quiring Triple B supports 3XL's.


Yep. It does. Remember reading the initial reviews and Quiring stated that they specifically engineered for possible 3XL.

Only question I have is whether that specific frame is designed for the ginormous 3XL prototype Espen's riding around on 3 ft. of snow with or some unknown future reduced production run size that's only moderately larger than 2XL.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Clayncedar said:


> Yep. It does. Remember reading the initial reviews and Quiring stated that they specifically engineered for possible 3XL.
> 
> Only question I have is whether that specific frame is designed for the ginormous 3XL prototype Espen's riding around on 3 ft. of snow with or some unknown future reduced production run size that's only moderately larger than 2XL.


I was thinking the same thing.
But there is nothing wrong with having the ability to run even larger rubber if it becomes available.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Andy81 said:


> Either buy quering tripple B or wait for Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 if you want 3xl support


Thanks, I've visited the Quiring site many times now. I like that they are made in the USA.



Clayncedar said:


> Yep. It does. Remember reading the initial reviews and Quiring stated that they specifically engineered for possible 3XL.
> 
> Only question I have is whether that specific frame is designed for the ginormous 3XL prototype Espen's riding around on 3 ft. of snow with or some unknown future reduced production run size that's only moderately larger than 2XL.


That's my concern as well. I'd want it to be future proofed to some extent as I tend to keep my bikes for many years. I think there is real potential for extra large sized tires. They would increase the number of days I could ride my bike during the winter.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Reading through the Quiring site again it says the Triple B is built for the 5.1" tire. It's got lots of clearance for the 5.1 but I don't think it has enough to take a 5.6".


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Not a fact, but:
https://fat-bike.com/2016/02/quiring-triple-b-mid-term-report/

"The tire clearances on this bike are excellent even with the 2XL tires. The frame could easily fit the rumored 5.6″ Snowshoe 3XL tire."


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

Ekke said:


> Not a fact, but:
> https://fat-bike.com/2016/02/quiring-triple-b-mid-term-report/
> 
> "The tire clearances on this bike are excellent even with the 2XL tires. The frame could easily fit the rumored 5.6″ Snowshoe 3XL tire."


Yeah, that's where I read it. My bad- not from Quiring himself.

I've never seen the current Triple-B in person but I'd bet there's probably adequate room for something 5.4ish coming out someday. The one pic I saw showed a definitely good amount of space at the stays around the 2XL.

Like ak-rider, guessing that a true 5.6" on 100mm rims in there could be like jamming Bud/Lou on Clownshoes on a Fatboy - it'll work but its new tirewhisker-rubbing close with a sidedish of scraped-off mud/snow now and then.

Would love someone with a Triple-B to hop on here and give us the lowdown on 2XL/100mm rim measurements at the stays to ballpark it.


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

Clayncedar said:


> Yeah, that's where I read it. My bad- not from Quiring himself.
> 
> I've never seen the current Triple-B in person but I'd bet there's probably adequate room for something 5.4ish coming out someday. The one pic I saw showed a definitely good amount of space at the stays around the 2XL.
> 
> ...


Look back through my posts, that's what I ride and posted here. I can look at this later tonight.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

i have a fatboy even at 2 psi these tires wont turn


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

akacoke said:


> i have a fatboy even at 2 psi these tires wont turn


I like the optimism of trying to make 2XL go in a Fatboy or were you talking about the Bud/Lou 100 mm rim deal?


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

Steve Balogh said:


> Look back through my posts, that's what I ride and posted here. I can look at this later tonight.


Cool. Which Triple-B do you have? I've seen pics of the one in blue - looks sharp.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Blackborow update: switched stem from 70 to 100mm; much better riding position. Switched 28 to 26t chainring; a little more low end torque. Moved 2 spacers from drive to nondrive side; chain still drops down cassette when backpedaling in large cog, but maybe less so and no chain rub. Set up rear tubeless and dropped to 32 lbs. Some air leak where white tread meets black sidewall, eventually sealed but makes me nervous about future delamination.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Clayncedar said:


> I like the optimism of trying to make 2XL go in a Fatboy or were you talking about the Bud/Lou 100 mm rim deal?


nope it wasnt me. i knew they werent gonna fit anyways just wanted to see. i bought XXLs for future bike with wren fork


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

Clayncedar said:


> Cool. Which Triple-B do you have? I've seen pics of the one in blue - looks sharp.


If you are talking of Scott's website, yes the two tone blue one is mine. I also have the ti fatty with the half blue fade to silver fork. Here's some pics and dimensions:

https://sb.smugmug.com/Other/Quiring-Triple-B/i-pnK3gQW

Keep in mind I have sliding drops, so that can adjust tire clearance a bit also.

Drive side clearance: Best case off the flat of the yoke to sidewall of tire: 32/64", worse case off of weld: 26/64".

Non drive side clearance: Best case off of flat of yoke: 26/64", worse case off of weld: 20/64"

So for total clearance: Worse case is 26/64+20/64=46/64", best case is 32/64+26/64=58/64" So off the flat of the yokes you get almost an extra 1" for adding .55" for a 5.6" wide tire. Worse case off the weld is a total of .71", so the room is there. Also consider his frames do not twist like many other bikes. I have tight clearance on the other fat bike with 4.8" on 90MM rims, but the rear does not twist, I've never had tire rub.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Andy81 said:


> Search this thread, a list was compiled earlier mentioning all custom and factory bikes that can fit these tires. (there are only a handful in existence)
> I'll see if i can find it for you..
> 
> Edit:
> ...


Add to the list rhe KHS 4 seasons 3000. This afternoon I spoke with a bike dealer who had a set of 2XL's mounted on it and they'd ridden it. They believe but we're not positive that they'd fit on the 1000, but had not yet tried it. I called because I was interested in a KHS 4 seasons 1000.


----------



## RagerXS (Jul 10, 2006)

Espen W said:


> You can probably run the 2XLs tubeless vurtually without any sealant.
> I run 1oz in my front and less than 2oz in the rear, and they are single ply, so the production 2 ply will likely hold air better with even less sealant.


This sounds marvelous, but doesn't the sealant form a coating inside the tire? Seems like not much would be left...


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

maybe the 190 reared kona WO will clear these tires too, they have the sliding drop out


----------



## Läskimasa (Jul 8, 2015)

akacoke said:


> maybe the 190 reared kona WO will clear these tires too, they have the sliding drop out


Yeah, but it won't turn.


----------



## alexkraemer (Jul 30, 2007)

ak-rider said:


> Add to the list rhe KHS 4 seasons 3000. This afternoon I spoke with a bike dealer who had a set of 2XL's mounted on it and they'd ridden it. They believe but we're not positive that they'd fit on the 1000, but had not yet tried it. I called because I was interested in a KHS 4 seasons 1000.


Did they try this with the stock 80mm rims or with 100mm rims?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

alexkraemer said:


> Did they try this with the stock 80mm rims or with 100mm rims?


They told me it had 100mm wheels. I'm looking pretty hard at buying one as it appears to be the least expensive aluminum bike you can buy and fit 2XL's on. I should know for certain in around two weeks as they said they'd mount it to make sure it fit on the 1000.

I believe they also fit on the bikes direct lurch but it looked like you had to set the rear tire back further than it was meant to go. I forgot where I saw that post or site?

I also found a site where the 2XL tires were fit on a bikes direct FB-4 but I don't think they looked like they barely fit and likely rub. https://electricbike-blog.com/2015/...000w-10-speed-ebike-51lbs-1850-w-out-battery/


----------



## Luis_fx35 (Sep 1, 2015)

I love the tires, best tire to increase your fatness to proper levels. The flotation/grip that these tires have is amazing. I would love to try the tires in snow with low psi but here in Texas we get snow only one day every few years. I ride my bike on pavement and local dry trails and I felt way slower. I have 2 pairs, the PSC (cream) and the Silica (black) and I hate to say goodbye to them but I think they belong in the snow. Two rides on both pairs $200 for the cream and $185 for the black plus shipping, PM me.

Picture shows 4.5 snowshoe on the rear, that one is not for sale.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

So I see 2XL fits the 9:zero:7 fork. I was thinking of giving it a shot with keeping the Lou out back. 

My concern is what little I read on here about the amount of snow that sticks to this tire in less than powder conditions. 

Anyone ride regularly in really wet snow to almost slush conditions like in the northeastern U.S? How bad is it, really?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Clayncedar said:


> So I see 2XL fits the 9:zero:7 fork. I was thinking of giving it a shot with keeping the Lou out back.
> 
> My concern is what little I read on here about the amount of snow that sticks to this tire in less than powder conditions.
> 
> Anyone ride regularly in really wet snow to almost slush conditions like in the northeastern U.S? How bad is it, really?


If you can get the PSC version (white), get that. Snow sticks like a maniac to the black version once it drops below freezing. In + degrees Celsius there's not so much an issue..
Wet snow doesn't stick so much, it's actually powder thats the biggest issue.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Yeah, zero problems with PSC. In early winter Bud in the front was worse.

Not sure what to do with this kind of "sticking":


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

I haven't noticed anything unusual. Tall tread will pack snow, if this is a constant issue where you ride, something with wider spaced tread like the Flow/dunderbeist might work better. My only bad issue was riding through some mud in a gravel pit. ( was a tire track from a large vehicle). It solidified to the point I almost needed a chisel to get it off. I've only had one ride with snow and a muddy parking lot packed a snow/mud mix that was hard to cleanup, but it did not hinder my ride any. Still had enough tread to bite despite what packed up. If you are riding slush, stay out of the mud.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

Cool. Thanks guys. I was wondering what the PSC deal was.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I'll report back on how the standard black 2XL does in my snow conditions. I'm not too worried about the tire somehow being more sticky to snow. I don't like the look of the cream colored tires. Are they supposed to be softer rubber or something?


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Veetire Rubber Compounds:
MPC– Multipurpose Compound – Longer wearing, all terrain compound with a durable 56A Hardness

Silica – A compound designed to hold traction at lower temps. Rated 57A on Vee’s hardness scale.

PSC – Pure Silica Compound – Even better cold weather traction. Rated 50A for hardness (White Tires)


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

My mud experience


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

ak-rider said:


> I'll report back on how the standard black 2XL does in my snow conditions. I'm not too worried about the tire somehow being more sticky to snow. I don't like the look of the cream colored tires. Are they supposed to be softer rubber or something?


Yeah, not a real fan of the white tire look either. Would be mismatched with a Lou in back (can't fit XXL back there). Plus it would quickly look pretty bad with the brilliant red clay mud (intermingled with the snow) where I live that seems to stain everything it touches.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

kaleidopete said:


> My mud experience


Yep. That looks familiar. My local trail in eastern PA is officially closed for the winter due to that kind of ground.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Clayncedar said:


> Yeah, not a real fan of the white tire look either. Would be mismatched with a Lou in back (can't fit XXL back there).


What do you look for this kind of combination? Just curious, I didn't notice any help in soft snow. You might end up with a new frame though, so not a bad combo..


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

Ekke said:


> What do you look for this kind of combination? Just curious, I didn't notice any help in soft snow. You might end up with a new frame though, so not a bad combo..


 Saw it done by someone else with a 9:zero:7 without any apparent issues and on the theory that the big tire up front more effectively cleared the way. That said I guess MMV and I did wonder how that works with a what, almost 1" difference, in diameter between the XXL and the Lou. IDK.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Ekke said:


> What do you look for this kind of combination? Just curious, I didn't notice any help in soft snow. You might end up with a new frame though, so not a bad combo..


I'm going to try this very combination when my tire finally arrives in the mail. I can't fit one on the back of my Fatboy. If it works noticeably better for float (and I can't see it not working better) I'm leaning very strongly to buying a new bike that can fit these tires front and rear.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

ak-rider said:


> I'm going to try this very combination when my tire finally arrives in the mail. I can't fit one on the back of my Fatboy. If it works noticeably better for float (and I can't see it not working better) I'm leaning very strongly to buying a new bike that can fit these tires front and rear.


I have a Fatboy too but it came with a Bluto stock, no rigid fork to experiment with unlike the 9:zero:7.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I'm pretty sure it will fit in the fork, looks like there is plenty of clearance. I'll find out soon!


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

*Silica*



ak-rider said:


> I'll report back on how the standard black 2XL does in my snow conditions. I'm not too worried about the tire somehow being more sticky to snow. I don't like the look of the cream colored tires. Are they supposed to be softer rubber or something?


Same concept as those green Michelins for years back. Snow, mud, and animal feces do not stick to them as well as normal compounds. Back then I don't recall snow being as noticeable as the other two. Not sure without actually trying the two tires to see if snow sticks any less on the white ones vs the black.

Rather a disgusting subject, but back when one of my favorite trails was shared with equestrians, those green Michelins were my favorite tire as the "road apples" wouldn't stick to them if I couldn't avoid it.

So far with the black compound mud sticking is worse, no issue with snow so far. A couple weeks ago I did do a trail shared with horses, even bigger mistake 

Wet beach sand was not an issue either this summer. For whatever reason Larry tires would often stick to the sand where I rode. Not the issue with the 2XL.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Since these tires are named snowshoe that's the only thing I use them for. Besides, there is no mud for 5 months anyway.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

Is this tire available for sale yet? 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Snow just loves to stick to my blackies


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Steve Balogh said:


> Same concept as those green Michelins for years back. Snow, mud, and animal feces do not stick to them as well as normal compounds. Back then I don't recall snow being as noticeable as the other two. Not sure without actually trying the two tires to see if snow sticks any less on the white ones vs the black.
> 
> Rather a disgusting subject, but back when one of my favorite trails was shared with equestrians, those green Michelins were my favorite tire as the "road apples" wouldn't stick to them if I couldn't avoid it.
> 
> ...


In college I rode multiuse trails in Anchorage that the horses used. Pretty gross! Last summer I was riding with my daughter and ran right smack over a huge pile of dog poop. It was like clay stuck in the knobs of my 4.6 ground control. I ended up walking the bike down to the creek and spent like 10 minutes running the tire up and down the stream to wash that sh!t off. I kept thinking, what the heck did this dog eat?  It was like atomically attracted to my tire and did not want to release. So disgusting!!

I'm wondering if these tires actually attract more snow than normal or if it seems that way because the tires are so new and massive, a guy ends up paying more attention to it than normal when they first install them? Snow sticks to everything during certain temperatures and conditions.

My tire shows that it made it to Anchorage. Should make it to me sometime next week!


----------



## AKCheesehead (Apr 30, 2008)

ak-rider said:


> In college I rode multiuse trails in Anchorage that the houses used. Pretty gross! Last summer I was riding with my daughter and ran right smack over a huge pile of dog poop. It was like clay stuck in the knobs of my 4.6 ground control. I ended up walking the bike down to the creek and spent like 10 minutes running the tire up and down the stream to wash that sh!t off. I kept thinking, what the heck did this dog eat?  It was like atomically attracted to my tire and did not want to release. So disgusting!!
> 
> I'm wondering if these tires actually attract more snow than normal or if it seems that way because the tires are so new and massive, a guy ends up paying more attention to it than normal when they first install them? Snow sticks to everything during certain temperatures and conditions.
> 
> My tire shows that it made it to Anchorage. Should make it to me sometime next week!


I haven't had any issues with snow sticking to them any more than any other fatbike tire.. I shaved down my lugs a bit so maybe that has something to do with it, they have been great though in the soft dry snow we've been getting here in the Susitna Valley..


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

ak-rider said:


> I'm wondering if these tires actually attract more snow than normal or if it seems that way because the tires are so new and massive, a guy ends up paying more attention to it than normal when they first install them? Snow sticks to everything during certain temperatures and conditions.


They do attract more than usual. The micro pattern between the knobs really make the snow build up a lot more than tires without this pattern, and the hardness of the black ones have en extra issue in negative temperatures where they seem to become like glue.☺

Compared to slicker tires like jj they are night and day when it comes to buildup. 
Still a sweet winter tire nevertheless.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Once my tire comes in I'll post about my experience with it in coastal, south central AK. We usually have an abundance of wet sticky snow but so far the temps have stayed below freezing and the snow is very dry and powdery. So far I've noticed nothing weird with my Bud/Lou's carrying more snow on them. I'm curious to see if the 2XL turns out to be different. The dry powdery snow with the 36" we've received so far this winter has been sucking to ride on. It won't pack down well at all so I need more floatation. I don't recall experiencing snow so resistant to packing down. It'd be great snow if I owned a set of XC skis. Looks like I need to buy a set of those as well so I can take advantage of every winter condition.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Andy81 said:


> They do attract more than usual. The micro pattern between the knobs really make the snow build up a lot more than tires without this pattern, and the hardness of the black ones have en extra issue in negative temperatures where they seem to become like glue.☺


A response in another place (I forget if it was this thread or not) says it's intentional and desired. Snow sticks to itself more than it does to rubber, and a thin layer of snow on the outside of the tire makes it perform better than if it were clean all the time.

Take that for what you will. Those patterns were likely the result of a lot of testing.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

schnee said:


> A response in another place (I forget if it was this thread or not) says it's intentional and desired. Snow sticks to itself more than it does to rubber, and a thin layer of snow on the outside of the tire makes it perform better than if it were clean all the time.
> 
> Take that for what you will. Those patterns were likely the result of a lot of testing.


Yes, I've heard this too. It grips well in loose snow/powder due to this. However there are certain conditions where snow doesn't adhere well to itself, and when the tire fills up it can get slippery. Most conditions though it has tremendous traction.

I'd love a directional pattern up front over this pattern though, since sideways washout does occur


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Andy81 said:


> Yes, I've heard this too. It grips well in loose snow/powder due to this. However there are certain conditions where snow doesn't adhere well to itself, and when the tire fills up it can get slippery. Most conditions though it has tremendous traction.
> 
> I'd love a directional pattern up front over this pattern though, since sideways washout does occur


In the conditions where I ride it has excellent traction. It is never near the freezing mark here and the snow is never sticky. 
I was out today and the traction these tires have is superb. Just riding at a crawling speed over the snow is a great workout and much like rock crawling in Moab.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

My tire came in this morning! I mounted it on the front and it fits just fine but is rubbing on the right fork leg because it doesn't run true. I'm not too concerned about that right now because I think it is due to the tire being deformed from shipping and I think it will work itself out over time.

It was 9°F and I rode my bike with the bud/Lou's at 5 psi and my bike was squirrelly on the snowmachine trail out of my yard that we had walked on and made lots of footprints in the dry, loose snow. It made it to the groomed trail but it wasn't too fun. I rode back on the same trail, mounted the 2XL, inflated it to 5 psi and rode the same trail staying to the side of my earlier tire track. It was quite a bit easier to ride the trail and the additional floatation was noticeable. It was pretty impressed! I rode a little bit on the groomed trail and it was less squirrelly than my Bud. I then rode down a snowmachine trail I put in yesterday afternoon and I was able to ride it. Wow! So far, with my very limited experience, I think this tire works better than my Bud for the current conditions because it is slightly wider and the profile is more square and flatter than the rounded, balloonish Bud. It is too early to pass judgement but so far I'm really happy with the tire. The knobs look like they will take grip studs okay and the tire feels stiffer than my Bud. 

What surprised me is this tire is not as large as the claimed measurements or what others have posted on here. For me this might be good because I may be able to fit it on the rear of my bike and will be trying at this weekend. It appears the tire is stretching out as it is being ridden so I pumped it up to 20 psi, came in to eat lunch and post on here. What was surprising is the tire at 20 psi stopped rubbing on my fork leg and the width decreased slightly. Here are the measurements I took. 

4.872" wide at 5 psi before being ridden.
4.992" wide when I returned from a 15 minute ride. 
30" tall at 5 psi, my wheels are 90mm wide

4.858" wide at 20 psi
30 7/16" tall at 20 psi

I'm hoping this tire stretches out and gets bigger as it is ridden or I'm going to feel like I got ripped off. Then again, it may fit on the back of my bike as my Lou is 4.532" wide at 4 psi and I've got a little bit of room available. Maybe the quality control and tolerances on these 2XL tires isn't very good and the sizes very? It says 5.05 on the sidewall, 120 tpi.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

Mine's true to size mounted on CS rim. I've ridden it on few rides now, from fresh pow to packed. If I'm honest, I don't feel much advantage to Lou's I had. And the Lou's were much more supple. The sidewalls on these are so stiff. I'll probably go back to Surly after this wears out


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

stremf said:


> The sidewalls on these are so stiff.


Wow, tubeless or not? My first tubeless experience with these is that they are really soft.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

Ekke said:


> Wow, tubeless or not? My first tubeless experience with these is that they are really soft.


I'm running them tubeless. Compared to Surly's, they're stiff.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

stremf said:


> Mine's true to size mounted on CS rim. I've ridden it on few rides now, from fresh pow to packed. If I'm honest, I don't feel much advantage to Lou's I had. And the Lou's were much more supple. The sidewalls on these are so stiff. I'll probably go back to Surly after this wears out


I don't see how you couldn't unless you didn't need more floatation in the first place. On my ride I could see the tracks of some poor bastard on 4" wide tires. He was trenching in and creating ruts. I have no idea what kind of bike or the weight of that rider but my tracks were way wider and not sinking into the snow.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Here are some photos:








Unboxing the monster. I'm thinking the way it was packed has caused the weird run out in the tire that I'm hoping will run itself true.









I was thinking, "wow, this thing is huge!". At 5 psi it wasn't as big as I expected.








Bud on the front









2XL on the front









View from the bars. I did notice a little bit more snow sticking to the tire than the Bud. The 2XL was less squirrelly than the Bud and held its line better in the 9*F dry, loose snow.



























Fork clearance on my '15 Fatboy SE with the aluminum fork. Tire was at 5 psi on the stock 90 mm wheel.









It was noticeably wider than the Bud and the flatter profile worked better for me.









Another view of the front tire.









I was pretty pleased with how if performed on the snowmachine trail I made.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak-rider said:


> I don't see how you couldn't unless you didn't need more floatation in the first place. On my ride I could see the tracks of some poor bastard on 4" wide tires. He was trenching in and creating ruts. I have no idea what kind of bike or the weight of that rider but my tracks were way wider and not sinking into the snow.


How many miles you have on em with sub 2 psi? They are gonna take some miles for by beanpole ass to break in. As they are, nice and brand spankin new yes, they are very stiff. Bud/Lou have 4 seasons of snow riding half flat and the 5.05's are gonna take some miles of 1-2 psi to get broken in and soft n supple.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

With the wobble in the tire you should closely inspect if the tire is seated all the way. Mine were a real bear to get onto the beads. Bud and Lou can go on with little trouble but these fit tight. Probably due to the fact they are tubeless ready.
the sidewalls on mine wrinkle up like a top fuel dragster at 1-2psi.
ak-rider...why did you go for the non psc tire? And these fit the rear of a Specialized Fatboy?


----------



## AKCheesehead (Apr 30, 2008)

I had a set of 2xls that were wobbly due to a defect so watch for that.. the other 2 pair i have are straight and true.. sidewalls on mine fold right up at 2 psi.. and out perform a bud or lou in deep soft snow, in my experience so far.. I have about 300 miles of soft dry snow riding on mine this winter


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

headwind said:


> With the wobble in tire you should closely inspect if the tire is seated all the way. Mine were a real bear to get onto the beads. Bud and Lou can go on with little trouble but these fit tight. Probably due to the fact they are tubeless ready.
> the sidewalls on mine wrinkle up like a top fuel dragster at 1-2psi.
> ak-rider...why did you go for the non psc tire? And these fit the rear of a Specialized Fatboy?


Is the PSC tire the cream colored one? I didn't care for the way those looked. The wobble has subsided enough after two rides that it no longer rubs on the fork. You are right, the tire wasn't seated evenly around the wheel. I didn't do anything about it but pump it up to 20 psi and then air it back down to 7 and rode it. It seems to have fixed itself ?. The tire was really easy to mount, I'm using a tube.it seemed a bit looser around the wheel than the Bud.



AKCheesehead said:


> I had a set of 2xls that were wobbly due to a defect so watch for that.. the other 2 pair i have are straight and true.. sidewalls on mine fold right up at 2 psi.. and out perform a bud or lou in deep soft snow, in my experience so far.. I have about 300 miles of soft dry snow riding on mine this winter


I'll keep an eye on the wobble. I've only ridden slow, granny ring trails today and didn't notice it wobbling back and forth like the first ride. I was impressed with the handling and floatation at 7 psi this afternoon. It was a superior tire to the bud in today's conditions. Since I commute to work I'm always trying to run as high a psi as I can and still float so I'm faster. About 1/4 of my commute hits plowed roads on my way to work and it is a literal drag to be a low pressure and then have all that resistance and bio pacing, hopping on the plowed roads. I noticed this tire floated better over the chewed up groomed trail where a snowmachine with a paddle track tore it up. It was noticeablely better than the Bud in this circumstance. The 2XL also seemed to grip the plowed road with hardpacked snow better than the Bud. So far I'm thrilled by the tire. I can't wait to ride it tomorrow!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

headwind said:


> With the wobble in tire you should closely inspect if the tire is seated all the way. Mine were a real bear to get onto the beads. Bud and Lou can go on with little trouble but these fit tight. Probably due to the fact they are tubeless ready.
> the sidewalls on mine wrinkle up like a top fuel dragster at 1-2psi.


My 5.05's seat properly between 16-18psi where my Bud/Lou seat at 7-8 psi. Lou wrinkles at 6 psi and less from several seasons of 3-4 psi use.
Even the 5.05's wrinkle at 4 or less. After the 5.05's endure a season or two they'll wrinkle like crazy too. Peeps are always commenting on the tires when they see em wrinkle. When it comes to riding the snowmobile trails the pressure is gonna go down for max float and bite of the paddle like treads.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

headwind said:


> And these fit the rear of a Specialized Fatboy?


It won't fit on the back of my small frame Fatboy. I tired lining up my front tire with the drop outs to see if it would fit and it is too tall and too wide. It hits the chain stays.










The 2XL front wheel placed in the rear showing where it will hit.





Pretty happy with the floatation as the snow wasn't packing down to well.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

yeah, i tried it as well rear wont turn at all, my fatboy is a small too. but my carbon fact fork had so much more clearance than the alloy fork

thats why im selling it to get a farley 7


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

akacoke said:


> yeah, i tried it as well rear wont turn at all, my fatboy is a small too. but my carbon fact fork had so much more clearance than the alloy fork
> 
> thats why im selling it to get a farley 7


The floatation from this tire is so noticeable that I'm planning to buy a KHS 1000 so I can have a 2XL as a rear tire. Right now my Lou rear tire will trench out causing me to stop. I need more float in the back!

In general I think fatbikes are way over priced so the KHS is the best, least expensive bike I've found that will fit the 2XL's front and rear. Plus it has better standover clearance than my Fatboy so that will be nice.

I'm not sure why some posters don't seem to want to accept that a better tire has come along from the bud/Lou but I feel that has happened. It's still a bit early for me to post that, but I've got almost two years experience with the bud/Lou and the fact that this tire is 1/2" wider and keeps getting bigger is proof enough it's going to float better. Right now I'm kinda thinking that the bud/Lou are too soft and balloonish and that is what causes the squirrelly handling at times. Maybe I'll find out I'm wrong but so far I think the 2XL works out as a lot better front tire over the bud.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

ak-rider said:


> In general I think fatbikes are way over priced so the KHS is the best, least expensive bike I've found that will fit the 2XL's front and rear. Plus it has better standover clearance than my Fatboy so that will be nice.


Is that bike a clone of a 907? Other than the tubes being a tiny bit less curved near the head tube, it looks identical. Even the chain stay length is identical to the millimeter.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

If anyone has a Surly Bud in like new condition, I'm game to trade for my 2XL. Mine has maybe 25 miles on it. It is set up tubeless so there will be some residue.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I have a set of Bud and Lou that I want to mount for the fat bike races this winter. At the slow speeds in deep snow there is no way I can tell if the front is better than anything else as its all about flotation and grip.
But the races will be run on somewhat groomed and packed trails where these larger tires will have no real advantage. But since I live in the country I make my own trails, and the tires have so much more to offer in the snow then the Bontrager Barbegazi that came on my Farley or the Vee snowshoes on my Norco Bigfoot. 
On the back these tires just wrinkle up and push me forward, letting me crawl along where I should be pushing.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

schnee said:


> Is that bike a clone of a 907? Other than the tubes being a tiny bit less curved near the head tube, it looks identical. Even the chain stay length is identical to the millimeter.


I'm not sure, it could be? A number of people have posted it is the same bike as the Bikes Direct Boris the Evil Brute but it isn't. I don't think the 907 can fit the 2XL on the back.



headwind said:


> I have a set of Bud and Lou that I want to mount for the fat bike races this winter. At the slow speeds in deep snow there is no way I can tell if the front is better than anything else as its all about flotation and grip.
> But the races will be run on somewhat groomed and packed trails where these larger tires will have no real advantage. But since I live in the country I make my own trails, and the tires have so much more to offer in the snow then the Bontrager Barbegazi that came on my Farley or the Vee snowshoes on my Norco Bigfoot.
> On the back these tires just wrinkle up and push me forward, letting me crawl along where I should be pushing.


The 2XL feels heavier on the front of my bike just lifting it and moving it around the garage. I felt it had more resistance when pedaling down my plowed road. That wouldn't surprise me since it is wider. One guy I know who raced a 100 mile fatbike race last winter in the Mat-Su Valley raced it on 4" wide tires. Sounds like because the trails are so well used and packed down that floatation wasn't much of an issue.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I am riding in snow that I could not ride in the past years. Not that it isn't a lot of work. My HRM was going off and that's a sound I usually hear in cross or road racing.
The problem is the engine now, not the machine.
One thing that is very tough is restarting in deep snow. I stopped today in knee deep snow and it took a few tries and a lot of effort to get moving again.
Running 1.5psi rear and 1psi front today.
I am also not a fan of the color of these tires, but if they work this well in snow I guess I would buy them again knowing how well they work.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I had similar issues today trying to get going again. It was really good practice to improve your bike balance. It never had an issue with the 2XL sinking in but my Lou did, over and over or trench out. We were riding on a snowmachine trail I made on Friday and because the snow is so dry you'd break through here and there. The snow was about 2.5' deep off the sides of the trail and you'd post hole all the way to the ground when you stepped off the trail. I can't wait to get a new bike that can run this tire on the back. I've noticed I don't have to run as low of air pressure in the 2XL as I did the Lou for floatation. Kinda nice to to have to mess with your tire pressure all the time. I can see this tire not being for everyone. If you don't need more floatation then it doesn't make since to run it because it slows you down on harder surfaces. I noticed it's a lot more tire to push than my wife's bike with 4.6 ground controls. We switched back and forth and she had to run lower pressure than me to float and I outweigh her by 70 pounds.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> I had similar issues today trying to get going again. It was really good practice to improve your bike balance. It never had an issue with the 2XL sinking in but my Lou did, over and over or trench out. We were riding on a snowmachine trail I made on Friday and because the snow is so dry you'd break through here and there. The snow was about 2.5' deep off the sides of the trail and you'd post hole all the way to the ground when you stepped off the trail. I can't wait to get a new bike that can run this tire on the back. I've noticed I don't have to run as low of air pressure in the 2XL as I did the Lou for floatation. Kinda nice to to have to mess with your tire pressure all the time. I can see this tire not being for everyone. If you don't need more floatation then it doesn't make since to run it because it slows you down on harder surfaces. I noticed it's a lot more tire to push than my wife's bike with 4.6 ground controls. We switched back and forth and she had to run lower pressure than me to float and I outweigh her by 70 pounds.


Oh it's a lot more work alright. I was soaked when I got home today, and it was -30 or so. My Farley is a 29 lb bike though.
But I think it has more to do with the pressures I'm running now. With the 4.8 Bontragers I never ran below 5 psi. But these tires have so much sidewall height I run 1-1.5 no problem. I absolutely love how tall these tires are. On an 80mm rim at 1.5 psi I am getting the entire contact patch on the snow and I still have great retention and a mile of sidewall to keep the rim off any rocks or stumps.
It may not measure 5 inches at the top but it sure does at the ground. And that is where it matters.


----------



## Chemandy70 (Nov 16, 2013)

i like riding in fresh dumps of snow behind guys who have them. 2XLs are great for grooming for the people behind you.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

headwind said:


> Oh it's a lot more work alright. I was soaked when I got home today, and it was -30 or so. My Farley is a 29 lb bike though.
> But I think it has more to do with the pressures I'm running now. With the 4.8 Bontragers I never ran below 5 psi. But these tires have so much sidewall height I run 1-1.5 no problem. I absolutely love how tall these tires are. On an 80mm rim at 1.5 psi I am getting the entire contact patch on the snow and I still have great retention and a mile of sidewall to keep the rim off any rocks or stumps.
> It may not measure 5 inches at the top but it sure does at the ground. And that is where it matters.


Same with me, I was getting so hot pedaling through conditions that I couldn't have ridden before at 10*F. I keep being amazed at how the added with increases the stability of my bike at low speeds. I've found the 2XL to make low speed riding easier than it was with the Bud. It's too early to be certain but I'm thinking the stiffer case on the 2XL is more beneficial than the more flexible cases on the Bud/Lou. I've ridden trails aired down super low with the Bud/Lou and my bikes handling is slow and lumbering and the pedaling resistance goes way, way up. I've not tried the 2XL aired down any lower than 5 psi as I've not yet had a need because the Lou can't keep up and sinks in. It'll be interesting for me to see how the 2XL acts aired down.

So far I'm completely stoked with the 2XL. Mine almost measures out to 5" wide at 5 psi on my 90mm wheel. It must be 5.05" wide on a 100" wheel? By comparison my Bud/Lou tires are only 4.5" wide 7 psi. The 2XL being approximately 1/2" wider has made a huge difference.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> My Farley is a 29 lb bike though.


With 2XL and pedals and everything? What have you done to it? That's light.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> With 2XL and pedals and everything? What have you done to it? That's light.


I have not weighed it with the 2xl's. I would guess they are nearly double the weight of the Barbegazi tires. So I think you are right my bike is no longer 29 lbs.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> I have not weighed it with the 2xl's. I would guess they are nearly double the weight of the Barbegazi tires. So I think you are right my bike is no longer 29 lbs.


Was that with pedals? It's still light, I think I haven't encountered any sub 31lbs.. Espen doesn't count.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Was that with pedals? It's still light, I think I haven't encountered any sub 31lbs.. Espen doesn't count.


Yes it was 29 something with the XTR spd pedals and Barbegazi tires. I don't really consider this light by any means though.
I think the Farley 9.8 or 9.9 are sub 25 pounds.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> Yes it was 29 something with the XTR spd pedals and Barbegazi tires. I don't really consider this light by any means though.
> I think the Farley 9.8 or 9.9 are sub 25 pounds.


Haven't seen any carbon frame yet that can handle these, so yours is still light in this topic.. 

Would be nice to know the real weight, since I have some serious weight problems..


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Haven't seen any carbon frame yet that can handle these, so yours is still light in this topic..
> 
> Would be nice to know the real weight, since I have some serious weight problems..


I will weigh it. I need to get the scale from the garage and bring it inside as its -30 or something out there. The scale it pretty accurate. I bet its 31 pounds with these 2XL tires.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

My blackborow with 1x10 Next sl, clownshoes, 2xl psc tubeless is 32 lbs.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

campykid said:


> My blackborow with 1x10 Next sl, clownshoes, 2xl psc tubeless is 32 lbs.


How that is weighted? Normal personal scale? Fish scale?

I have hard time believing that that's accurate if everything else is stock and it's with pedals.. Mine is size L though, it was ~15.5kg before tubeless. Weighted with calibrated industrial scale and checked it with 20kg calibrating weight so should be quite accurate. 

Hopefully new weight and pictures in the end of next week, some parts haven't arrived..


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I think this is the least expensive bike ($1200) offering decent components that will fit the 2XL.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

How about chainline? What bb that have? No change of fitting in tubeless with those 100mm, looks too tight with tube?

If you must have 2XLs, I would look something else..


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I don't know? I just found the video and could see that the tire fit on the back. Right now there aren't a lot of options for a lowered priced bike that fits the 2XL. That's kind of interesting to me as the tire has been out for a year. Price wise it looks like everything else where the tire fits without having questionable clearance or other issues is over $2000 (Farley 7) or pushing $3000 (Blackborow).


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

ak-rider said:


> Right now there aren't a lot of options for a lowered priced bike that fits the 2XL.


I think they aim for massmarkets, and these tires doesn't fit the bill. Wider q factor is a must and it's not for everyone so no reason to design too wide frame.. Even the Blackborow seems to be little too narrow. In my country Farleys can't fit these.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

That's the impression I'm getting from what I've read and what a couple of Alaska LBS's have have told me. I'm guessing true 4.8" wide tires work adequately for a large number of bikers in most areas of the USA? I thought I read somewhere that the USA was the largest market for fatbikes.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Norway and Finland are damn good too, per capita. Not nearly as many people though.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

And maybe Sweden in the between.. 

I live in the border of Finland and Sweden. Daily crossings with or without bike.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Mayor wears em well enough for a reasonable budget! 
Colorado USA high country and I ride my 5.05's half flat in the powder and not more than 3.5 psi otherwise. I use 4.8's when I'm not riding 5.05's and have no desire to run 4.0 cause they just don't feel as good.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Even in -35 these tires grip well. I think the cold weather grip is more useful than the flotation, but it may go hand in hand. I rode out on a frozen slough today. Ice is a least 1m thick. Sounds like a monster truck on the ice. I would never buy another fat bike that can't accommodate 5 inch tires.
I can't wear a helmet in these conditions though. What are you other cold weather guys wearing for protection?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Is that in Fahrenheit or Celsius? Either way that's really f-ing cold! I'm on the coast of AK so I never get that kind of cold thank goodness.  

I never wear a helmet on my fatbike. The riding is generally so slow and dealing with the cold, wind and changing conditions is much easier without fighting with what fits under a helmet. I just wear a thin, fleece toque that's easy to take off and put back on one handed so I can do it while riding. If it's really windy and cold I'll wear a face mask but that's really rare. I just use the same balaclavas I use under my helmets when snowmachining. I recently got a Carhartt combination stocking hat with a built in balaclava you can pull down. I've not yet used it but think it will be handy when it's really cold and windy. I just keep it on the bike all the time. Goggles would also be my choice but I've never ridden my bike in conditions where I need them.


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

ak-rider said:


> Is that in Fahrenheit or Celsius? Either way that's really f-ing cold! I'm on the coast of AK so I never get that kind of cold thank goodness. 
> 
> I never wear a helmet on my fatbike. The riding is generally so slow and dealing with the cold, wind and changing conditions is much easier without fighting with what fits under a helmet. I just wear a thin, fleece toque that's easy to take off and put back on one handed so I can do it while riding. If it's really windy and cold I'll wear a face mask but that's really rare. I just use the same balaclavas I use under my helmets when snowmachining. I recently got a Carhartt combination stocking hat with a built in balaclava you can pull down. I've not yet used it but think it will be handy when it's really cold and windy. I just keep it on the bike all the time. Goggles would also be my choice but I've never ridden my bike in conditions where I need them.


-35 it doesn't matter if it's Fahrenheit or Celsius.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I really like the way the RSD Mayor looks and that it is made in Canada. l don't care for the 80mm wheels though. There website shows $1700 but I don't know what shipping would run? I'm assuming around $150 so the bike is then $1850. That's over what I'm wanting to spend. Does anyone know if 2XL fit on the Mayor with 100mm wheels? I'm not sure if there would be enough clearance? The tires look kind of tight with 80mm wheels in the Facebook photo. https://www.facebook.com/fatbikedotcom/posts/985980224797944:0


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> I really like the way the RSD Mayor looks and that it is made in Canada. l don't care for the 80mm wheels though. There website shows $1700 but I don't know what shipping would run? I'm assuming around $150 so the bike is then $1850. That's over what I'm wanting to spend. Does anyone know if 2XL fit on the Mayor with 100mm wheels? I'm not sure if there would be enough clearance? The tires look kind of tight with 80mm wheels in the Facebook photo. https://www.facebook.com/fatbikedotcom/posts/985980224797944:0


It seems a few of the Canadian built fatbikes have an 80mm rim rather than the 100mm. When I was shopping I called around and was told the reasoning was the low psi needed for snow. The tires are easier to keep on a 80mm rim at low psi and the sidewall height keeps the tires off the rim. Makes sense to me as I run 37x12.5 tires on an 8 inch rim on my FJ40 rock crawler for the same reason.
And once at low pressures the contact patch is pretty much the same. There are benefits to a 100mm rim but they don't come into play at low pressures. Makes some sense. I would like to get a set of 100mm clownshoes for my Bud and Lou combo for the summer with higher pressures. I bet it would handle quite well. But the price of a set of rims is crazy. I wonder if a 90mm rim would be a good in between choice?
This link has a ton of info.
F A Q - rideFATbikes.ca

As far as the facemask and googles go in my pic above, they are needed as skin freezes in about 5 minutes at -35. With the wind its about -46 today.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak-rider said:


> I really like the way the RSD Mayor looks and that it is made in Canada. l don't care for the 80mm wheels though. There website shows $1700 but I don't know what shipping would run? I'm assuming around $150 so the bike is then $1850. That's over what I'm wanting to spend. Does anyone know if 2XL fit on the Mayor with 100mm wheels? I'm not sure if there would be enough clearance? The tires look kind of tight with 80mm wheels in the Facebook photo. https://www.facebook.com/fatbikedotcom/posts/985980224797944:0


I get to see em live! 1700 includes shipping to the lower 48 and Canadia! How can you go wrong with that?
The thing I love about my Mayor is that he's a mountain bike that can wear some really fat tires. 5.05's are a might close on the rear with 80's, but I'll be riding em in the snow nearly flat and not concerned cause the snow is 6-12' deep where I ride. When that goes to hell in a handbag come spring, I'll be traveling for good mountainbiking by fatbike... I hate mud and it's destructive properties.

As for the 5.05's on 80's, they work well and ride well when I let the pressure down below 2 psi. I take em sand riding just as flat as I do snow riding. I doubt there is another option in it's class and price, period! Triple B is 1100 without fork, so that blows the budget by a large margin and is also in the custom frame range.

My Mayor rides 365 days a year cause it's a fun, playful bike that might be gettin a Wren soon. Lauf is not a contender cause it looks horrific and has no damping.

100's have a great benefit for undrinflation and that is less issue from foldover.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

headwind said:


> It seems a few of the Canadian built fatbikes have an 80mm rim rather than the 100mm. When I was shopping I called around and was told the reasoning was the low psi needed for snow. The tires are easier to keep on a 80mm rim at low psi and the sidewall height keeps the tires off the rim. Makes sense to me as I run 37x12.5 tires on an 8 inch rim on my FJ40 rock crawler for the same reason.
> And once at low pressures the contact patch is pretty much the same. There are benefits to a 100mm rim but they don't come into play at low pressures. Makes some sense. I would like to get a set of 100mm clownshoes for my Bud and Lou combo for the summer with higher pressures. I bet it would handle quite well. But the price of a set of rims is crazy. I wonder if a 90mm rim would be a good in between choice?
> This link has a ton of info.
> F A Q - rideFATbikes.ca
> ...


That site is pretty interesting. I don't care for the idea of 100mm wheels being phased out as I want the widest footprint possible all the time. I don't think tall skinnier tires are a good direction to go either but that could just be the bike industry's way of coming up with another standard as a way to sell new bikes. It think higher volume 26" tires are better for floatation. Looks like I better buy a bike with 100mm wheels this winter as I wouldn't want to buy them aftermarket. I guess it wouldn't surprise me if some of the bike manufacturers start reducing tire clearance in width as some don't seem to mind only being able to fit 4.6" wide tires.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> There are benefits to a 100mm rim but they don't come into play at low pressures.


The lower the pressures, the more rim width matters.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> The lower the pressures, the more rim width matters.


Yes. At real low pressures the wider rim will lose a tire easier.
But at those pressures on deep snow we are talking about crawling along.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> That site is pretty interesting. I don't care for the idea of 100mm wheels being phased out as I want the widest footprint possible all the time. I don't think tall skinnier tires are a good direction to go either but that could just be the bike industry's way of coming up with another standard as a way to sell new bikes. It think higher volume 26" tires are better for floatation. Looks like I better buy a bike with 100mm wheels this winter as I wouldn't want to buy them aftermarket. I guess it wouldn't surprise me if some of the bike manufacturers start reducing tire clearance in width as some don't seem to mind only being able to fit 4.6" wide tires.


100mm rims on 6 inch tires would be ok with me.
I don't know of a frame that would fit a tire that big. This would be such a small market I doubt it will ever happen.
I am going back to the 4.8's in case I take my bike to the sand this summer.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 21, 2015)

headwind said:


> Even in -35 these tires grip well. I think the cold weather grip is more useful than the flotation, but it may go hand in hand. I rode out on a frozen slough today. Ice is a least 1m thick. Sounds like a monster truck on the ice. I would never buy another fat bike that can't accommodate 5 inch tires.
> I can't wear a helmet in these conditions though. What are you other cold weather guys wearing for protection?


It's a bit off thread topic, but since you asked...

Have you tried a ski helmet? I used to use a regular bike helmet with a fleece liner with ear flaps, but I'm loving the Giro Nine Ski Helmet...the lining is thick and covers the entire ears, plus it has a nice vent feature where you can open/close vents with gloves on. I've used it down to 0F (windchill around -15F) and it was still more than enough. I can fit a full-head balaclava on underneath if needed.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Ekke said:


> And maybe Sweden in the between..
> 
> I live in the border of Finland and Sweden. Daily crossings with or without bike.


Well, I know there are a decent enough number of riders in Lapland, but fat bikes are not nearly as big in Sweden as a whole as the other two. A lot of the 'niche' companies like 907, Ithaqua, Borealis, Salsa, etc. have dealers all over Finland and Norway but none in Sweden. I also have to ship from the UK and Germany to get fat-bike specific parts because nobody around here carries anything.

I mean, I can get a Specialized or Trek. Maybe even a Cannondale special order. And XXL has a house brand on the level of a Charge. But almost nobody carries fat cranks, hubs, bikepacking gear, or stuff like that.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

dayooper said:


> It's a bit off thread topic, but since you asked...
> 
> Have you tried a ski helmet? I used to use a regular bike helmet with a fleece liner with ear flaps, but I'm loving the Giro Nine Ski Helmet...the lining is thick and covers the entire ears, plus it has a nice vent feature where you can open/close vents with gloves on. I've used it down to 0F (windchill around -15F) and it was still more than enough. I can fit a full-head balaclava on underneath if needed.


That's what I use, with balaclava as necessary for conditions (some conditions get a thin one, some get just a doo-rag, some get a heavy one). Was around -5, maybe a little colder in places when I rode both in the morning and at night yesterday. The helmet works pretty well. It is a little difficult to hear, but it's worth it.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

headwind said:


> It seems a few of the Canadian built fatbikes have an 80mm rim rather than the 100mm. When I was shopping I called around and was told the reasoning was the low psi needed for snow. The tires are easier to keep on a 80mm rim at low psi and the sidewall height keeps the tires off the rim. Makes sense to me as I run 37x12.5 tires on an 8 inch rim on my FJ40 rock crawler for the same reason.
> And once at low pressures the contact patch is pretty much the same. There are benefits to a 100mm rim but they don't come into play at low pressures. Makes some sense. I would like to get a set of 100mm clownshoes for my Bud and Lou combo for the summer with higher pressures. I bet it would handle quite well. But the price of a set of rims is crazy. I wonder if a 90mm rim would be a good in between choice?
> This link has a ton of info.
> F A Q - rideFATbikes.ca
> ...


Their fat bike rim tire width discussion pretty much flies in the face of what I have read or experienced. There may be specific instances where they are right but not in general.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Jayem said:


> That's what I use, with balaclava as necessary for conditions (some conditions get a thin one, some get just a doo-rag, some get a heavy one). Was around -5, maybe a little colder in places when I rode both in the morning and at night yesterday. The helmet works pretty well. It is a little difficult to hear, but it's worth it.


I will have to look into this. I never thought of a ski helmet. Seems like overkill but a zero speed fall on ice can rattle your brain.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

Jayem said:


> That's what I use, with balaclava as necessary for conditions (some conditions get a thin one, some get just a doo-rag, some get a heavy one). Was around -5, maybe a little colder in places when I rode both in the morning and at night yesterday. The helmet works pretty well. It is a little difficult to hear, but it's worth it.


I think some of the difference here, and in the shoe heater discussion, comes from how cold Headwind's riding conditions are. When he says X doesn't work in the cold, he is talking colder than most of us ride in. I like my ski helmet down to 0ish F but below that the ability to take layers on or off my head gets more important as I try to keep sweat at bay. I find that easier to do without a helmet. Plus my speed, whle never fast, is typically even slower at sub sub zero temps.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

headwind said:


> I will have to look into this. I never thought of a ski helmet. Seems like overkill but a zero speed fall on ice can rattle your brain.


As I was writing my response to Jayem I had a quick thought about expanses of glare ice. If I knew it was going to be real icy I would ptobably take the helmet. One thing about winter anything is there is frequently no perfect solution.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 21, 2015)

sryanak said:


> As I was writing my response to Jayem I had a quick thought about expanses of glare ice. If I knew it was going to be real icy I would ptobably take the helmet. One thing about winter anything is there is frequently no perfect solution.


I'm old enough now where better-safe-than-sorry wins out. Agreed on your other point, -35 air temp is pretty dang extreme. I'd imagine I'd want something else under there -10 or lower, though even that's a relatively infrequent daytime temp in MN. Pretty easy to put a balaclava on or off with the quick-adjusting helmet, and I find the open-close vent feature pretty useful.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> Yes. At real low pressures the wider rim will lose a tire easier.


Nope, you've got it backwards.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Nope, you've got it backwards.


Not here anyway. Or in my rock crawler without bead locks.
A wider rim can provide more flotation, at certain pressures. And better handling at speed.
A narrow rim can offer more protection for the rim and tire sidewall with the added benefit of being able to flex enough without rolling the tire off the rim. 
This I learned a long time ago when I had to make a switch from 10 inch rims to 8 inch for any tire wider than 12.5 inches on my FJ40. On a bead locked rim lots of guys still run a narrower rim for the advantages mentioned above. It's the same thing here.
I run tubes as it is far to cold here for sealants. And 1.5psi rear and 1 psi front.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

mikesee said:


> Nope, you've got it backwards.


I'm not sure how you figure that? The only tires I've ever lost off wheels are at very low pressures. I've experienced it with automobiles, ATV's, dirt bikes, bicycles and even my handcart. Like Headwind mentioned, beadlock wheels were developed to keep tires on wheels and that's why they are also used for applications where people run very low pressures.

On another topic, I find the term "tubeless ready" a misnomer in cycling because the tires aren't tubeless in the same sense as automobile, ATV or street bike tires. You don't have to use tape and sealant to keep the tires from leaking in those applications. Some dual sport motorcycles use specially designed spoked wheels are use regular tubeless tires. The way the bike industry does it is halfass IMO. We shouldn't have to Mickey Mouse around with tape and sealant to have a tubeless tire. I seem to remember tubeless tires coming out what, 10-15 yrs ago? Why haven't they progressed?

Maybe some MTB and road bike tires don't require sealant but all fatbikes do? Am I missing something?


----------



## Dilligaff (Nov 19, 2015)

Tubeless ready wheels are like bead locks,mother don't like to break down no matter what the pressure. 

And the pattern is not to the same, it's wider on the wider rim.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Dilligaff said:


> Tubeless ready wheels are like bead locks,mother don't like to break down no matter what the pressure.
> 
> And the pattern is not to the same, *it's wider on the wider rim*.


For sure. But comparing the footprint of an 80mm to a 100mm rim with the 2XL's at 1-2 psi the contact patch is pretty much the same.
Now, at 4 or 5 psi the 100mm is going to give a wider footprint and the 80mm rim is going to crown the tire more.
I'm not bashing 100mm rims. I'd like to get a set for my Bud and Lou for some badlands and sandhills trips this summer.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> Not here anyway. Or in my rock crawler without bead locks.
> A wider rim can provide more flotation, at certain pressures. And better handling at speed.
> A narrow rim can offer more protection for the rim and tire sidewall with the added benefit of being able to flex enough without rolling the tire off the rim.
> This I learned a long time ago when I had to make a switch from 10 inch rims to 8 inch for any tire wider than 12.5 inches on my FJ40. On a bead locked rim lots of guys still run a narrower rim for the advantages mentioned above. It's the same thing here.
> I run tubes as it is far to cold here for sealants. And 1.5psi rear and 1 psi front.


Rock crawler has zero relevance that I can see. 4 wheels vs. 2, huge horsepower and torque vs. almost none at all.

Take the logical extreme example of the point you're trying to make -- that a narrower rim holds the tire better -- by imagining a 5" tire on a 25mm wide rim. Is that going to work? Nope, and especially not at low pressures, since any lateral input is going to want to rip the bead out of the hook. You'd have to run an unreasonably high amount of pressure just to keep the tire on the rim, which removes float or steering from the equation.

Scaling up to 80mm vs 100mm, the difference is much smaller but still relevant. The wider rim will support the tire better (assuming basic things like a solidly designed and implemented bead interface) as pressures drop.

Does that mean you *need* a 100mm rim to use a 5" tire? Nope, and that's not my argument. But the softer the surface you're riding, and the more time you spend at <1psi, the more you will benefit from a rim that matches the width of your tire.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

ak-rider said:


> I'm not sure how you figure that? The only tires I've ever lost off wheels are at very low pressures. I've experienced it with automobiles, ATV's, dirt bikes, bicycles and even my handcart. Like Headwind mentioned, beadlock wheels were developed to keep tires on wheels and that's why they are also used for applications where people run very low pressures.
> 
> On another topic, I find the term "tubeless ready" a misnomer in cycling because the tires aren't tubeless in the same sense as automobile, ATV or street bike tires. You don't have to use tape and sealant to keep the tires from leaking in those applications. Some dual sport motorcycles use specially designed spoked wheels are use regular tubeless tires. The way the bike industry does it is halfass IMO. We shouldn't have to Mickey Mouse around with tape and sealant to have a tubeless tire. I seem to remember tubeless tires coming out what, 10-15 yrs ago? Why haven't they progressed?
> 
> Maybe some MTB and road bike tires don't require sealant but all fatbikes do? Am I missing something?


You misunderstood my comment. See my latest reply to Headwind re: 25mm rims to understand more clearly.

I don't disagree with you on "tubeless ready", and I'm not taking the side of "the industry" here, but very few cyclists are willing to accept the weight penalty that'd automatically come with a tire that didn't require sealant.

There are rims out there that don't require tape. Available now. They haven't taken off en masse because they're a PITA to build with, and a wrap of tape is simple, reliable, light, and cheap.


----------



## AKCheesehead (Apr 30, 2008)

ak-rider said:


> I'm not sure how you figure that? The only tires I've ever lost off wheels are at very low pressures. I've experienced it with automobiles, ATV's, dirt bikes, bicycles and even my handcart. Like Headwind mentioned, beadlock wheels were developed to keep tires on wheels and that's why they are also used for applications where people run very low pressures.
> 
> On another topic, I find the term "tubeless ready" a misnomer in cycling because the tires aren't tubeless in the same sense as automobile, ATV or street bike tires. You don't have to use tape and sealant to keep the tires from leaking in those applications. Some dual sport motorcycles use specially designed spoked wheels are use regular tubeless tires. The way the bike industry does it is halfass IMO. We shouldn't have to Mickey Mouse around with tape and sealant to have a tubeless tire. I seem to remember tubeless tires coming out what, 10-15 yrs ago? Why haven't they progressed?
> 
> Maybe some MTB and road bike tires don't require sealant but all fatbikes do? Am I missing something?


Hutchinson Tires and Mavic Rims back in the day didn't require any tape or sealant, but they were a pain to rebuild if necessary...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

And to think that adding a layer of rubber inside that is the thickness of an SL tube and mess resolved, but why would we want that when sealant scum can add up to a 1960's era thornproof tube...


----------



## Guitar Ted (Jan 14, 2004)

mikesee said:


> I don't disagree with you on "tubeless ready", and I'm not taking the side of "the industry" here, but very few cyclists are willing to accept the weight penalty that'd automatically come with a tire that didn't require sealant.


Yes. Exactly this.

Geax/Vittoria used to make the Saguaro 29"er tire in folding, "TNT" (tubeless Ready) and true UST (Needs no sealant)

I don't have the exact figures at hand anymore, but as I recall, I had all three types and the folding bead tire was in the 600's of grams, the TNT in the 800's and the full UST tire right at 1000 grams. Same tread, same width, just different constructions for non-tubeless to full on tubeless "just like a car tire".

UPDATE: I found my figures- Folding bead: 660gm TNT: 770 gms UST: 930gms.

As mikesee says, we have limited horsepower, so adding weight for the ease of running tubeless comes at a price. A price many are unwilling to pay. Some might......_most will not. _


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Rock crawler has zero relevance that I can see. 4 wheels vs. 2, huge horsepower and torque vs. almost none at all.
> 
> Take the logical extreme example of the point you're trying to make -- that a narrower rim holds the tire better -- by imagining a 5" tire on a 25mm wide rim. Is that going to work? Nope, and especially not at low pressures, since any lateral input is going to want to rip the bead out of the hook. You'd have to run an unreasonably high amount of pressure just to keep the tire on the rim, which removes float or steering from the equation.
> 
> ...


Actually, it has a lot of reference. Slow speeds, single digit pressures.
We are not talking about extreme size differences. Just practical differences. These tires are designed very tall. The height causes as many fitment problems as the width.
But the added height leaves a much longer footprint at low pressure. The added width on the ground at 1 psi between 100 and 80 probably isn't measurable. I would say the difference between the 100 and 80 mm rim popping beads would be about the same.
Put a smallish 4.8 on and I think the 80mm rim is going to hang onto that tire better. This is the same with my quad, the FJ40, or any tire that gets close to the rim width when run at lower pressure.
It's why I switched to 8 inch wide rims years ago. But I will go back to 10's when I get bead locks. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> The added width on the ground at 1 psi between 100 and 80 probably isn't measurable.


How about measuring "footprint" of yours with pics? That shouldn't be too hard with snow on the ground.. I haven't run mine below 0.1bar yet, and can't even measure <0.2bar for now..


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> How about measuring "footprint" of yours with pics? That shouldn't be too hard with snow on the ground.. I haven't run mine below 0.1bar yet, and can't even measure <0.2bar for now..


That is a good idea. I will wait for a light dusting of snow and some warmer temps and use the driveway. I think you had measured over 5 inches.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> That is a good idea. I will wait for a light dusting of snow and some warmer temps and use the driveway. I think you had measured over 5 inches.


Thanks. I'm still wondering if I should buy 80, 85, 90, 100 or 105mm carbon rims.. Or maybe wait 110mm Nexties. I asked about them, the answer was:

"Probably we'll put it in plan before next winter comes."

Not sure if they are any lighter than 100mm Clownshoes though


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Mikesee & AKcheesehead,
Interesting, I didn't know there were automotive type tubeless tires & wheels available. I'm not that familiar with tubeless but I've read so many threads about guys futzing with tape, foam, sealant, ghetto split tubes, squirting sealant at low PSI, messy tire changes, etc that I've often wondered how it could be worth the hassle? 

Just today I had to air way down to make it through a 3/4 mile long section of inconsistent, wind blowN snow that only supported you some of the time. Once I got back on the main trail it felt like my brake was dragging or I was towing a kid in a trailer. The amount of resistance from very low PSI tires was amazing. I wouldn't have wanted to deal with a tubeless set up that might have lost air at low psi. Are their any 100mm wide fat tire wheels that are set up like automotive tubeless?


----------



## frl (Jul 22, 2014)

I ride jumbo jim LS tubeless with out sealant. That is on 80 mm carbon rim. And soon on 100 mm carbon rim. And I going to do the same on 2xl. Just have waiting for det bike and the 100 mm carbon wheelset. This is singel wall carbon rims. Air up great. And holds air well at 1 psi.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

Pole Taiga Snow, Clown Shoes, tubeless and 11Psi test pressure.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

frl said:


> I ride jumbo jim LS tubeless with out sealant. That is on 80 mm carbon rim. And soon on 100 mm carbon rim. And I going to do the same on 2xl. Just have waiting for det bike and the 100 mm carbon wheelset. This is singel wall carbon rims. Air up great. And holds air well at 1 psi.


I like the sounds of that. Do you tape the wheel to make the spokes air tight? What do you do for a valve stem?



brilleaux said:


> Pole Taiga Snow, Clown Shoes, tubeless and 11Psi test pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dang, I'm a bit surprised by the how close the tire is to the chainstay. I'd have no problem running it, just would have thought it'd have a bit more clearance. I'd love to tryout one of those bikes to see how their unique geometry handles and feels.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

There's 5-6mm clearance. And wheel isn't perfectly centered yet; at drive side is about 7-8mm space. 

And my 2XL is 130mm wide now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

5-6mm works! I've got 5mm clearance between the chain and the Lou on my Fatboy and that's been fine. Actually I think that's all the clearance I have at one of my chainstays as well.

130mm wide tire... nice!


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Today's ride and the Lou holding me back. I can't wait until
I get a bike with 2XLs front AND rear!


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

ak-rider said:


> Today's ride and the Lou holding me back. I can't wait until
> I get a bike with 2XLs front AND rear!


Is that the standard fork on the bike? How did install huge XXL tire on front end?

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> This link has a ton of info.
> F A Q - rideFATbikes.ca


I finally followed that link and spent a few minutes being amused. You really shouldn't take what's written there as anything more than a heavy handed sales pitch. That guy came around here, briefly, and tried to convince people of lots of things that were debatable at best, and just plain false most of the time. He's entitled to his opinions but wasn't very good at backing them up with facts. That, and his opinions seemed to revolve around the assumption that Kelso, Ontario, is the center of the universe, and what worked there was *THE ANSWER* everywhere.

Potentially my favorite quote from that page is this one: _"All the Fat bikes we sell will be built capable of hitting GPS verified 45kph in sprints"_

Good for a chuckle, not much more.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> I finally followed that link and spent a few minutes being amused. You really shouldn't take what's written there as anything more than a heavy handed sales pitch. That guy came around here, briefly, and tried to convince people of lots of things that were debatable at best, and just plain false most of the time. He's entitled to his opinions but wasn't very good at backing them up with facts. That, and his opinions seemed to revolve around the assumption that Kelso, Ontario, is the center of the universe, and what worked there was *THE ANSWER* everywhere.
> 
> Potentially my favorite quote from that page is this one: _"All the Fat bikes we sell will be built capable of hitting GPS verified 45kph in sprints"_
> 
> Good for a chuckle, not much more.


I have enough trouble sprinting up to 45kmh at the end of any race, on my CAAD12.
But my opinion on rim width and tire retention comes from decades of experience off road on bikes, quads, trucks and everything else in between.
I was in Moab a few years ago and the fellow ahead of me had wider rims with the same size MTR's I was running. As we were airing down, my co-driver and I agreed he was going to peel the downhill tires off the rim on the first side hill. As you know how grippy Moab is, it didn't take long for him to lose his front tire from the rim.
A rim two inches narrower would have completely prevented that, or bead locks.
There is a sweet spot for every combo of tire and rim. And what this is varies with the terrain you ride.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Picard said:


> Is that the standard fork on the bike? How did install huge XXL tire on front end?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Yes, stock aluminum fork on the Fatboy SE. It works just fine, no rubbing, plenty of clearance. The tire briefly had a slight rub the first day until it broke in and the wobble worked itself out. I believe the wobble was caused from the way the tire was folded up for shipping.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

headwind said:


> I have enough trouble sprinting up to 45kmh at the end of any race, on my CAAD12.
> But my opinion on rim width and tire retention comes from decades of experience off road on bikes, quads, trucks and everything else in between.
> I was in Moab a few years ago and the fellow ahead of my had wider rims with the same size MTR's I was running. As we were airing down, my co-driver and I agreed he was going to peel the downhill tires off the rim on the first side hill. As you know how grippy Moab is, it didn't take long for him to lose his front tire from the rim.
> A rim two inches narrower would have completely prevented that, or bead locks.
> There is a sweet spot for every combo of tire and rim. And what this is varies with the terrain you ride.


Much has to do with the bull riding em in the china shop, just sayin.


----------



## frl (Jul 22, 2014)

ak-rider said:


> I like the sounds of that. Do you tape the wheel to make the spokes air tight? What do you do for a valve stem?
> 
> I use stans tubeless valve. And a transparent tape used for well everything. Don't remember the brand. The tape holds air about 7 months.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

Is the bike prone to flat if it runs at low pressure? 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

The low pressure narrow rim width argument is funny. You are NEVER going to be riding in a really low pressure situation w/ enough force to roll a tire off a rim. The only time I am below 6-8 psi is on snow, to achieve float. 

Comparing humans on a bike to high weigh, high powered 4wd rigs is straight up apples and oranges argument. The two applications couldn't be more different actually. 

A narrow rim and wide tire are going to give you a really round tire profile, and my "guess" is that handling would be very odd. The opposite would be a really wide rim with narrow tire, which would yield a very flat tire profile.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

Picard said:


> Is the bike prone to flat if it runs at low pressure?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


If you're talking pinch flat, then yes. I am tubeless, which all but eliminates risk of pinch flats (unless you end up hitting so hard, you shred your casing). Some have used tubes + low psi with no issues, but I personally wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

jonshonda said:


> The low pressure narrow rim width argument is funny. You are NEVER going to be riding in a really low pressure situation w/ enough force to roll a tire off a rim. The only time I am below 6-8 psi is on snow, to achieve float.
> 
> Comparing humans on a bike to high weigh, high powered 4wd rigs is straight up apples and oranges argument. The two applications couldn't be more different actually.
> 
> A narrow rim and wide tire are going to give you a really round tire profile, and my "guess" is that handling would be very odd. The opposite would be a really wide rim with narrow tire, which would yield a very flat tire profile.


Nobody is talking about narrow rims. As the rim width approaches the nominal width of the tire the more likely it is to roll off the rim at low pressures. 
All rims and all tires. Except for those with a tire retention system whether that's an external beadlock or an internal system.
I've rolled Challenge Grifo's off rims in cross running 25 psi on 23mm rims on my SS Unit. Same tires, same pressure, no problems on a 19mm rim on my JTS.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Picard said:


> Is the bike prone to flat if it runs at low pressure?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


Because it's far to cold here for tubeless, I use tubes at 1-2 psi.
No problems so far.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

headwind said:


> Because it's far to cold here for tubeless, I use tubes at 1-2 psi.
> No problems so far.


What's considered too cold for tubeless?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

stremf said:


> What's considered too cold for tubeless?


It was -47 with the wind chill this weekend. 
Minus 39 with no wind effect.
But tonight its only -24! It's a miracle. I rode without a toque or goggles. Feels like summer. I wish it could stay this way all winter.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

mikesee said:


> I finally followed that link and spent a few minutes being amused. You really shouldn't take what's written there as anything more than a heavy handed sales pitch. That guy came around here, briefly, and tried to convince people of lots of things that were debatable at best, and just plain false most of the time. He's entitled to his opinions but wasn't very good at backing them up with facts. That, and his opinions seemed to revolve around the assumption that Kelso, Ontario, is the center of the universe, and what worked there was *THE ANSWER* everywhere.
> 
> Potentially my favorite quote from that page is this one: _"All the Fat bikes we sell will be built capable of hitting GPS verified 45kph in sprints"_
> 
> Good for a chuckle, not much more.


Glad to read your thoughts about that article. It featured a number of things I didn't agree with.



headwind said:


> It was -47 with the wind chill this weekend.
> Minus 39 with no wind effect.
> But tonight its only -24! It's a miracle. I rode without a toque or goggles. Feels like summer. I wish it could stay this way all winter.


That's still cold but funny how it feels so much warmer than -30°F!


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

headwind said:


> Because it's far to cold here for tubeless, I use tubes at 1-2 psi. No problems so far.


this is funny.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

jonshonda said:


> this is funny.


Freezing ain't funny.....
How can you use sealant in -45?
It will be -38 tonight, again.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

headwind said:


> It was -47 with the wind chill this weekend.
> Minus 39 with no wind effect.
> But tonight its only -24! It's a miracle. I rode without a toque or goggles. Feels like summer. I wish it could stay this way all winter.


That's definitely cold. But why would that preclude you from going tubeless? I understand sealant can freeze (although some homebrew stuff may be a "solution"--ha), but you don't really need sealant on snow rides (at least, I can't remember the last time I found a goat head or thorn in my tire). I would think reducing risk of pinch flats would be a HUGE benefit. Understandably, you may need sealant to get the beads to seal up initially, but that can be done in your home. With the excellent tubeless system (rim and tires) out now, I don't see a reason not to kick the tubes to the curb.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Yep, seal them up at room temperature.
Plus: tires like Jumbo Jim can be ridden tubeless w/o sealant.


----------



## dayooper (Nov 21, 2015)

One reason would be it's just cleaner, particularly if one likes to frequently swap tires around for varying winter conditions. Also, if it aint broke, don't fix it. As with most things, it depends on rider, conditions and riding style. I've not had any issues with riding light Q-tubes down to 1-2psi in 4.8" tires (bud/lou and XLs) in winter...the weight is close to a wash with the extra taping/sealant. Maybe it changes, but it's been fine for over a year in my winter riding conditions. It was fine the 4-5 times I rode on summer trails too for that matter, up around 8-10 psi....moderately aggressive, hardpack w roots, but minimal rocks.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I like the concept of going tubeless but unless it can be done with the existing tires and wheels I have and without sealant, I'm not really stoked on it. Aside from the additional weight, I've not had any issues with tubes and they've been reliable. 

Maybe I'll order a couple tubeless valve stems and screw around with my existing tires/wheels and see what happens. Sounds like you just run a strip of tape over the spoke holes and then inflate the tire, correct?

Do they make schrader type valve stems for going tubeless? Then I cold use my air compressor to inflate them initially. I supposed I could also drill out a hole on the opposite side of the existing valve stems hole and insert and automotive style schrader valve. I personally hate the presta style valves bikes always seem to come with.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

You can use a compressor with presta valves.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> I like the concept of going tubeless but unless it can be done with the existing tires and wheels I have and without sealant, I'm not really stoked on it. Aside from the additional weight, I've not had any issues with tubes and they've been reliable.
> 
> Maybe I'll order a couple tubeless valve stems and screw around with my existing tires/wheels and see what happens. Sounds like you just run a strip of tape over the spoke holes and then inflate the tire, correct?
> 
> Do they make schrader type valve stems for going tubeless? Then I cold use my air compressor to inflate them initially. I supposed I could also drill out a hole on the opposite side of the existing valve stems hole and insert and automotive style schrader valve. I personally hate the presta style valves bikes always seem to come with.


Buy a cheap 50 cent brass adapter and use the compressor.
I have nothing against tubeless. I've used them plenty in the summer and on my cross bike.
Even if I could run these without sealant, I still may not run tubeless in the winter.
I can change a tube in -45. It would be painful but I could do it. But popping a tire loose from the bead or a puncture could mean real trouble if I'm 10km from home.
I don't live in a city.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

headwind said:


> Buy a cheap 50 cent brass adapter and use the compressor.
> I have nothing against tubeless. I've used them plenty in the summer and on my cross bike.
> Even if I could run these without sealant, I still may not run tubeless in the winter.
> I can change a tube in -45. It would be painful but I could do it. But popping a tire loose from the bead or a puncture could mean real trouble if I'm 10km from home.
> I don't live in a city.


Use a plug kit like Sahmurai sword:
Plug tubeless tyres with Sahmurai Sword - BikeRadar
Way faster than replacing a tube.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

That tubeless patch kit looks very similar, albeit smaller, than the "horsehair" type patches they sell at Napa. The concept behind those patches are very sound. I've even patched sidewall punctures on ATV and automotive tires and they held for years. You aren't supposed to fix sidewall punctures on auto tires but it works if you are in a pinch. I'm liking the idea of tubeless even more. 

I'll have to look for a presta to schrader adapter. I didn't know something like that existed.


----------



## Kris (Jun 15, 2004)

headwind said:


> I can change a tube in -45. It would be painful but I could do it. But popping a tire loose from the bead or a puncture could mean real trouble if I'm 10km from home.
> I don't live in a city.


For the record it has never been -45 in Regina, wind chill does not equal air temp. For snow riding I rarely carry a spare. In five years of fat riding my only flats were at BP after riding over cactus and at the Douglas sand dunes running over fencing staples. J flatted after riding over a snow dune hiding thorns at Wascana Trails. Knowing that, for snow riding I take my chances. Below -20 changing a flat would be so painful I'd rather just stash my bike and walk/call for a pickup.

Also I can't imagine what the rolling resistance would be with tubes at sub 2 psi. Sub 3 I find that the tube doesn't stretch out enough to push against the tire and resistance goes through the roof. The other day I was at 2.5 front, 3 rear and it felt like I was towing an anchor behind me.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Kris said:


> For the record it has never been -45 in Regina, wind chill does not equal air temp. For snow riding I rarely carry a spare. In five years of fat riding my only flats were at BP after riding over cactus and at the Douglas sand dunes running over fencing staples. J flatted after riding over a snow dune hiding thorns at Wascana Trails. Knowing that, for snow riding I take my chances. Below -20 changing a flat would be so painful I'd rather just stash my bike and walk/call for a pickup.
> 
> Also I can't imagine what the rolling resistance would be with tubes at sub 2 psi. Sub 3 I find that the tube doesn't stretch out enough to push against the tire and resistance goes through the roof. The other day I was at 2.5 front, 3 rear and it felt like I was towing an anchor behind me.


Hi Kris, Regina's record is -50 btw.
I'm a living creature, so wind chill effects me. It's usually 5 degrees colder out the Balgonie way than it is in the city. Maybe its because we are higher. Seems to be always warmer in Moose jaw for some reason. I use the thermometers I have on the outside of my house.
The coldest temps I have ever ridden a bike is -47 without any windchill added. With the wind chill it was something like -56 that day. This was on Tobin Lake ice fishing.
As far as calling for help, in the creek beds where I ride there is no truck coming, and its going to be a 10 km walk home at the end of my loop. So I'd rather run tubes and avoid pushing my bike. If I can change a tractor tire in -40, I can change a bicycle tube in -40. I don't know how much work you do outside, but wind chill is everything when you are working outside. This is why OHS has all those charts and guidelines although there are no laws concerning cold exposure in Canada.
At -30, a 25kmh wind makes it colder than -50. And it's always windy.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen W said:


> Use a plug kit like Sahmurai sword:
> Plug tubeless tyres with Sahmurai Sword - BikeRadar
> Way faster than replacing a tube.


Espen, you wouldn't need it cause you run 0.0 psi!


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Kris said:


> For the record it has never been -45 in Regina, wind chill does not equal air temp. For snow riding I rarely carry a spare. In five years of fat riding my only flats were at BP after riding over cactus and at the Douglas sand dunes running over fencing staples. J flatted after riding over a snow dune hiding thorns at Wascana Trails. Knowing that, for snow riding I take my chances. Below -20 changing a flat would be so painful I'd rather just stash my bike and walk/call for a pickup.
> 
> Also I can't imagine what the rolling resistance would be with tubes at sub 2 psi. Sub 3 I find that the tube doesn't stretch out enough to push against the tire and resistance goes through the roof. The other day I was at 2.5 front, 3 rear and it felt like I was towing an anchor behind me.


Yes, the resistance goes up a sh!tload at low pressure. I've got tubes and never before thought about how the tube acted against the tire at super low pressure. That must be why people like tubeless so much.



headwind said:


> Hi Kris, Regina's record is -50 btw.
> I'm a living creature, so wind chill effects me. It's usually 5 degrees colder out the Balgonie way than it is in the city. Maybe its because we are higher. Seems to be always warmer in Moose jaw for some reason. I use the thermometers I have on the outside of my house.
> The coldest temps I have ever ridden a bike is -47 without any windchill added. With the wind chill it was something like -56 that day. This was on Tobin Lake ice fishing.
> As far as calling for help, in the creek beds where I ride there is no truck coming, and its going to be a 10 km walk home at the end of my loop. So I'd rather run tubes and avoid pushing my bike. If I can change a tractor tire in -40, I can change a bicycle tube in -40. I don't know how much work you do outside, but wind chill is everything when you are working outside. This is why OHS has all those charts and guidelines although there are no laws concerning cold exposure in Canada.
> At -30, a 25kmh wind makes it colder than -50. And it's always windy.


Absolutely! Windchill at super low temps is terrible. The coldest I ever rode a bike was around -40° F. I just did it to do it and the very short ride I made around the neighborhood had me heading back home quickly. I didn't have a face mask and the breeze against my face from me just riding was unbearable. I was afraid I'd windburn or frostbite my face.

One day I walked to work at around -43°F and there was a slight breeze out of the north. It was awful, my face mask was lacking at it hurt around my uncovered eyes. I walked backwards until I got out of the wind. That was enough of living in interior Alaska for me. I'm fine with being a vag and staying close to the ocean where it rarely get below -10° F.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Ekke said:


> Thanks. I'm still wondering if I should buy 80, 85, 90, 100 or 105mm carbon rims.. Or maybe wait 110mm Nexties. I asked about them, the answer was:
> 
> "Probably we'll put it in plan before next winter comes."
> 
> Not sure if they are any lighter than 100mm Clownshoes though


Assuming you're only gonna run 2xl, go wide. I'd go as wide as you can fit/afford.

The 105mm carbons that exist (I can't remember the name at the moment, but their the ones with the special pattern around the spokes), those are insanely nice. Super light, but also insanely expensive. They are close to half the weight of clownshoes though. If I had the dough and the frame to support those I'd say those are the best match for 2xl.

When it comes to rim width, people here have different opinions, but as I've mentioned before 2xl on 80mm gives a very lightbulb shape (fact) that to me isn't nice compared to wider rims due to the squirmish behavior they exhibit on low psi. If you try it back to back with a wider rim you'll know what I mean.

disclaimer: I know the people here on 80mm rims are happy, but I personally going just 1cm wider (90mm, low sidewall hookless rims that make the tire balloon out a lot better) made a huge difference for me compared to 80mm tubeless ready alu rims. 2xl feel a lot less squirmish on lb 90mm compared to fatlab 80mm.
The reason I only went 90mm is that it's the upper limit for lauf carbonara with 2xl.
If not I would have gone wider.

Regardless of pressure I firmly believe that a wider rim will give better flotation and a wider contact patch (given the rims have the same bead and sidewall hight). 
When in addition you get less light bulb shape and less squirming, there is really not a reason not to go as wide as possible (as long as you're planning to use the rims solely for 2xl and flotation is your goal)


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Andy81 said:


> Assuming you're only gonna run 2xl, go wide. I'd go as wide as you can fit/afford.
> 
> The 105mm carbons that exist (I can't remember the name at the moment, but their the ones with the special pattern around the spokes), those are insanely nice. Super light, but also insanely expensive. They are close to half the weight of clownshoes though. If I had the dough and the frame to support those I'd say those are the best match for 2xl.
> 
> ...


I would like to get a set of 100mm wheels for the Bud and Lou but the price is daunting to say the least. I would like to run these tires on a 100mm rim in warmer temps and in the sand. Any suggestions of a quality rim that doesn't cost more than a new bike?
Can Bud and Lou be run tubeless?


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

headwind said:


> I would like to get a set of 100mm wheels for the Bud and Lou but the price is daunting to say the least. I would like to run these tires on a 100mm rim in warmer temps and in the sand. Any suggestions of a quality rim that doesn't cost more than a new bike?
> Can Bud and Lou be run tubeless?


That'd be nice. 
There aren't many options, but fatlab have an aluminium prototype 100mm out, so they'll probably release that. Decent price, easily tubeless and pretty light for what they are..

Bud/lou are notoriously loose in the bead, but with fatthsttrippers or perhaps split tube, it should be easy.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

headwind said:


> Buy a cheap 50 cent brass adapter and use the compressor.
> I have nothing against tubeless. I've used them plenty in the summer and on my cross bike.
> Even if I could run these without sealant, I still may not run tubeless in the winter.
> I can change a tube in -45. It would be painful but I could do it. But popping a tire loose from the bead or a puncture could mean real trouble if I'm 10km from home.
> I don't live in a city.


If you can get it setup and holding air without sealant, there is no good reason to run tubes (IMHO). You will be less likely to get a flat, assuming a good beadlock on the rims, and if you get a flat, it would be quicker/easier to fix than if you had a tube in there. Just pull one bead and throw the tube in.

Then again, if it's working for you, why mess with it? I also don't ride in temps anywhere near yours...


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

bikeny said:


> If you can get it setup and holding air without sealant, there is no good reason to run tubes (IMHO). You will be less likely to get a flat, assuming a good beadlock on the rims, and if you get a flat, it would be quicker/easier to fix than if you had a tube in there. Just pull one bead and throw the tube in.
> 
> Then again, if it's working for you, why mess with it? I also don't ride in temps anywhere near yours...


However, you would need to undo the tubeless valve, and in my case, break both sides to remove the split tube. So probably a wash as far as tube change goes. But 100% agreed that it minimizes chance of flats.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

stremf said:


> However, you would need to undo the tubeless valve, and in my case, break both sides to remove the split tube. So probably a wash as far as tube change goes. But 100% agreed that it minimizes chance of flats.


Sorry, I was talking about using real tubeless rims. A split tube setup is a whole different animal, and much more work to install or uninstall.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Andy81 said:


> Assuming you're only gonna run 2xl, go wide. I'd go as wide as you can fit/afford.
> 
> The 105mm carbons that exist (I can't remember the name at the moment, but their the ones with the special pattern around the spokes), those are insanely nice. Super light, but also insanely expensive. They are close to half the weight of clownshoes though. If I had the dough and the frame to support those I'd say those are the best match for 2xl.


Kuroshiro Enso 6105, 525g, ~900 euros. They don't need tape, because they are drilled for Sapim Polyax nipples, only sealant.. But just so damn pricey.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Ekke said:


> Kuroshiro Enso 6105, 525g, ~900 euros.


I skipped beer, wine, and weed for a season to save up for mine. Worth every penny.

_*none of which do I actually ever buy at any time anyway, but still..._


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> I have enough trouble sprinting up to 45kmh at the end of any race, on my CAAD12.
> But my opinion on rim width and tire retention comes from decades of experience off road on bikes, quads, trucks and everything else in between.
> I was in Moab a few years ago and the fellow ahead of me had wider rims with the same size MTR's I was running. As we were airing down, my co-driver and I agreed he was going to peel the downhill tires off the rim on the first side hill. As you know how grippy Moab is, it didn't take long for him to lose his front tire from the rim.
> A rim two inches narrower would have completely prevented that, or bead locks.
> There is a sweet spot for every combo of tire and rim. And what this is varies with the terrain you ride.


That's a great anecdote to prove your point with 4 wheels, but has zero relevance to 2 wheels. Is, in fact, the opposite of what you'd want if low pressure, big tires, and sidehilling are on tap for the day.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> That's a great anecdote to prove your point with 4 wheels, but has zero relevance to 2 wheels. Is, in fact, the opposite of what you'd want if low pressure, big tires, and sidehilling are on tap for the day.


So you are suggesting the width of the rim should be the same width as the tire for low pressures?
That's a recipe for peeling a tire off of the rim. No matter what the tire.
Unless your running high pressures on sports cars.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

headwind said:


> I have nothing against tubeless. I've used them plenty in the summer and on my cross bike.
> Even if I could run these without sealant, I still may not run tubeless in the winter.
> I can change a tube in -45. It would be painful but I could do it. But popping a tire loose from the bead or a puncture could mean real trouble if I'm 10km from home.
> I don't live in a city.


it's just as easy to throw in a tube after going flat on a tubeless setup as it is to change a tube.

Your Farley has Mulefut's, which are easy to setup tubeless with rim strips and tape, i just did mine.

Having some sealant may actually patch a leak without needing to change the tube.

FWIW, i ran about 4 PSI last weekend tubed with the Barbegazi's and felt like i was towing an anchor. I had planned to finish my tubeless conversion at the cottage but I left the valves at home


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> So you are suggesting the width of the rim should be the same width as the tire for low pressures?
> That's a recipe for peeling a tire off of the rim. No matter what the tire.
> Unless your running high pressures on sports cars.


Same? Not necessarily. But as close as possible? YES.

Your "peeling" statement may be true for 4 wheeled vehicles. But, as I keep trying to get you to understand, it isn't true in this application.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

I run 4.5" (actual) tires on 100mm rims, tubeless. 0-1psi riding, the bead has never broken. I'm sure I can get the tire to peel off by riding fast and aggressive, but the fact that I'm having to air down to 0-1psi means I'm doing neither of those things, but doing all I can just to stay on the bike.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

mikesee said:


> I skipped beer, wine, and weed for a season to save up for mine. Worth every penny.
> 
> _*none of which do I actually ever buy at any time anyway, but still..._


*gasp* envy just kicked in.. ?
They look like the bees knees!


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Same? Not necessarily. But as close as possible? YES.
> 
> Your "peeling" statement may be true for 4 wheeled vehicles. But, as I keep trying to get you to understand, it isn't true in this application.


Even Mavics tests show a narrow tire on a wide rim has a far greater chance of leaving the rim. There is good reason why you see 19mm internal width rims and 35 tires from the factory on cross bikes. And I've yet to see a 2.25 mtb tire with a rim that matches it's width. My Kona Unit has 25mm rims and 2.25 tires. 
ETRTO standards go nowhere near what you suggest. 
I believe that an 80mm rim is going to hang onto this 2xl tire better than a 100mm rim at low pressure. The trade off will be the footprint but this will be negligible. The wider rim should handle better at speed with higher pressures. The 2xl is in no way to wide for an 80mm rim and a 100mm rim is not too large. Both will work.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

^Honestly you just need to stop. Out of the hundreds (thousands?) of riders riding bud/lou/JJ on everything from 65mm to 100mm rims, I have yet to see one SINGLE complaint or issue with breaking a bead loose.

I am 235lbs w/o gear and have ridden tubeless bud/lou/d5/d4/nate/bfl, enough torque to have broken more rear hubs then most fat bikers have even owned, and have NEVER had an issue. I ride all four seasons from 10 psi to as low as I possibly can, and nada. I have actually had more issues w/ tubes than w/o. If anyone was a good candidate to roll a tire off a rim, its me.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Back on topic of the XXL, we really could have used them in the 8" of fresh powder last night. Had to resort to riding on the roads.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> Even Mavics tests show a narrow tire on a wide rim has a far greater chance of leaving the rim. There is good reason why you see 19mm internal width rims and 35 tires from the factory on cross bikes. And I've yet to see a 2.25 mtb tire with a rim that matches it's width. My Kona Unit has 25mm rims and 2.25 tires.
> ETRTO standards go nowhere near what you suggest.
> I believe that an 80mm rim is going to hang onto this 2xl tire better than a 100mm rim at low pressure. The trade off will be the footprint but this will be negligible. The wider rim should handle better at speed with higher pressures. The 2xl is in no way to wide for an 80mm rim and a 100mm rim is not too large. Both will work.


It's been a few decades since Mavic had anything relevant to say about mountain bikes. And they've never, ever had anything to say about fatbikes.

ETRTO standards? Are those the same ones that say we need to run our 5" tires at a minimum of 15psi?

As for cross bikes with 35mm tires, and 2.25" mtb tires -- which of these are being run at 1psi?

Clearly you have lots of experience with wheeled vehicles off-road, but it's not translating to fat tires run at single digit pressures. At all. We are agreed that both 80mm and 100mm rims will work with 5" tires, but you have yet to provide any credible evidence to support your belief that 80 is better for low pressures and 100 ideal for higher. That's just backwards, sir.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

jonshonda said:


> Back on topic of the XXL, we really could have used them in the 8" of fresh powder last night.


Only a little snow here, but it has been +1C for two days and raining mostly water so it's a little wet (snow) now.. Nice traction though


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Tech Tuesday ? Wider Rims Are Better and Why Tubeless Tires Burp Air - Pinkbike


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> It's been a few decades since Mavic had anything relevant to say about mountain bikes. And they've never, ever had anything to say about fatbikes.
> 
> ETRTO standards? Are those the same ones that say we need to run our 5" tires at a minimum of 15psi?
> 
> ...


Well, I better tell all the major manufacturers that they got it all wrong. Ever single one of my mx bikes has had a rim that is far smaller than the tire mounted to to which is usually a 120 section tire on a 2.15 rim in the back. And like a lot of guys I have run single digit pressures when running in the mud or bog.
I wonder why they don't use 4 inch rims for these 4.75 tires? Weight, tire retention and rim protection. You will not find a dirt bike with wide rims. Backwards? Not in the off road world.
I will use what I feel comfortable with and what I know works. This is only my 3rd year on fat bikes, but I have decades of off road experience on all kinds of machines.
And I am not saying that the 100 will be better at higher pressures at speed. It might be. My experience says it should be. But there are to many variables to ever test such a thing. I'd still like to try a set with my Bud and Lou.
I think the 80mm rim will hang onto this tire better at low pressure. You are free to have your own opinion.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I wasn't clearly understanding the discussion regarding narrow versus wide wheels but that diagram helped out a lot. I hadn't thought about the leaning of the bike as a factor. 

Most of my tire bead problems have come on tubeless atv tires being run at too low of a pressure and having the bead come loose during drifting. Usually happened when I got a leak. Dirt bikes use bead locks on the insides of the wheel to clamp the tire bead to the wheel. You only run around 14-16 psi in a dirt bike tire and unless I get a flat they don't come off the rim. Dirt bikes also use tubes.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

schnee said:


> Tech Tuesday ? Wider Rims Are Better and Why Tubeless Tires Burp Air - Pinkbike


I agree. But nobody is talking about narrow rims here. And that article still states a tire 2x as wide as the rim it's mounted to.
Which is the point I've been trying to make.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

jonshonda said:


> ^Honestly you just need to stop. Out of the hundreds (thousands?) of riders riding bud/lou/JJ on everything from 65mm to 100mm rims, I have yet to see one SINGLE complaint or issue with breaking a bead loose.
> 
> I am 235lbs w/o gear and have ridden tubeless bud/lou/d5/d4/nate/bfl, enough torque to have broken more rear hubs then most fat bikers have even owned, and have NEVER had an issue. I ride all four seasons from 10 psi to as low as I possibly can, and nada. I have actually had more issues w/ tubes than w/o. If anyone was a good candidate to roll a tire off a rim, its me.


Where did anyone say there was a concern about breaking a Bud or Lou loose? I've already read about how I will need to add additional tape to my rims as the beads are notoriously loose and they leak sealant (from the Bud and Lou thread) but this is about a larger, taller tire. The 2XL.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> Well, I better tell all the major manufacturers that they got it all wrong.


Manufacturers like Surly, with 100mm rims on their 4.8" tire bikes?

Or Specialized, with 90mm rims on their 4.6" tire bikes?

No doubt they are waiting for your call.



headwind said:


> Ever single one of my mx bikes has had a rim that is far smaller than the tire mounted to to which is usually a 120 section tire on a 2.15 rim in the back.


MX? Like motocross? Do you seriously not see a difference in application here?



headwind said:


> And like a lot of guys I have run single digit pressures when running in the mud or bog.


Single digit is very, very different from single *pound* of pressure. Surely you get that?



headwind said:


> I wonder why they don't use 4 inch rims for these 4.75 tires? Weight, tire retention and rim protection.


Weight? Maybe. Cost is more likely.

Tire retention? You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, other than misapplication of irrelevant examples.

Rim protection? Again, maybe. Not that I've ever heard discussed though.



headwind said:


> You will not find a dirt bike with wide rims. Backwards? Not in the off road world.


Are you that thick, really, that you don't see a difference between a ~150 horsepower bike with 8" of suspension, meant to go _fast_ through rough terrain, and a bicycle with the Vee 2XL's, zero suspension, designed to delicately cross soft surfaces at ~sub walking speed, powered by a pilot with, at best, 1 horsepower?

Do you really, really not get that distinction?



headwind said:


> I will use what I feel comfortable with


I have never suggested that you should do anything else! My continued participation in this farcical argument is intended only to save others, whom might be new to all of this, from making the mistake of using a too-narrow rim.



headwind said:


> And I am not saying that the 100 will be better at higher pressures at speed.


You might consider running for political office with a memory that short. You've said exactly this, in this very thread, TODAY.



headwind said:


> I think the 80mm rim will hang onto this tire better at low pressure.


And I think apples are delicious.

But when it comes to proving that contention, I simply can't. Nor can you, or you would have by now.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Manufacturers like Surly, with 100mm rims on their 4.8" tire bikes?
> 
> Or Specialized, with 90mm rims on their 4.6" tire bikes?
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah
I think the 80mm rim will hang onto this tire better at low pressure and offer more rim protection. And I think the 100 should handle better.
Just my opinion though. Your experience may vary.
Now lets get the thread back on track.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

Duplicate post.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

headwind said:


> Where did anyone say there was a concern about breaking a Bud or Lou loose? I've already read about how I will need to add additional tape to my rims as the beads are notoriously loose and they leak sealant (from the Bud and Lou thread) but this is about a larger, taller tire. The 2XL.


So you are saying that experience with Bud and Lou is not relevant to this discussion but experience with motocross bikes is?


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

I find myself riding with bigger pressures after converting them to tubeless.. Don't know why.


----------



## MichaelHumpal (Sep 12, 2012)

mikesee said:


> Manufacturers like Surly, with 100mm rims on their 4.8" tire bikes?
> 
> Or Specialized, with 90mm rims on their 4.6" tire bikes?
> 
> ...


This made me smile


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Manufacturers like Surly, with 100mm rims on their 4.8" tire bikes?
> 
> Or Specialized, with 90mm rims on their 4.6" tire bikes?
> 
> ...


I don't have to prove anything to you. I will go with what has worked for me. I'm not advocating everyone run out and buy 80mm rims or 100mm rims. And I have nothing to sell.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> I don't have to prove anything to you.


Good thing -- because the more you type, the more obvious it becomes that you haven't learned how to translate your motorized experience into something relevant to fatbikes.

But -- like you said -- you've only been on them for 3 years. Keep at it and you'll no doubt learn bunches.

Good luck,

MC


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

....meanwhile.....



jonshonda said:


> Back on topic of the XXL, we really could have used them in the 8" of fresh powder last night. Had to resort to riding on the roads.


We got a big dumping as well. I'd really like to test these tires to Surly's back to back, same day. I'm not seeing much improvement, if at all. Hoping my sidewalls will 'break in' and give me a more supple ride/better float, but I doubt it's going to happen.

One other thing that bothers me is how much snow it picks up. I understand that some think this may help with snow traction, but all I'm experiencing is heavier wheels that digs into my already low wattage.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

headwind said:


> I don't have to prove anything to you. I will go with what has worked for me. I'm not advocating everyone run out and buy 80mm rims or 100mm rims. And I have nothing to sell.


It seems like you have a bunch of experience with mtbs, cross bikes, motorcycles, atvs, etc. all of which points you to the conclusion that rims should be narrower than tires for low pressures due to the tires pulling off the rim. Logically this should transfer to fatbikes. 
On the other hand several people, some of whom have thousands of miles on fatbikes with 4.8 plus tires, including 2XLs, have found this to not be the case. I think they are just trying to say that for whatever reason what your experience is telling you should happen doesn't.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Pfft! As soon as I get back in my element of the Colorado high country i'm letting the air outta my JJ's and pumping my 5.05's up to 1 psi and going out to play... On 80's they have been just fine at any pressure between 3 psi and flat. 100's would be just as well and less likely to unseat at the ridiculously low pressure peeps ride em in snow. Wider rims retain the tire far better than narrow rims. This is why a trials bike uses 48mm rims with 2.4/2.5" tires. Trials puts a huge lateral force on a tire/wheel. Just sayin. I hated all the narrow rims of the 90's and searched for mountain rims as opposed to road rims.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Let's see, who am I going to listen too in this argument:

The guy who has been riding fatbikes for 3 years, but claims to have lots of experience with various forms of motorized offroad vehicles and cross bikes.

OR, the guy who has been riding fatbikes in Alaska for decades, winning races and setting records, has been tinkering with and building all manor of fatbike tires and rims for decades, traveled the length of the Iditarod trail on a fatbike fully self supported, etc...

Can someone help me with that? Please...

Seriously, the whole point of Mike's argument is that what works for high horsepower motorized offroad vehicles does not translate to a fatbike moving at walking speed over supersoft snow conditions with big tires at under 1 psi.


----------



## kidd (Apr 16, 2006)

The one constant for years. A bigger tire has always had a bigger rim. That predate s how long most everyone has been riding


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Good Lord.
I am not saying wide rims are bad! I am arguing the what Mike said is not necessarily true, depending on the context of what you are talking about.
Mike said " the more you will benefit from a rim that matches the width of your tire" and this simply isn't true. Beyond a certain point there is no decrease in sidewall deflection, and as the width of the rim approaches the width of a tire (4.8 inch tire on a 122mm rim!) you get a bell shaped tire that is going to lose beads at low pressure.
So what exactly have you gained by matching the width of your tall aspect ratio tire to a rim of the same width? You have gained weight, a lot of weight. And you have gained a bell shaped tire, that is going to pop a bead a low pressure.
If I am wrong, then I look forward to the vast array of 120-140mm rims that will soon be coming out. But I seriously doubt you will see rims getting much bigger than 100mm. For these very reasons.
The 80 and the 100 both work fine on a 5 inch tire. But to suggest a 130mm rim is going to be better at 2 psi pretty much defies anything anyone is building right now.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

headwind said:


> Good Lord.
> I am not saying wide rims are bad! I am arguing the what Mike said is not necessarily true, depending on the context of what you are talking about.
> Mike said " the more you will benefit from a rim that matches the width of your tire" and this simply isn't true. Beyond a certain point there is no decrease in sidewall deflection, and as the width of the rim approaches the width of a tire (4.8 inch tire on a 122mm rim!) you get a bell shaped tire that is going to lose beads at low pressure.
> So what exactly have you gained by matching the width of your tall aspect ratio tire to a rim of the same width? You have gained weight, a lot of weight. And you have gained a bell shaped tire, that is going to pop a bead a low pressure.
> ...


Nobody is talking about 120mm or 130mm rims, they don't exist. I think the widest are 105mm or so, so the inside will be somewhere between 95mm and 100mm I'd guess. And the 2XL tires are measuring up to 130mm. Nobody is talking about a setup where the rim is wider than the tire!

Bottom line, a 105mm rim will work better than an 80mm rim in conditions that require a tire over 5" wide.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

bikeny said:


> Nobody is talking about 120mm or 130mm rims, they don't exist. I think the widest are 105mm or so, so the inside will be somewhere between 95mm and 100mm I'd guess. And the 2XL tires are measuring up to 130mm. Nobody is talking about a setup where the rim is wider than the tire!


Not 130mm, but I would like to test these:

http://www.classic-cycle.de/en/Rims-Wheels-Parts/Alu-rim-26-inch-132-mm-32-holes-black-matte.html



Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Not 130mm, but I would like to test these:
> 
> Classic-Cycle | Alu rim 26 inch 132 mm 32 holes black matte | online kaufen
> 
> ...


Weight: 1490 g, No thanks!


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

bikeny said:


> Weight: 1490 g, No thanks!


Clownshoe + tube + rimstrip = 1.5kg? Yes please 

Sadly doesn't fit my bike..


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

headwind said:


> .
> So what exactly have you gained by matching the width of your tall aspect ratio tire to a rim of the same width? You have gained weight, a lot of weight. And you have gained a bell shaped tire, that is going to pop a bead a low pressure.
> If I am wrong, then I look forward to the vast array of 120-140mm rims that will soon be coming out. But I seriously doubt you will see rims getting much bigger than 100mm. For these very reasons.
> The 80 and the 100 both work fine on a 5 inch tire. But to suggest a 130mm rim is going to be better at 2 psi pretty much defies anything anyone is building right now.


What's been mentioned before by others has been matching tire and rim, not going to extreme either way.. 130mm would be a tad to big for 2xl, but 110 would probably be a nice marriage. Theres no bell shape when you match a tire. That's the whole point: to match. 
Not have a light bulb and not a bell shape. 
Your point on tires falling off wide rims is fair when we're in the 4" tire on 100mm rim territory..Then we're talking bell shape and those issues you mentioned.

The only reason why nobody brings out a wider rim that today's widest (+ a bigger tire) is that no bike exist that can run them. That = no sales.

As long as people run derailer gear, and max 197mm rear, that kinda stops everything.. 
There has recently been made offset 197 rear (custom Russian frame) and another guy modded a rear hub to 217mm. Those could make wider setups more interesting.

Once you go bigger than 100mm rim width you're starting to limit the tire options. Again = less sales, and that's why we don't have them.

But since we're here talking specifically about vee 2xl tires that point isn't so relevant anymore. Comparing vee 2xl on 80mm to 100mm rims, I'd say the sweet spot for 2xl is closer to 110mm 
Perhaps for 3xl (of it makes it to production) I'd prefer at least 120 rim width and maybe the 130mm that you dislike?.

Personally I'll never run 2xl on 80mm (or less) after destroying two tires riding slightly hard down hill on very low pressure. All the rubber flapping around on those rims basically pulled the tire out and off the rim. I ripped the bead and broke the tire. For me those 80mm was too extreme on the narrow side when running 2xl and basically that wasn't a match.

Had I had more pressure, no problem, but with low pressure and hard quick turns, having a light bulb shaped tire is not and will never be an advantage.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Has anyone run a 2xl without sealant? These things fit so tight I wonder how much pressure would be lost over a day or so.
I ran a set on Bontagers without sealant on a short ride last summer on one of my Units. After a day or so they had lost considerable pressure. But they did not fit as tight as these 2xls.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Andy81 said:


> What's been mentioned before by others has been matching tire and rim, not going to extreme either way.. 130mm would be a tad to big for 2xl, but 110 would probably be a nice marriage. Theres no bell shape when you match a tire. That's the whole point: to match.
> Not have a light bulb and not a bell shape.
> Your point on tires falling off wide rims is fair when we're in the 4" tire on 100mm rim territory..Then we're talking bell shape and those issues you mentioned.
> 
> ...


I assumed Mike was matching mm for mm. Not the ideal combination you suggest.
A light bulb shape is not ideal at low pressure. I think my set has a decent profile for what I am doing. Which is snow with no speed involved. 
I would like to try tubeless on these before spring. As mentioned earlier the amount of energy being used running tubes is significant.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

headwind said:


> Has anyone run a 2xl without sealant? These things fit so tight I wonder how much pressure would be lost over a day or so.
> I ran a set on Bontagers without sealant on a short ride last summer on one of my Units. After a day or so they had lost considerable pressure. But they did not fit as tight as these 2xls.


Coming around to tubeless? I set 2xl's up (Split tube) and left it overnight without sealant. I didn't notice much air loss. Definitely couldn't tell by pinch test. I doubt you'd see much loss on a ride, if at all.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

headwind said:


> I assumed Mike was matching mm for mm. Not the ideal combination you suggest.
> A light bulb shape is not ideal at low pressure. I think my set has a decent profile for what I am doing. Which is snow with no speed involved.
> I would like to try tubeless on these before spring. As mentioned earlier the amount of energy being used running tubes is significant.


Maybe the confusing part is 'matching'. Pretty sure he is talking about matching as in the ideal rim width for a certain size tire, not matching as in a 5" wide rim for a 5" wide tire. As Andy81 said, for the 2XL, I think 100mm to 110mm is the best match.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

headwind said:


> I would like to try tubeless on these before spring. As mentioned earlier the amount of energy being used running tubes is significant.


Mate, go for it. The rotational mass you'll shed feels great. Climbing, rolling resistance, etc. (depending on tubes you compare it with..) 
The first ride tubeless will make you smile. ☺


----------



## Fat-in-Fundy (Feb 21, 2015)

"Why does internal rim width matter so much? Well, there’s a lot of reasons, but the word you’re looking for is traction. A wider rim provides better lateral support. Since your sidewalls don’t have to do as much work, you can get away with running less air pressure without burping or squirming. The end result is improved traction."

Quoted from MTBR


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Fat-in-Fundy said:


> "Why does internal rim width matter so much? Well, there's a lot of reasons, but the word you're looking for is traction. A wider rim provides better lateral support. Since your sidewalls don't have to do as much work, you can get away with running less air pressure without burping or squirming. The end result is improved traction."
> 
> Quoted from MTBR


Totally agree.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

First snow since mid November in Oslo, Norway:

Some blazin' with the ''3XL'' at 0.3psi:






More:


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Damn it, Espen!! We can't see the bike. :/


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

The KHS 1000 fits the 2XL front and rear on 100mm wheels with 1x11 drivetrain.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Looking phukken awesome, ak! Dem freakin phat fat tires are absurdly sweet.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I took some stretch wrap and installed the front tire tubeless. After a few hours it drops pressure slightly. I am going to add some sealant. I have some Bontrager that was in the shop but it is frozen solid. I'm going to add some to this tire when it thaws. How much do this massive tires take? I have very small leaks.
3 oz?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> Looking phukken awesome, ak! Dem freakin phat fat tires are absurdly sweet.


Thanks! I thought it was a really good deal and I love the additional top tube clearance it has over my Fatboy and that it uses a threaded bottom
bracket. I only have a short ride on it and that was through 6" of fresh powder snow on top of a hard base. We are getting snowed on pretty hard tonight so I'll be able to compare my float to my Fatboy. I thought the KHS was easier to ride though the fresh snow than my Fatboy but I think that was my excitement. The 11spd cassette is really nice. I liked the gear spacing better than my Fatboy's 10spd. The rear tire still has a ton of room to be slid back. I'm not quite sure why the shop has it placed so far ahead? I assume the handling will be slower further back? I felt like I had better traction on the rear than with my Lou But that could have also been my excitement and imagination. I'm super stoked on it now. I like how I can mount water bottle cages to the fork and then I'll be able to run a frame bag in the triangle. I'm also digging the hydro brakes. I don't get the extreme cold temps in my area to really require mechanical brakes.

I'm really pleased at how wide my rear 2XL is compared to the rear Lou on the 90mm stock wheel on my Fatboy. I'm really looking forward to the extra float.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Had a ride on the tubeless setup today and the energy expended moving giant tubes at 1.5 psi is significant. It's minus 18 today and the bontrager sealant is good to minus 20 and hopefully colder. I will take a tube with me regardless. 
As far a contact patch goes, I measured around 5.5 inches.
Snow isn't very accurate though. The best way to see and measure a contact patch is wet to dry smooth concrete.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Giant tunes? Did you mean giant tubes maybe? I'm not understanding but I'm curious what you thought about tubeless?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> Giant tunes? Did you mean giant tubes maybe? I'm not understanding but I'm curious what you thought about tubeless?


lol!
Yes tubes.
I've run tubeless on road, gravel and in cross. But the difference in effort is nearly impossible to feel, for me anyway as I'm old and slow.
But these massive tubes must really be creating a lot of friction as the difference in effort can be felt right away. I coasted down some small hills today that I couldn't yesterday and I can put more effort into going forward. I don't know how much weight is saved after you prepare your rims and add some sealant, but tubeless at really low pressures makes sense. I'm sold.
The tires have also grown a bit larger.
I'd like to get a set of 100mm rims for the Bud and Lou and run them tubeless. The stretch wrap took about 10 minutes per wheel and I could inflate with a floor pump. Perhaps I will order the proper Mulefut tape and rim strip once winter is over. But clean up should be a breeze.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

You used stretch wrap like the stuff they use to wrap pallets or cling wrap like what's used for food in a kitchen? I've watched a couple videos of people converting to tubeless and to me it looks hokey and unreliable. But, I'm pretty curious about it. I'm assuming tire sealant is required because the wheels don't have the bead groove built in like on tubeless automotive wheels?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> You used stretch wrap like the stuff they use to wrap pallets or cling wrap like what's used for food in a kitchen? I've watched a couple videos of people converting to tubeless and to me it looks hokey and unreliable. But, I'm pretty curious about it. I'm assuming tire sealant is required because the wheels don't have the bead groove built in like on tubeless automotive wheels?


The wheels are like a double safety bead on a moto rim or like any auto rim on the curb side.
Mine were leaking at the bead. If you look at your beads after some use you will see loose threads and irregularities. My leaks were very slow.
I used the stretch wrap because I had it and I've read gorilla tape and the like absorbs the sealant and is a pain to remove. I'm a picky guy though and if I had the Sun rim strip and tape I would have used that.
But the stretch wrap worked fine. And removing and replacing it would only take a few minutes. And it costs nearly nothing. I used Stans valve stems.


----------



## brilleaux (May 13, 2016)

Fat-in-Fundy said:


> "Why does internal rim width matter so much? Well, there's a lot of reasons, but the word you're looking for is traction. A wider rim provides better lateral support. Since your sidewalls don't have to do as much work, you can get away with running less air pressure without burping or squirming. The end result is improved traction."
> 
> Quoted from MTBR


I had 80mm dt-rims before, now i have 100mm Clown shoes and 2XL performs better. Much better overall. Improved traction? Yes. But also improved rolling on higher and lower pressures. Bike is much more stable now.
I'm kind a suprised how much wider rim improved the tyre overall.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Here's my Blackborow that would need some moar Carbon, mainly light 100mm rims.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Here's my Blackborow that would need some moar Carbon, mainly light 100mm rims.


Does Salsa still offer the Blackborow? I was unable to find it in their website.


----------



## Fat-in-Fundy (Feb 21, 2015)

headwind said:


> Does Salsa still offer the Blackborow? I was unable to find it in their website.


Sadly no, but you can see it in their archived section 2016.
It's been replaced by the redesigned Mukluk.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> Does Salsa still offer the Blackborow? I was unable to find it in their website.


Nope, replaced by "wider" Mukluk..

http://salsacycles.com/bikes/archive/2016_blackborow_gx_2_x10

Produced only 2015 and 2016, but aluminium Mukluk looks a lot like Blackborow. Not sure if it's fits 2XL or not.. Carbon version doesn't.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Ekke said:


> Nope, replaced by "wider" Mukluk..
> 
> BLACKBOROW GX 2 x10 | Bikes | Salsa Cycles
> 
> Produced only 2015 and 2016, but aluminium Mukluk looks a lot like Blackborow. Not sure if it's fits 2XL or not.. Carbon version doesn't.


Dang. I was thinking of adding another bike to the stable. I guess the market for 5+ tires isn't very big.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

headwind said:


> Dang. I was thinking of adding another bike to the stable. I guess the market for 5+ tires isn't very big.


There are old stock still left for "cheap", at least in Europe.. But it might be a little heavy after Farley. Stock is over 16kg with 2XL and tubes. Mine is now 14.3kg tubeless though, L-size frame..

I think I would go for Pole Taiga, it seems to have bigger clearance for these tires, but comes with 80mm rims.

Of course there are bare frames available from both.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

We finally got some wet snow and it warmed up so once the trails had been packed down they set up nicely. We had a few inches of fresh snow that fell today and conditions were the best they've been in seemingly months. I found out today that when you don't need float you are slow ?. My wife was faster on my old bike. I reinstalled the front Bud so her top tube clearance improved and I was surprised by how narrow it looked. But, the Bud/Lou combo was a faster set up for today. We switched bikes and I could feel the difference immediately.

So far I'm really pleased with the floatation and capability of having front and rear 2XLs. I'm finding myself trying barely packed down snowmachine trails and making it where I couldn't do it before. I should have aired my tires up a bit more today as I bet I could have run a lot higher pressure and been fine.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

ak-rider said:


> . I should have aired my tires up a bit more today as I bet I could have run a lot higher pressure and been fine.


Yep, for firmer snow, pump them up a little and they will be much faster.

Todays ride had a little bit of everything , so I varied between 0.9 and 7.0psi in them big tires.

7psi for some climbing on a plowed road with some roadie looking fellas:






7psi for the dry ground sections at lower altitude:





0.9psi for the softer stuff at higher elevation:


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> We finally got some wet snow and it warmed up so once the trails had been packed down they set up nicely. We had a few inches of fresh snow that fell today and conditions were the best they've been in seemingly months. I found out today that when you don't need float you are slow . My wife was faster on my old bike. I reinstalled the front Bud so her top tube clearance improved and I was surprised by how narrow it looked. But, the Bud/Lou combo was a faster set up for today. We switched bikes and I could feel the difference immediately.
> 
> So far I'm really pleased with the floatation and capability of having front and rear 2XLs. I'm finding myself trying barely packed down snowmachine trails and making it where I couldn't do it before. I should have aired my tires up a bit more today as I bet I could have run a lot higher pressure and been fine.


I was going to switch to Bud and Lou last week but then I decided to try these 2XL's tubeless. I forgot my pump (stupid as I had a tube along) and played around on some drifts at 1 psi. The ride back was slow to say the least.
Are you running the Bud and Lou tubeless?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Espen W said:


> Yep, for firmer snow, pump them up a little and they will be much faster.
> 
> Todays ride had a little bit of everything , so I varied between 0.9 and 7.0psi in them big tires.
> 
> ...


Was there a crust those guys were sinking into or were you just trying to make them look bad? ? I'll try a higher pressure tomorrow, thanks.



headwind said:


> I was going to switch to Bud and Lou last week but then I decided to try these 2XL's tubeless. I forgot my pump (stupid as I had a tube along) and played around on some drifts at 1 psi. The ride back was slow to say the least.
> Are you running the Bud and Lou tubeless?


No, just standard with tubes. The Bud/Lou on my old Fatboy are quite a bit skinnier than my 2XL's on the 100mm wide wheels on my new bike. They are also quite a bit shorter in height.

I've never ridden tubeless and was never interested in it until it was discussed in this thread. But the motorsports/automotive side of me can't come to terms with having to use tire sealant to go tubeless. Since I switch my tires twice a year for summer and winter I don't want to deal with the mess no potential issues with burping and the tires losing pressure from time to time. I'm not presently having any issues with flats or pinch flats so my reasoning to go tubeless would be for less resistance and even more float. I think the cons outweigh the pros in my case. I've been learning about UST tires & wheels and they don't require sealant and I wish the bike industry would put more development in that direction. ATV tires are typically spec'd at only 2-5 psi and those tires stay on their wheels just fine with no sealant. I'd sacrifice weight for a sealant free, normal automotive style tubeless system for my fatbike. Saying that, I don't know how much heavier a true UST system is over the conversion type systems.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak, the trouble with the bicycle industry is that they will opt to line the inside of a tire with the equivalent of a DH tube or a thornproof tube to make the tubeless tire sealantless, thus making it heavy as a monster truck tire. I too dislike the mess and inconvenience of tire swaps being a marathon. With the 5.05's I would prefer tubeless so I can get the pressure down low enough for deep powder expeditions. I tend to ride my 4.8's half flat in the snow cause it just rolls better than pumped up. 

I think those guys were afraid to try the Koolaid cause they thought it was spiked! 

Espen, thanks for sharing your videos. It's always good to see those vaporware tires in action.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I pulled the grip studs out of the tires on my wife's old bike and installed them in the 2XL's. I only had 104 studs so my pattern isn't as full as I'd like but better than nothing. I found these tires to be difficult to stud. The center knobs were fine but the square shaped , off center side knobs were not wide enough. I then used the bigger "J" shaped knobs on the side and you had to be very careful not to blow out a knob. The rubber is so soft that the knob would squirm under the stud and twist. I don't recall what size grip studs I have but these same ones worked fine in Specialized Ground Control 4.6's and in my Bud/Lou's.

I do recall having some knob blow out issues when installing these on the small, rectangular knobs on my Lou two winters ago but that was my fault from not centering the stud perfectly as the night wore on. I compared the square knob size on the Lou to the 2XL and the Lou's were a little bigger and the rubber slightly stiffer.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

As far as tubeless with the stretch wrap goes, it seems to be working well with the Mulefut rims at 1-2 psi. No burping or tire slipping on the rim. I even drove a long side hill with the the tire folded over the one side and it wouldn't pop loose.
I have ordered the proper rim tape and strip but I'm wondering why now. I would think the stretch wrap would last as long as the tape.
Has anyone ever changed a tire with the stretch wrap? The cost is basically nothing but it would save 10 minutes if you didn't have to wrap the rim again.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

I've changed out my tires several times on split tube. Just use the same tube, and make sure that the tube covers the rim entirely. Air up. No fuss. Even if I had to change out the tube 2 times a year, I would do it. Tubeless is well worth it.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

stremf said:


> I've changed out my tires several times on split tube. Just use the same tube, and make sure that the tube covers the rim entirely. Air up. No fuss. Even if I had to change out the tube 2 times a year, I would do it. Tubeless is well worth it.


Are you using sealant? I wouldn't mind trying a split tube if I don't have to use sealant.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> Are you using sealant? I wouldn't mind trying a split tube if I don't have to use sealant.


I tried without sealant and the the tire lost a bit over a few hours. Nothing that would leave you with a low tire if you started at 4 psi. But if you are starting at 1.5 then maybe.
Even soapy water had to sit for a while before the really fine bubbles started to show. It's the bead of the tire. It's not made to the same quality as a motorcycle or quad tire.
I hate sealant as well. But for summer use it would stop a minor leak. I've never had a flat tire with sealant on my cross bike.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

It would be a blessing to be able to change tires without it being a marathon with tubeless. Sealant is, unfortunately a necessary evil, perhaps, but the damn stuff works on small injuries such as goat heads and cactus thorns. The only tires I would like to be tubeless are my 5.05's due to the hugeness, hmm, is that a word? They are so fat that when I wanna go lower than, say 2 psi the tube is loose in the tire. In the last 4 years of riding fat daily I've had one puncture and it was down to 3 psi from 6 after 3 hours of trail time. Surly Lite tubes are said by QBP to be 310g, so weight saving by tubeless is marginal at best. The Mayor was rippin trails for the last two weeks in Arizona and didn't have a flat at all. If anyplace is a flat in the making, it's AZ with the wall to wall cacti garden.


----------



## ADKMTNBIKER (Nov 29, 2014)

that video is a riot. Those roadies look down right pissed.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Espen W said:


>


Gotta love the Nordics. Hard to feel like much of a bad-ass for being out on a cold day when you're passing dozens of people wheeling strollers.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

schnee said:


> Gotta love the Nordics. Hard to feel like much of a bad-ass for being out on a cold day when you're passing dozens of people wheeling strollers.


That's the only kind of weather to have. I could live with 9 months of that, 1.5 month of spring, 1.5 month of fall, and skip my hot, muggy summers entirely 

Amazed how many people were out on that road in what seemed like a rural area.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Bummer about the necessity of sealant. I know I'll be cursing the stuff come May when I switch to my summer fat tires. Is going tubeless a night and day difference or far more subtle? 

I switched to q-tubes when I first got my Fatboy and they were a much slimmer diameter tube than the ones that came stock. I wonder if low pressure with a big, fat, heavy tube isn't as bad as is imagined in regards to filling the space in the tire? I'm picturing a void with my q-tubes. 

I was thinking that road Espin was on headed to a lodge or scenic overlook? There were to many people on that road to have been fun for me.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> Bummer about the necessity of sealant. I know I'll be cursing the stuff come May when I switch to my summer fat tires. Is going tubeless a night and day difference or far more subtle?
> 
> I switched to q-tubes when I first got my Fatboy and they were a much slimmer diameter tube than the ones that came stock. I wonder if low pressure with a big, fat, heavy tube isn't as bad as is imagined in regards to filling the space in the tire? I'm picturing a void with my q-tubes.
> 
> I was thinking that road Espin was on headed to a lodge or scenic overlook? There were to many people on that road to have been fun for me.


I found it a massive difference in energy. Even coasting down hills is much faster.
If you are going tubeless I think this is the biggest thing. For me at least with these tires.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

ak-rider said:


> Are you using sealant? I wouldn't mind trying a split tube if I don't have to use sealant.


I do use sealant. If you'd rather not, just dump a spoonful in there and shake it up. It only takes a little bit to seal up the beads. You wouldn't have much or any mess in there to clean up in summer. I typically put a couple oz in at the start of the season since some parts of the trail are still bare (we get goat heads here). I usually don't refill for the rest of the season.

FYI, I found tubeless ready tires lose very little or no air without sealant. i.e. Jumbo Jim's and 2XL's held air just fine without sealant.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

I just want to throw it out there. the very early Wren 150x15 single air fork does not clear 2XLs. i bought one used and sent it to Wren, the fork gone thru a complete overhaul had the damper replaced and had travel reduced to 80mm.

the fork does not clear 4.9 chaoyang tires.not to mention the 5.05 XXL tire, ive attached some pictures. i dont know if there is something wrong with this particular fork or its this early model. ive tried 2 different front wheel one is sun muefut 80mm. one is specizied stock 86mm with 4 different tires , 2 of 4.9" , 2 of 5.0". both sets of tires hit left leg towards to the end of compression. another user from the wren tuning thread has this same concern with this fork he was running a much narrower tire. it was determined by wren that the lean to left was normal

perhaps the newer dual air fork will clear 5" tires. i gusse i would never find out.



akacoke said:


> View attachment 1113748
> 
> 
> View attachment 1113747
> ...


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I'm encouraged by what I've been reading! I'd love to lower my resistance. So far I'm finding the 2XL's to be both a blessing and a curse, ha ha. I can ride my bike in more varied conditions than before, but after today's 1.5 hr round trip commute to work, there were many times I was questioning why I was even riding today. I wouldn't have even attempted the ride today on my Fatboy with the bud/Lou combo. 

I'm now having to relearn my limits between what's practical and what's doable but turns into a granny low 1st gear sufferfest. That is exactly what I don't want when riding to work and showing up like a sweat hog. 

Overall I'm pretty amazed by what these tires let you ride but I'm beginning to realize there is an upper limit to how big/wide you can go. But, once my 28T chainring comes I'm thinking that will be a huge improvement.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> I'm encouraged by what I've been reading! I'd love to lower my resistance. So far I'm finding the 2XL's to be both a blessing and a curse, ha ha. I can ride my bike in more varied conditions than before, but after today's 1.5 hr round trip commute to work, there were many times I was questioning why I was even riding today. I wouldn't have even attempted the ride today on my Fatboy with the bud/Lou combo.
> 
> I'm now having to relearn my limits between what's practical and what's doable but turns into a *granny low 1st gear sufferfest*. That is exactly what I don't want when riding to work and showing up like a sweat hog.
> 
> Overall I'm pretty amazed by what these tires let you ride but I'm beginning to realize there is an upper limit to how big/wide you can go. But, once my 28T chainring comes I'm thinking that will be a huge improvement.


That's it.
That describes crawling along in deep snow with the tubes and 2XL's. I was always in the 28-42 pouring sweat.
I'm in the granny gear only for the tough stuff now.
You are right about the quest for bigger tires. I don't know how much bigger I would go even if my bike fit 6 inch tires. I may switch to the Bud and Lou this weekend as we are having a heat wave with above zero temps.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

ak-rider said:


> ... but I'm beginning to realize there is an upper limit to how big/wide you can go.


Maybe 8"?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Yes, that was my ride yesterday. 17°F, took my hat off and sweat pouring off my head and my shirt was soaked. I turned my tires around backwards last night as I want the tread to be more of a paddle than a chevron. I ran my Lou in the same manner. It got windy today so the trail will be drifted over so I won't get to try them out. I noticed the tubes were as big in diameter as a dirt bike tube. Even with most of the air let out they still had a lot of volume. I'm thinking I'm going to try tubeless as I felt so slow on the plowed road yesterday. 

My gearing is 30 x 11-42 and I told the dealer I thought that was going to be too high. Yep, I was right. I wouldn't mind going even lower than a 28 on the front but I'd lose some of my top gears because the chain would then be rubbing on the chain stay. I'm thinking a 46t on the back would be really nice. 

I can see the chain clearance issues Espin mentioned if they were to go with even wider tires. I noticed my crank is wider on my KHS than the one on my Fatboy. It'll be interesting to see where tires top out. Maybe taller than wider? I've got a ton more top tube clearance on the KHS over my Fatboy. It's been so nice as it's hard to get going again in deep snow.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> Yes, that was my ride yesterday. 17°F, took my hat off and sweat pouring off my head and my shirt was soaked. I turned my tires around backwards last night as I want the tread to be more of a paddle than a chevron. I ran my Lou in the same manner. It got windy today so the trail will be drifted over so I won't get to try them out. I noticed the tubes were as big in diameter as a dirt bike tube. Even with most of the air let out they still had a lot of volume. I'm thinking I'm going to try tubeless as I felt so slow on the plowed road yesterday.
> 
> My gearing is 30 x 11-42 and I told the dealer I thought that was going to be too high. Yep, I was right. I wouldn't mind going even lower than a 28 on the front but I'd lose some of my top gears because the chain would then be rubbing on the chain stay. I'm thinking a 46t on the back would be really nice.
> 
> I can see the chain clearance issues Espin mentioned if they were to go with even wider tires. I noticed my crank is wider on my KHS than the one on my Fatboy. It'll be interesting to see where tires top out. Maybe taller than wider? I've got a ton more top tube clearance on the KHS over my Fatboy. It's been so nice as it's hard to get going again in deep snow.


I had to vacuum out my rear tire before mounting it tubeless. It had a lot of rubber inside from the tube. Same as when you run your dirt bike home with a low tire. There must be considerable friction in there at 1 psi. As soon as I saw that I knew what was going on in there.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I've seen debris in my dirt bike tires before but never thought about where it came from? Thinking back, my fatbike tires always have debris in them as well when I've changed tires. 

I think I'm going to try the split tube method with mine as it looks the cleanest. I'll have to order some sealant since it sounds like it's pretty much necessary.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Mounted the Bud and Lou last nite and took them out on the same trail today. Running them tubeless.
They certainly are lighter and take less effort to move. Roll faster as well. Seem faster on hard packed snow. 
But in deep snow or even crusted snow they sunk and took a lot more effort to move forward, if I could at all. I guess there is no replacement for displacement. The 2XL are a taller tire and not only have a wider footprint but a longer footprint as well.
I expected the Bud to have more grip up front but at slow speeds maybe it can't be noticed. The 2XL has far more grip on the ice. I walked one portion today as these tires wouldn't let me ride it.
But they are far better in the snow than the Barbegazi tires that came on the Farley. The 2XLs seem to be a better winter tire, in my conditions anyway. In deep snow its not even close.
As a side note I have been using stretch wrap on my Mulefut rims. I have done nothing to the rim other than add the wrap. Changing tires was easy. Just remove the old wrap and wrap the rim again. Zero clean up.
The tape is back ordered until February but this seems to work great.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Funny you posted just now as yesterday I was wondering how you did yours tubeless? I was goofing around, wrapped my front wheel with vapor barrier tape I had left over and used a presta tire valve I cut out of an old inner tube. I couldn't get enough air into the tire using my air compressor to even come close to seating the beads. I've done lots of ATV tires over the years so I know how to do it and was surprised by how loose the 2XL tire fit on my 100mm wheel. The valve wasn't removable so that was a big restriction and why I couldn't get enough air into the tire. I've got sealant, stans valves and some 24" inner tubes on order so one way or another I'll be trying tubeless.

I think the 2XL's have really good traction on ice. They seem to grip quite a bit better than the Bud/Lou. They also seem to have a lot more rolling resistance on most surfaces but I'd need to ride my bike back to back with my old Fatboy with the bud/Lou's to tell for sure in every instance. Like you noticed the float of the 2XL's is much superior to the bud/Lou's. I'm planning to ride both bikes today down the same trail as my 2XL's were so slow yesterday. I'm curious if it was the tires or the snow? Our conditions are presently cold and dry and the snow doesn't pack down well. The snow basically sucks for biking but is good for XC skis. 

I love the float I get from having these tires on both ends.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I use the 5 inch stretch wrap. And that's it. 
The wrap does not conform to the rim and the tire seems to rest against the wrap, and under pressure stretches into the UST bead on the rim.
All I use is the floor pump to inflate. No need for the 60 gallon 8hp compressor.
I just broke one bead and scooped the sealant out to reuse. Wrapping the rim again takes a couple of minutes as the wrap does not stay in place without a tire.
I'm not impressed with the build quality of my Bud and Lou. Sidewall has a spot of cords showing right out of the box and the bead on the Lou was very uneven. I'm surprised the sealant held.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I'm thinking the tires must seat a lot easier on your 80mm, UST ready wheels? My don't have any type of bead groove and my sidewalls are completely vertical. I'm really leaning towards using split tubes when they come in. 

I saw the pic in the other thread about your tire. I'm wondering if it rubbed on something during shipping? I was never blown away by the bud/Lou tires. I think the 2XL's are a better value compared to what I paid for the bud/Lou back in '15. I'm thinking they roll with less resistance simply because they are so much smaller than the 2XL's more than any other factor like tread pattern, rubber durometor or carcass flex, etc. I've read some interesting posts in the past about them.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> I'm thinking the tires must seat a lot easier on your 80mm, UST ready wheels? My don't have any type of bead groove and my sidewalls are completely vertical. I'm really leaning towards using split tubes when they come in.
> 
> I saw the pic in the other thread about your tire. I'm wondering if it rubbed on something during shipping? I was never blown away by the bud/Lou tires. I think the 2XL's are a better value compared to what I paid for the bud/Lou back in '15. I'm thinking they roll with less resistance simply because they are so much smaller than the 2XL's more than any other factor like tread pattern, rubber durometor or carcass flex, etc. I've read some interesting posts in the past about them.


They sure are a lot smaller than the 2XL's. And the sidewall height on the 2xl's seems to provide a smoother ride.
The mulefut rims have an inner bead on each side. Tubeless seems very easy with the wrap. I have the rim strip and tape on order though. The 2XL's were still tough to bust loose with the wrap. I'm not sure how tight the Bud and Lou are but I guess I will find out. I don't know if I can go 1 psi as the sidewall is much shorter.
The profile of the Bud and Lou is much more rounded than the 2XL. I know using the 80mm rim will create this shape, but the 2XL's have a much more squared off shape on these rims.
I'd like to get a set of 100mm rims for the Bud and Lou. But I want tubeless ready wheels. I don't want to mess around with foam and tape or whatever else some other guys seem to be using. I just want to apply tape (or the stretch wrap) and go.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

That's my view with tubeless as well. I don't want to use foam and other methods to build up the inside of the wheel to mimic bead grooves. I'll try inflating with just tape (which I'm not really stoked about) and the proper Stan's valve with the removable core to see if they seat. My exercise yesterday made me see how sealant could get really messy. I'm not too concerned about trying to save weight as I am about trying to reduce the rolling resistance.

Today I screwed around comparing the resistance of the 2XL's with the bud/Lou's on my wife's Fatboy. At 5 psi the bud/Lou's rolled easier and rode better than my 2XL's at 7 psi. I noticed going up my driveway that the 2XL's lost speed quicker and I had to either pedal harder or downshift compared to the bud/Lou's. The 2XL's felt slower on the plowed road but on the trail that has now set up pretty well, they only felt slightly slower. The conditions favored the Bud/Lou's today as I didn't need as much float. The front Bud looked skinny compared to the 2XL when switching back and forth. The bud/Lous are softer tires and seem to conform to the ground more. They seemed to have almost the same width tread pattern in fresh snow at 5 psi as the 2XL at 7psi but the 2XL will always have a longer footprint because of the bigger diameter. I think that's pretty significant as to why they float so much better and have more traction but then of course more resistance.

Here are some pics where the taller 2XLs are pretty noticeable. 





The noticably wider 2XL on the right.


The bud/Lou on left at 5 psi and the 2XLs on the right at 7 psi.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

They sure are bigger. I wish Vee would produce the PSC in black. The tan/white color looks goofy. No idea why they did this.
I like how the PSC tires feel on ice though. Much better than the Bud and Lou. Softer compound I guess. The Lou digs in where the 2XL just pushed along. Happened many times today.
The 2XL's are king for flotation. The Bud and Lou are a step behind in that regard.


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*2XL on 100mm rim fits Lauf Carbonara*



Andy81 said:


> The reason I only went 90mm is that it's the upper limit for lauf carbonara with 2xl.
> If not I would have gone wider.


FWIW, A 2XL runs on 100mm rim in Lauf Carbonara with about 3mm clearance.
Spoke tensions were tweaked for tire, rather than rim, true running.
It has run with as much as 10psi, but more often at 6psi or less.
The tire has been in use since September, so presumably fully relaxed.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

blekenbleu said:


> FWIW, A 2XL runs on 100mm rim in Lauf Carbonara with about 3mm clearance.
> Spoke tensions were tweaked for tire, rather than rim, true running.
> It has run with as much as 10psi, but more often at 6psi or less.
> The tire has been in use since September, so presumably fully relaxed.


Nice.
Although, that's not enough clearance for me☺ Also since several people have had them rub on 100mm, I'm not taking that chance when combining a ridiculously expensive fork with very expensive rims..


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

ak-rider said:


> I think that's pretty significant as to why they float so much better and have more traction but then of course more resistance.


2XL's have more resistance for 2 reasons: Compound and tread pattern.

The Silica-based compound is slow, even sticky when it's cold, and the colder it gets the worse this becomes. Switch to the PSC (cream colored) compound and this goes away. Virtually identical durometer to Bud/Lou at that point.

The tread pattern isn't as easy to get past -- essentially the 2XL is very similar to Lou, which is to say it's a rear specific pattern, meant to emphasize traction and grip over all else. Among that "all else" is rolling resistance/speed. Every tire is a compromise. 2XL gives unparalleled traction and float, at the expense of speed.

Want to make 'em faster? Start with the center row of knobs, trim 'em with snips until they're at ~1/2 the height they started. Then do each row alongside the center the same way. I stopped at the 2 rows of edge knobs -- wanting speed but not at the expense of being unable to ride off-cambers and lean into *some* corners.

The combined "speed" gained from the PSC compound and trimming the knobs makes them, IMO, every bit as fast as Bud/Lou, but with substantially more air volume, so they have much more float, too. Best of all possible worlds except for ice, which I rarely encounter at ~10,000 in the Colorado alpine.


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

I am thinking of a 2xl PSC in the rear and a 4.8 Jumbo Jim in front. I have usually been able to get away with a smaller front tire with other setups. Thoughts?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Lars_D said:


> I am thinking of a 2xl PSC in the rear and a 4.8 Jumbo Jim in front. I have usually been able to get away with a smaller front tire with other setups. Thoughts?


I think the PSC 2XL has more grip and forward traction than a Lou. And far more grip on icy creek bottoms.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Lars_D said:


> I am thinking of a 2xl PSC in the rear and a 4.8 Jumbo Jim in front. I have usually been able to get away with a smaller front tire with other setups. Thoughts?


What type of (snow) conditions? I have run Bud in the front, but it was too "slippery" in deep/soft frost snow, 2XL is much better. Doesn't slide sideways like Bud and if does, I usually can get the control back. Haven't tried other that Bud, Lou and 2XL in the front, not even summer, so can't say a lot about JJ but I assume it's not better than Bud in my winter conditions.


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*3mm clearance in Lauf Carbonara on 100mm rim*



Andy81 said:


> that's not enough clearance for me☺


If runout could be completely eliminated, clearance would approach 5.5mm. Given that 2XL's aggressive corner lugs grab and jam debris, helicopter tape inside forks is wanted for protection even with greater clearance.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

3°F this morning and my bike felt so damn slow! Even on the plowed roads it felt slow at 7psi. I didn't realize the tire compound did anything, I figured it was marketing BS and the posts about excessive snow sticking to the tire was due to freak conditions and human nature to just pay a lot more attention to anything new you put on your bike. I didn't consider the cream, white wall style 2XL's because they were so ugly. 😀 They do grip well on ice and polished snow that you find on plowed roads. 

Like Mikesee said about compromise, these tires definitely have pros and cons. I glad to read they are less sticky in warmer temps because that's how conditions were the first weekend I got them. It was mid to high 20's, lower 30's and I was impressed at how they went through the fresh layer of snow covering the hard packed trail. I was really blown away by their ability to go through 6" of fresh snow. It's supposed to warm up this week and they are even calling for rain which I hope we get as the snow is so dried out and crystaized it doesn't pack down or set up well at all. It's been nice for skiing though. 

I don't want to cut my knobs down because I'm studded and I'll need them for the icy plowed roads and spring conditions. I don't have any complaints about traction with these tires. The rear is definitely harder to spin than a Lou.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

mikesee said:


> 2XL's have more resistance for 2 reasons: Compound and tread pattern.
> 
> ...
> 
> Best of all possible worlds except for ice, which I rarely encounter at ~10,000 in the Colorado alpine.


I've only tried the silica version. How much different is the psc in terms of snow sticking and resistance in extreme cold?
Night and day or is it just a slight improvement?

I'm considering buying the psc version.Looks and money wise it'd be a downgrade, but in terms of riding..?

Edit: and, in regards to cutting the knobs: do you loose much grip or do you reckon low pressure engages the side knobs to grip so it doesn't really matter?


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Andy81 said:


> I've only tried the silica version. How much different is the psc in terms of snow sticking and resistance in extreme cold?
> Night and day or is it just a slight improvement?
> 
> I'm considering buying the psc version.Looks and money wise it'd be a downgrade, but in terms of riding..?
> ...


Snow isn't sticking to mine. And I've ridden them in brutally cold weather.
I've considered buying the all black version. I'm no fan of this weird color.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

+6 months with PSC in winter, snow just doesn't stick to it when it's below freezing.. Couldn't find any winter pic that has snow on the tires. Only have had sticking after taking warm bike to outside, but not anymore after a few bike length of riding.

Different story in spring when it's warmer, but not sure if there is a tire/rubber that can be better. No experience with black 2XL, but Bud&Lou is much worse.

And we don't have magical snow that doesn't stick to anything. And I have ride with them simultaneously. Pretty bad picture but here's Bud in the front:


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Another factor that adds big time rolling resistance is the thick casing. It saps a lot of energy, especially at low psi when it deforms a ton.
For a tire that for all intents and purposes is built to be ridden on snow, there is no need to make it withstand a hit from a bazooka.
My ''3XL'' is single ply and has way thinner and more flexible casing than the production 2XL. This means less weight, lower rolling resistance, more grip and better flotation at the same pressure.

I pick my ''3XL'' bike pretty much anytime that I don't need Kold Kutters, but we finally got some mixed conditions around here, so I got around to mounting a pair of studded Vee Snow Avalanche 4.8'' (PSC) in order to provide some feedback for Vee.
It is a very good tire for what it set out to be (studded medium sized tire with a fast rolling knob pattern).
However, the casing is the same mile thick armadillo skin type that is used on the production 2XL. This type of casing belongs on ''The Beast'' (the armored limo of the US president), but should not be used on a bike tire, especially not a snow tire.
At low pressures, this casing buckles instead of smoothly conforming to the surface.
Riding a long section of loose mainly untracked snow on yesterdays ride was a torture session compared to the almost effortless magic carpet ride that my 5.6 ''3XL'' would have provided. The small volume of a 4.8 and its tendency to sink in is just half the story, having to work against the deformation of that thick casing added a lot to the misery.

Thin casing is not a technical problem. My ''3XL'' has been holding up for loads of miles at hyper low pressures and other tires like the Lightweight edition Bud/Lou as well as Jumbo Jim Liteskin, not to forget the Kenda Juggernaut Pros use thin casing with excellent results.

I have not understood the complaints about the production 2XLs being so slow, since my substantially bigger (and even studded (front)) ''3XLs'' have been CX smoking fast, but that all comes down to the thin vs. thick casing.

To illustrate the issue with two extremes, imagine a barely inflated basketball vs. a party balloon. The former will have huge losses from casing deflection when rolled on the floor while the latter will have almost none.

I have bugged Vee about this for ages, but we will see. 
I advised Chao Yang to make a 5.5'' and they did, but that tire ended up with a casing that would withstand a direct impact from a hydrogen bomb.
I have asked Schwalbe and Kenda to make 5.5'' (or at least match the 5.2'' size of the 2XL) with their thin casings, but no luck so far.
Technical progress isn't exactly at Tesla level in this industry. Interestingly enough, the editor of our #1 MTB magazine tested my 3XL bike back to back vs a 4.8'' bike and was amazed at how much less effort was required in the loose stuff. 
As seen on fatbike TV (in Norwegian):
FATBIKEFEBER (S2E5) - Dekktrykk - fftv.no


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen,

You and I are in agreement with tires being made to be an all out DH tire. We beanpoles riding snow have no use whatsoever for a load range F tire for a fatbike riding either snow or sand. If only a 5.xx could come in a Liteskin from Schwalbe or anyone else that is actually capable of making a quality bicycle tire. Pfft! What is being offered lately, I could just ask my brother to hang on to a couple tires from his semi rather than turn em in when he gets new tires. 
My Mayor just came back from Arizona after two weeks of extensive riding on rocky ass trails complete with cactus galore. Not one flat with JJ Liteskins on the job. If my 5.05's had that same casing fabric they'd be closer to a daily driver. At best the 2XL's bring the fuel economy down to 4 miles per sammich. :/ Awesome in snow tho'.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Espen,
Thanks for the info, that's interesting. They feel stiffer when riding them than the bud/Lou.

Tonight's ride home was another granny low first sufferfest. The stupid weather service can't forecast for crap so the 1" max of new snow they said we were getting today turned into 5" and still snowing. Fortunately it was dry, powder snow that could be ridden through. At 17°F the tires shed snow like a champ. 🙄




Packed tire and this snow was not sticky as far as making a snowball with your gloves on. I will say the the tires had good traction after I aired them down.

It'll be nice snow for skiing with the dog later tonight and if it gets warmer and rains like I hope, fatbike conditions will be awesome after it freezes up.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

It's amazing how much they improve with less air and more wrinkles! Lucky dog, ak... I'm gettin a damn teaser...AGAIN! lol

I'm dying to take the 5.0flats out in some good powder and give em the shakedown... 

Espen, thanks for all the videos and such with your 3xl's and other tires.


----------



## Montrealrider (Dec 13, 2016)

Lars_D said:


> I am thinking of a 2xl PSC in the rear and a 4.8 Jumbo Jim in front. I have usually been able to get away with a smaller front tire with other setups. Thoughts?


I tried the 4.8 JJ and the front is slippery on packed snow. Good in loose conditions. But scary on hard packed. I am staying away from those in winter. I use Colossus now, I like them in snow.


----------



## ADKMTNBIKER (Nov 29, 2014)

BansheeRune said:


> Espen,
> 
> You and I are in agreement with tires being made to be an all out DH tire. We beanpoles riding snow have no use whatsoever for a load range F tire for a fatbike riding either snow or sand. If only a 5.xx could come in a Liteskin from Schwalbe or anyone else that is actually capable of making a quality bicycle tire. Pfft! What is being offered lately, I could just ask my brother to hang on to a couple tires from his semi rather than turn em in when he gets new tires.
> My Mayor just came back from Arizona after two weeks of extensive riding on rocky ass trails complete with cactus galore. Not one flat with JJ Liteskins on the job. If my 5.05's had that same casing fabric they'd be closer to a daily driver. At best the 2XL's bring the fuel economy down to 4 miles per sammich. :/ Awesome in snow tho'.


I like your mps estimate


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Premium bike rider fuel comes from the local deli!

Fuel economy was not derived from the window sticker...


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Totally agree that these tires would be wonderful if they were 400 grams lighter,
And all black.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Espen W said:


> Another factor that adds big time rolling resistance is the thick casing. It saps a lot of energy, especially at low psi when it deforms a ton.
> [/url]


Does the psc version have the exact same thick casing as the silica version?
Supposedly due to the soft rubber on the psc version it should roll easier and merge better with the terrain/snow.
Although if it still share the same casing the difference is perhaps minimal..?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I tried an experiment yesterday. I sprayed down both tires with silicone. The stuff helps prevent snow from sticking to snow shovels. Unfortunately it didn't seem to make a bit of difference. I've never had tires on anything in the past or present that have snow stick to them like these 2XLs. So far I've not really noticed temperature making much of a difference as far as snow sticking. Is it the rubber or tread pattern? It's like snow clings to these tires like mud does to a tire in the summer.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

i came across this listing while browsing internet for trek farleys for sale, this is a farley 5 with both front and rear xxl tire. obvisouely not original fork.

looks like farley 5 and farley 7s have the same frame. they will clear 2xl tires


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

Interesting observation today comparing the float of my 2XLs on 100mm wheels to the bud/Lou on 90mm wheels on old Fatboy. I outweigh my wife by 60lbs and she floats better than I do and is faster almost everywhere. Out of curiosity I looked up what common items weigh and a cinder block from Home Depot is 28lbs. After sinking in on a section of snowmachine trail that she floated right over, I was picturing my bike with two cinder blocks hanging off it. The nice thing is now our bikes are a lot more comparable in ability to float over trails than before on her old bike with 80mm wheels and 4.6 ground controls that were only around 4" wide. She had a more difficult time and quite a few miserable rides.

So far my attempts at going ghetto tubeless have been a failure. The 24" q-tubes I bought were not wide enough so they didn't seal. I then tried a old 21" dirt bike tube I had lying around that had much thicker and wider rubber. The tire wouldn't even inflate as the tube got a bunch of waves in it on both sides of the wheel. I'm going to try some 20x4 inner tubes next. I'm finding trying to go tubeless to be a pain in the ass and I don't know if I'd even trust the set up. My wheels look like this,

[ 

there are no bead bumps, just flat surfaces. I don't know if they are capable of being made tubeless. I'm not interested in trying to create bead bumps using foam and tape, etc.


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

akacoke said:


> i came across this listing while browsing internet for trek farleys for sale, this is a farley 5 with both front and rear xxl tire. obvisouely not original fork.
> 
> looks like farley 5 and farley 7s have the same frame. they will clear 2xl tires


I'd be highly skeptical of a few pictures on ebay. A lot of tires will fit frames until one or more of the following happens: the tire stretches, it is set up tubeless, pressure is increased in a packed snow condition; or a very slight wobble develops. I am not willing to conclude that a tire fits a given frame unless I see a picture of both chain stays with at least 10mm of clearance on each side.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Lars_D said:


> I'd be highly skeptical of a few pictures on ebay. A lot of tires will fit frames until one or more of the following happens: the tire stretches, it is set up tubeless, pressure is increased in a packed snow condition; or a very slight wobble develops. I am not willing to conclude that a tire fits a given frame unless I see a picture of both chain stays with at least 10mm of clearance on each side.


there were discussion about trek farley frame fitment of these tires. one person with a purple farley 7 were able to fit them with no problem. the farley 5s are the same frame. im about to buy one to find out. and i bought a lefty to fit a 2xl in the front . hopefully i get everything done soon to post some pictures


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

akacoke said:


> there were discussion about trek farley frame fitment of these tires. one person with a purple farley 7 were able to fit them with no problem. the farley 5s are the same frame. im about to buy one to find out. and i bought a lefty to fit a 2xl in the front . hopefully i get everything done soon to post some pictures


Posted here previously:

http://ekke.kapsi.fi/.pyoraily/farley_5_with_2xl/

Stock Mulefut rims and too high pressure. Hopefully yours fits, but be prepared to do some modifications..


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Ekke, those pix didn't look promising. Albeit any pressure in excess of 5 psi is plain and simply overinflated when you're dealing with a 5.05.
Definitive no go on that one. Perhaps the newer models have more room? 

And I thought my Mayor was awfully close...


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> Perhaps the newer models have more room?


2018 isn't available yet?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> Ekke, those pix didn't look promising. Albeit any pressure in excess of 5 psi is plain and simply overinflated when you're dealing with a 5.05.
> Definitive no go on that one. Perhaps the newer models have more room?
> 
> And I thought my Mayor was awfully close...


I don't think so. Last night I went for a ride and it had gotten cold and the trails had firmed up. I ran 6.5psi and enjoyed the reduced resistance, faster speed and easier pedaling.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak-rider said:


> I don't think so. Last night I went for a ride and it had gotten cold and the trails had firmed up. I ran 6.5psi and enjoyed the reduced resistance, faster speed and easier pedaling.


Guess the rider weight difference is huge or ya like rock hard tires.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> I don't think so. Last night I went for a ride and it had gotten cold and the trails had firmed up. I ran 6.5psi and enjoyed the reduced resistance, faster speed and easier pedaling.





BansheeRune said:


> Guess the rider weight difference is huge or ya like rock hard tires.


hmmm, so 6.5 PSI is "rock hard" while 5 isn't?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Swerny said:


> hmmm, so 6.5 PSI is "rock hard" while 5 isn't?


It is a 5.05, correct? I never will take my 5.05's over 4psi except to set the beads. At 5 they feel overinflated, at 6.5 they'll feel like I stole the tires offa Fred Flintstone's car. Just sayin'.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

5+ psi is good for pavement riding (relatively speaking. Still slow going). Smooth pavement. Frozen trails, dirt trails--things get too bouncy for me. I keep it at 3psi or under.


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

I wonder if it would be possible to sand down the inner sidewalls a bit to get the rolling resistance down on these tires.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Ekke said:


> Posted here previously:
> 
> Kuvia
> 
> Stock Mulefut rims and too high pressure. Hopefully yours fits, but be prepared to do some modifications..


the purple farley 7 cleared them with no problem. i dont know why yours didnt fit they are the same frame as confirmed by trek. maybe early production tires? anyways , i have the 2xl tires already, just waiting a farley 5 my size to pop up so i can buy.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

here is the link for the CL ad https://cnj.craigslist.org/bik/5975739663.html


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> It is a 5.05, correct? I never will take my 5.05's over 4psi except to set the beads. At 5 they feel overinflated, at 6.5 they'll feel like I stole the tires offa Fred Flintstone's car. Just sayin'.


Yep, 5.05's front and rear and 6.5 psi isn't even all that firm. This morning I was wishing I'd pumped them up higher as I didn't need float on the set up frozen trail at 7*F. Even at 6.5 psi the rolling resistance was still very noticable. I'm currently 205 lbs and the tires are certainly not rock hard under me.


----------



## pbasinger (Dec 5, 2004)

I've been riding the black 2XL tires a bit over the last month. I haven't experienced much in the way of cold, but I have used them in variety of snow conditions and ridden many miles on dirt. I think they are substantially slower than anything I have ever experienced even in warm temps on hard pack dirt. In the right conditions, the float is amazing, but I'm not convinced the extra effort required to pedal them is worth it. I just borrowed a pair of white tires from mikesee and I'm looking forward to comparing them.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I've been curious if the white ones are any faster? I'm finding out that the 2XLs seem to leave a lot to be desired when the trails are hard and you don't need float. They definitely feel slow. I got to thinking about it though and last spring when I swapped out the grip studded bud/Lou's on my bike for the crappy Arisun Big Fattys I bought for summer tires, the Arisuns rolled noticeably faster than the bud/Lou's but didn't have as good of traction. 

I noticed I spun out my rear Lou a lot more often than I have the 2XL. Lots of pros and cons with this tire.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

pbasinger said:


> I've been riding the black 2XL tires a bit over the last month. ....
> I just borrowed a pair of white tires from mikesee and I'm looking forward to comparing them.


Please keep us informed and share your experience with silica vs psc (black vs white) once you've ridden them.


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

My rear silica 2xl defects around 3/8 of an inch currently...will it smooth out and is there a trusted method to speed up process. Dealing with the carbon frame rub at the moment.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

mbmattcor said:


> My rear silica 2xl defects around 3/8 of an inch currently...will it smooth out and is there a trusted method to speed up process. Dealing with the carbon frame rub at the moment.


Wuhaa, what carbon frame?


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

Ekke said:


> Wuhaa, what carbon frame?


It's a gsrbikes.com frame design made by chinese manufacturer 197 rear. It required me to trim side lugs to get it to fit. Seem like around 200g of weight cut off, all in the name of float...I did trim the vertical knobs a bit also but the below pic doesn't show that.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Nice, how wide rims those are?


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

Ekke said:


> Nice, how wide rims those are?


80mm


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

akacoke said:


> the purple farley 7 cleared them with no problem. i dont know why yours didnt fit they are the same frame as confirmed by trek. maybe early production tires? anyways , i have the 2xl tires already, just waiting a farley 5 my size to pop up so i can buy.


I don't think the the Farley 5 fork will fit these tires. It has a lower brace of some sort. The 7 is a carbon fork.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

headwind said:


> I don't think the the Farley 5 fork will fit these tires. It has a lower brace of some sort. The 7 is a carbon fork.


yeah, farley 5 fork wont clear. im wondering about the frame


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

headwind said:


> I don't think the the Farley 5 fork will fit these tires. It has a lower brace of some sort. The 7 is a carbon fork.


Not to mention if you want to remove it you would have to deflate the tire. I had a snowshoe xl on mine and it had to be forced by the caliper.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

This past week I've made some interesting discoveries with both the tires and my bike. I rode to work in single digit temps earlier in the week and even though the trails were hard, I was pouring sweat, crawling along, and feeling a lot of resistance even on the plowed road. I'm riding and thinking that maybe I need two bikes? Maybe I need a lighter bike with tires in the 4.0 range for hard conditions? Maybe these tires are just too big & wide & heavy and the compound is just too sticky for snow? 

Then I happened to rotate my crank by hand when I got to work and was shocked by how stiff it was. I'd never cleaned off the factory chain lube/preservative and it had become pretty viscous in the cold temps. Later that night I removed the chain and left my bike outside in the cold and discovered the grease in my crank also became viscous and the crank had a lot more resistance in cold temps than in my garage at 70°F. I then checked the tire pressure in the cold temps and found they'd lost 1/3rd of their pressure. The next day my bike felt way faster with tires aired up to 9 psi and different chain lube. I could even feel the crank spinning easier and just flew down the hard trail and plowed road. I made it to and from work faster than ever before with this bike. I thought about it and I'm betting another factor is my factory tubes are not large enough for these tires and at low pressure they don't fill the tires completely so I was getting a ton of resistance as the pressure dropped. I also called the dealer and learned they used slick honey on the crank bearings of my RaceFace crank. I looked up the specs and even though they list a temp range from - 65°F to 250°F, I've found it gets viscous in single degree F temps. The crank spins very smooth at 70°F and isn't bad at 20°F but I think the grease sucks. I never had this issue with my Fatboy crank. 

In summary I'm really pleased with the tires. At a higher pressure for hard conditions they balloon out nicely and have a rounded profile so the contact patch is greatly reduced on hard trails and plowed roads. I was able to pedal them at a pretty decent speed so I didn't think I was being penalized by the weight and size anymore. I'm just glad I was able to discover these things because my commute was becoming no fun and I was having buyers remorse for getting these tires. That is no longer the case. :thumbsup:


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

so there were some new frames mentioned kinda recently in the thread that are compatible w the 2xl.

Has anyone taken note of them so we can add to them to the list or shall i go digging? Ha Ha

I would like to know how the rolling resistance of the PSC and Black 2XL compare when someone has experience or knowledge. thanks


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak-rider,
I use Polaris snowmobile grease and have had good results. After all, it's designed to extremely low temp operation.
As for the 5.05's, I've run em tubed but as you pointed out, the tube has to be inflated to higher pressure than is desired for snow riding. I don't consider plowed and packed roadways as snow riding cause it's on par with tarmac, hardness wise.
I found as I experimented with my Surly Lite tubes and 5.05's that I could drop the pressure to 1.75 psi and have the tube still fit the tire/rim. 
Now I'm back to playing with tubeless again. I'm certain there will be a marked difference with tubeless 5.05's. 
Glad to hear that you're now enjoying the tires. Meanwhile, gotta go peel the tubes outta my tires and slip in some valve stems...


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> ak-rider,
> I use Polaris snowmobile grease and have had good results. After all, it's designed to extremely low temp operation.
> As for the 5.05's, I've run em tubed but as you pointed out, the tube has to be inflated to higher pressure than is desired for snow riding. I don't consider plowed and packed roadways as snow riding cause it's on par with tarmac, hardness wise.
> I found as I experimented with my Surly Lite tubes and 5.05's that I could drop the pressure to 1.75 psi and have the tube still fit the tire/rim.
> ...


Good tip on the grease. I'm waiting for some tubes to come in to convert my tires to split tube but if that doesn't work well I'll look into getting the Surly lite tubes. Glad to hear there is a tube that can fill the tires up at low PSI. On my commute I run as high a pressure as I can but for fun riding and exploring I air down a lot and keep being impressed by the float, traction and what hills I can climb with these tires. I just installed my 26T chainring this morning so it's going to be fun to see what difference it makes on the ride this afternoon.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak, that sounds like a walk in the park with the split tube routine. I tried my 5.05's at 8 psi and they felt overinflated, but then, I'm a beanpole at 160 #'s so don't need em rock hard. I typically run 4.8's at 6f 7r and the 2XL's 4-4.5. they are heavy and don't get the same rolling feel as the JJ's but that's ok. Float and traction is amazing with 2XL's! I can stand up and mash pedals on the climb without doing a burnout in the snow. Lou is not quite as much float but performs flawlessly for Rocky mountain snow.
26t sounds like you'll be able to climb telephone poles with little effort! Let me know how ya like it.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

*2XL compatible Frames and Forks*

here is the updated list of compatible frames and forks:

Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork 
Surly ict frame and fork
Quering Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
RSD Mayor (alu) frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims) 
Meriwether frame and fork
Carver (titanium) frame and fork
Pole taiga (frame and fork)
Motobecane FB5 (frame only?)

A few more out of Norway:
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X1 (455mm CS)
-Nakamura Big Bob F50 (455mm CS)
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 (467mm CS)

X1 and F50 come stock with JJ 4.8 on 90mm rims, but frame accepts 2XL on 100mm. Fork (Bluto) limited to 4.8'' on 100mm rims.

X2 comes with 2XL on 100mm rims, ie. 5.2'' casing width. Both frame (aluminum) and fork (carbon) fit up to 5.6'' (ie. ''3XL'' on 100mm+rim)

Not sure on the specifics of these:

KHS 1000
KHS 4 seasons 3000
Fuji Wendigo (frame only?) which is the same frame as Motobecane FB5?
Huffy (frame only)


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> I tried my 5.05's at 8 psi and they felt overinflated, but then, I'm a beanpole at 160 #'s so don't need em rock hard. I typically run 4.8's at 6f 7r and the 2XL's 4-4.5.
> 
> 26t sounds like you'll be able to climb telephone poles Let me know how ya like it.


Now that I'm aware of my stock tubes not filling up the tires at lower pressures, I can see how your able to get good performance out of yours with the bigger tubes. It's been quite the learning experience for me as I didn't have these issues with the bud/Lou's on my Fatboy.

The 26t worked great today. It came with a 30 and that was too high. I then went to a 28 and it was a lot better but still found myself trying to shift into a lower gear quite a few times. The 26 work really well. I'm generally in the middle of the cassette for most riding and I've not run out of gearing on top or the bottom. I know I'll be winding out on the plowed, slight downhill section from work but my top speed is adequate for how I'm using the bike and the 5.05's. With the 30 I was never using my upper gears.



Kirkerik said:


> here is the updated list of compatible frames and forks:
> 
> Surly ict frame and fork -When I emailed Surly they wrote that the 2XLs didn't meet their minimum tire clearance of 6mm and were not safely compatible with the ICT. They said they didn't suggest or condone using them even though they've seen people use them.
> 
> ...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak-rider said:


> Now that I'm aware of my stock tubes not filling up the tires at lower pressures, I can see how your able to get good performance out of yours with the bigger tubes. It's been quite the learning experience for me as I didn't have these issues with the bud/Lou's on my Fatboy.
> 
> The 26t worked great today. It came with a 30 and that was too high. I then went to a 28 and it was a lot better but still found myself trying to shift into a lower gear quite a few times. The 26 work really well. I'm generally in the middle of the cassette for most riding and I've not run out of gearing on top or the bottom. I know I'll be winding out on the plowed, slight downhill section from work but my top speed is adequate for how I'm using the bike and the 5.05's. With the 30 I was never using my upper gears.


ak, the Surly Lite tubes look anorexic when you stuff em in a 4.8, in the 5.05 they look like a road bike tube. They have to stretch quite a percentage to actually fill the tire/rim. After a new tire breaks in it can go down to 1.5 psi in a 4.8 and do just fine. The 2XL is filled at nearly 2 psi. Tonite I took the time to remove the tubes form my tires and install the purple valve stems i procured offa Amazon. 3 oz injection of Orange Seal Low temp in each tire and good to go with no fanfare. I'll be taking the Mayor out to play after church tomorrow and see how a pair of JJ 4.8 LiteSkin's ride. There's been much said of tubeless making for less rolling resistance, I'll be the judge of that tomorrow. 2XL's will go on for next weekend group in the high country!

Good t hear that the 26t is doing you right!. I've been running a 28t for the last 4 years and, yeah, there are times when I wish I had an underdrive! It's all good, I need the cardio to keep up with my cardiologist's prescription. V8 power! I wish...

All of this stuff we are doing with these silly fatbikes is what makes it so bloody fun tho!


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Kirkerik said:


> here is the updated list of compatible frames and forks:
> 
> Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork
> Surly ict frame and fork
> ...


I just bought a farley 5 in 17.5 ill test fit 2xl with both 80mm and 90mm rims. hopefully farley 5 can be added on the the list


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

ak-rider said:


> Good tip on the grease. I'm waiting for some tubes to come in to convert my tires to split tube but if that doesn't work well I'll look into getting the Surly lite tubes. Glad to hear there is a tube that can fill the tires up at low PSI. On my commute I run as high a pressure as I can but for fun riding and exploring I air down a lot and keep being impressed by the float, traction and what hills I can climb with these tires. I just installed my 26T chainring this morning so it's going to be fun to see what difference it makes on the ride this afternoon.


Did you try the stretch wrap? Its a really easy and cheap way to go tubeless. I'm going to be removing Bud and Lou today and swapping the 2xl's back on. 10 minute job per wheel.

The Trek Farley 7 should be on that list BTW.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

I've not tried the shrink wrap and it sounds like a great way to go tubeless. I actually had a roll of that stuff from Home Depot, left over from building my house and I'm kicking myself for throwing it away last summer. It was just sitting on a shelf for years and I was thinking what the heck am I ever going to need this for? 

My LBS told me my stock wheels were tubeless ready which kind of surprised me since they don't have any safety beads like I see on tubeless ATV or automobile wheels. They also don't have a clincher bead like I've seen with tubeless bicycle wheels. Their profile is shaped just like this |___| which to me seems will have issues with burping. I'm thinking the split tubes additional rubber will help prevent that?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak, I refer to it as UST Beadseat. All of the Surly rims available have it. There are a few "old school" varieties out there that are not good for fatbike service with tubes, let alone tubeless, lest you don't mind valve tear offs... Surly is used as an example of the UST beadseat. 
The old school style rims can be made up tubeless but with great effort and reliability might not be so good.


----------



## bighit (Feb 13, 2004)

mbmattcor said:


> It's a gsrbikes.com frame design made by chinese manufacturer 197 rear. It required me to trim side lugs to get it to fit. Seem like around 200g of weight cut off, all in the name of float...I did trim the vertical knobs a bit also but the below pic doesn't show that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> ak, I refer to it as UST Beadseat. All of the Surly rims available have it. There are a few "old school" varieties out there that are not good for fatbike service with tubes, let alone tubeless, lest you don't mind valve tear offs... Surly is used as an example of the UST beadseat.
> The old school style rims can be made up tubeless but with great effort and reliability might not be so good.


I can see what you are describing on the below photo of a clown shoe wheel. My generic wheels don't have a similar profile.


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

bighit said:


> If i trimmed my rear tire it would fit on the back of my Moonlander. Does having to trim the tire count as fitting? We now have to start a it will fit if trimmed list. Not bashing just saying.


I say no it doesn't count as fitting, but I mainly had to trim because of the tire wobble, I had some wobble on front tire too, but it seems to be waning. The back is still deflecting 1/4-3/8 of inch...it's maddening.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

My 2XL's also have that weird wobble. You have to take extra time mounting them, at least with my wheels, as they can get seated on the wheels in an out of round manner really easily. Last weekend after I unsuccessfully tried to use a dirt bike tube for a split tube, I remounted my rear tire with the stock tube and went for a ride. It started rubbing on my chainstay because it didn't seat it evenly on the wheel. It was so bad I had to stop, air it down, reseat it and then I was good. 

The wonky wobble seems to subside a bit after a while but I think something with their mold or production is jacked up since I've got three of these tires and they all have a slight wobble. If some other company comes out with a 5.05" tire I'd seriously look at buying it. I'm hoping it's just a matter of time that we see some more choices. There is definitely a market for a tire this large. Back when I emailed Surly about the 5.05's and the ICT I also asked if they were going to come out with a bike that can fit them and they wrote back that fatter was in the future.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

ak-rider said:


> I can see what you are describing on the below photo of a clown shoe wheel. My generic wheels don't have a similar profile.


The groove along the flange of the rim is what is necessary for reliable tubeless. 
Now put that hammer away! You might not need to break the piggybank to get into a pair of suitable rims. Keep an eye on the for sale section here as well as on fat-bike.com 
My 5.05's have a slight wobble in em. It's a tolerance thing on Vee's end. Their process for laying up the threads and plies that make up the finished tire are not precise enough and it's the nature of the ultra-fat.

If Schwalbe or another company comes out with a real 120 TPI tire, I'm lookin into em. Lighter and more supple would be nice.
Surly/Innova? Bud/Lou in 5.05, anyone??? And for the that experience ice enough to warrant studded tires a version with stud pockets.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I agree that a lighter version would be great. Maybe Surly will give us a 5 inch tire that weighs 500 grams less.
We have the best snow conditions of the year today. Deep snow and +2C. The only way I could stay on top with the Bud and Lou was momentum. And the Bud is far worse up front than the Snowshoe. The Lou just digs. They just don't have enough footprint. Had to do the walk of shame a few times today.
I just need some time to swap some tires.


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> If Schwalbe or another company comes out with a real 120 TPI tire, I'm lookin into em.


I would buy a 5.0+ Schwalbe liteskin tire in a heartbeat.

So I was running my 5.05's at 3 psi on sierra cement sinking in about 2" and my friend was running Jumbo Jim lite skin 4.0's at 2 psi. During an extended climb, the suppleness of his JJ's made all the difference, he pulled right away from me as I struggled up the grade while doing a couple short walks of shame. Looking back at my tread marks, I could see the repeated depressions where the tire was not confirming to the snow. I use clipless and tried to maintain a smooth pedal stroke. My Bud and Lou never did this....disappointed.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

mbmattcor said:


> So I was running my 5.05's at 3 psi on sierra cement sinking in about 2" and my friend was running Jumbo Jim lite skin 4.0's at 2 psi. During an extended climb, the suppleness of his JJ's made all the difference, he pulled right away from me as I struggled up the grade while doing a couple short walks of shame. Looking back at my tread marks, I could see the repeated depressions where the tire was not confirming to the snow. I use clipless and tried to maintain a smooth pedal stroke. My Bud and Lou never did this....disappointed.


2XL's are 120tpi. JJ's are 127tpi. Do you honestly believe that those extra 7 threads made the difference?


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

mikesee said:


> 2XL's are 120tpi. JJ's are 127tpi. Do you honestly believe that those extra 7 threads made the difference?


No, but my friend's JJ's are showing the threads so they are very worn-in....lol

I trust your knowledge mikesee, do I just need to go lower on these 2xl's...the Bud and Lou at 3 psi versus 2xl's at 3 psi act very different.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

mbmattcor said:


> do I just need to go lower on these 2xl's...the Bud and Lou at 3 psi versus 2xl's at 3 psi act very different.


The 2XL's have something like 60% more air volume than any 4.8", thus the pressures aren't comparable. If someone is floating more/"better" than you on a smaller tire, you need to adjust pressures.

Experiment to find the sweet spot(s)!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

My 2XL's are in no way as supple as my JJ 4.8's. In fact, they feel stiff as it gets. Albeit, the will soften up with a buncha miles with 1-2 psi. 

As I mentioned previously, if Surly comes out with Bud/Lou 5.05's and they are as soft and supple as my 4.8 version, I'll give the Vees away. 
Dunno if a JJ 5.05 LiteSkin would have the propulsion and stability, traction wise that Bud/Lou are famous for but they would be on my radar.
It is amazing how different the LiteSkin is from the 2XL casing. Must have something to do with the rubber compound used to coat the casings as well as the thickness of the coating over the casing. Or, the 2XL's are 2 ply. Either way, 2Xl's are not remotely as supple as other 120TPI tires.

Volume wise, 4.8 and 5.05 are two different animals. 5.05 @ 1.5 psi works in loose conditions. Bud/Lou 2f 3r in the same conditions. And ya can't be afraid to wrinkle you fatbike tires.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

mbmattcor said:


> I would buy a 5.0+ Schwalbe liteskin tire in a heartbeat.


Oh man a studded Nobby Nic 5.0 is my dream tire


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mbmattcor said:


> I would buy a 5.0+ Schwalbe liteskin tire in a heartbeat.
> 
> So I was running my 5.05's at 3 psi on sierra cement sinking in about 2" and my friend was running Jumbo Jim lite skin 4.0's at 2 psi. During an extended climb, the suppleness of his JJ's made all the difference, he pulled right away from me as I struggled up the grade while doing a couple short walks of shame. Looking back at my tread marks, I could see the repeated depressions where the tire was not confirming to the snow. I use clipless and tried to maintain a smooth pedal stroke. My Bud and Lou never did this....disappointed.


Lower pressures. These things really float at 1.5 psi. And they have enough volume to do this pressure quite easily.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> My 2XL's are in no way as supple as my JJ 4.8's. In fact, they feel stiff as it gets.
> As I mentioned previously, if Surly comes out with Bud/Lou 5.05's and they are as soft and supple as my 4.8 version, I'll give the Vees away.
> Dunno if a JJ 5.05 LiteSkin would have the propulsion and stability, traction wise that Bud/Lou are famous for but they would be on my radar.
> It is amazing how different the LiteSkin is from the 2XL casing. Must have something to do with the rubber compound used to coat the casings as well as the thickness of the coating over the casing.


If the JJ existed in it's current casing construction in 5.05, you'd need to run more pressure than you do in the Vee's just to keep the casing from wrinkling standing still.

I've ridden the JJ's. I liked the light weight. I wasn't a fan of the lack of traction, nor the need to run higher pressures just to give the casing some integrity.

I also didn't like how quickly the sidewalls deteriorated and showed cord from running low pressures. They cost too much to fail that fast.

I think the 2XL just has more rubber on the casing compared to JJ, and that added material is what's allowed them to survive into and through their second full season of being ridden 2-3x/week, never at more than 2.5psi. My JJ's didn't last one season of that.

I don't/won't fault anyone for wanting a pie-in-the-sky tire. I'm not dissatisfied with the 2XL PSC. I'd simply like to see a front specific tread pattern to match the current one, which is emphatically a rear specific tread.

As for Surly, it's not their path to walk through doors that others have opened. I'd be surprised if they released a 5.05. I'm betting they go a different direction.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

mikesee said:


> As for Surly, it's not their path to walk through doors that others have opened. I'd be surprised if they released a 5.05. I'm betting they go a different direction.


Big Fat Dummy has advertised capacity of 5.25". Clearance, Clarence.


----------



## dirtdawg21892 (Jul 20, 2009)

Got the chance to ride one of these on the back of a ski bike. The thing is an absolute tractor.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

That looks like way too much fun. If we would actually get some good snow around here again I'd consider trying that out. Can imagine not pushing a front wheel through the snow makes for some serious fun!

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Noticed some talk of JJ 4.0s above: 3psi in a 2XL, particularly with the stiff 2 ply casing of the production version is pretty much rock hard and sort of like evaluating the rolling resistance of a road bike with 20psi in 25mm tires.

Good friend of mine, who is a very technically skilled rider has a Canyon Dude CF 8.0 with JJ 4.0 tubeless on 80mm rims.
Every time we get some snow, he wants to go for a ride with me. Why?
Riding in the snowmobile like tracks left by my bike with 3XLs means that he can for the most part ride instead of push the bike.

Went for a ride in incredible conditions on Sunday. In the first video below, he is at 2psi, which is pretty much borderline on that setup. I'm at a relatively firm (in a 3XL) 1.5psi as the trail was still pretty flat:






I took them down to 0psi a little later as we were climbing on coarse/rotten stuff covered by approx 8'' of very light powder:






Rest of the ride was on more packed trails and groomed stuff, but luckily, my 3XLs roll pretty well, also compared to the legendary fast rolling Jumbo Jims.
I'm 10lbs lighter at around 133lb and my humble 3XL on hundies equipped alloy bike at 22.5lbs is around 4lbs lighter than the carbon Dude, so gravity is not on my side either.
The monster still rolls rather well compared to the JJ bike:






The superthin sidewalls of the ''3XL'' makes the Liteskin feel like a bullet proof vest in comparison.
The Vee 1 ply casing of my protos from 2015 is so thin that it can deflect (at super low pressures) without breaking apart like a thicker sidewall can, so best of all worlds:
Lighter: 1595g for a ''6 inch tire''
Better grip as it conforms and does not buckle
Rolls much better as less energy is wasted flexing a thick casing (think party balloon vs basketball at low psi)
Lasts longer as the casing can flex without breaking apart due to more flexibility

Downside is less resistance to cuts, but who cares about that in a powder tire. I only ride these on snow.

I'm guessing that Vee used the 2ply casing in order to make then more resistant to cuts. It is possible that medium thickness casing (like Liteskin) will be the least durable at low psi since it does not flex as well as the thinnner 1 ply casing of my 3XL (or the 0.5mm casing of Juggernaut Pros), but does not have as much beef as the more rubber covered 2 ply Vee casing.

Note that most race level normal sized MTB tires have 0.5mm sidewalls like the Jugg Pro. I have not measured the thickness of the 3XL sidewalls, but they are likely around 0.5mm, so nothing out of the ordinary when comparing to summer race tires like the Maxxis 285. Let us have Maxxis make a 5.5'' version of the 285 with 170tpi. That would be fast as heck.
Tire casing really is like a leaf spring: a very thin one has good flexibility and lasts a long time, a thick one won't flex much, but a medium thickness one will flex, but might start to crack from fatigue.
The combined spring rate of the casing and the air spring (tire pressure) is what keeps the tire from deforming. Stiff casing means high leaf spring rate and thus lower air spring rate required for the same total spring rate of the system (and the required deformation for the required footprint). Downside is more weight and higher rolling resistance as rubber is much harder to deform than air.

Would be interesting to do a comparision with various pressures and various casings on a glass type surface where you can spot tire deflection and footprint from below. I suspect that the stiff casing might have more buckling in the contact area, and thus a smaller effective footprint despite the same length and width of the footprint.

I have ridden these 5.6'' things extensively since Easter of 2015 and I have ridden 4.8 and 4.5 wide tires lately for the purpose of prototype testing. Being shocked at the lack of float, traction and control on the 4.8 and smaller, I'm being more careful than ever with the 3XLs as I would seriously not bother riding anything but packed snow again if I were forced to ride 4.8s. It is often the case that going back to the old stuff for a while really opens your eyes how much better the new and in this case bigger (volume) and thinner (casing) is on pretty much anything softer than pavement.


----------



## frl (Jul 22, 2014)

Wow. Did the guy with jj put an anchour to the jj 4. Did he ride tubeless? 
Seems like the jj 4 is slower than jj 4.8 in the snow. Or in the track you where riding. We have to try that out son. The 3 xl proto is sick. Like in the movie. You are riding when we 4-4.8 is walking. 
Hope Schwalbe, Maxxis, kenda +++ open the eyes. Make some big fat tires. 5.5 with thin casing


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen, I'd love to get my greasy hands on a pair of 2XL's or similar with a casing on par or lighter than Schwalbe's LiteSkin. They would be awesome. My current 2XL's are so thick and stiff that perhaps after a couple seasons of riding em nearly flat they'll break in and work better.
I agree with you on the point of the heavier tires buckling or puckering as opposed to actually conforming to the surface. 
JJ 4.8's seem to do a great job of conforming as the LiteSkin casing is the right amount of supple.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

Does anybody have a "back to back" comparison of the silica (black) 2xl vs the psc (white) version?

I've only tried the silica ones and they get extremely hard when it gets cold. In general they've got a ridiculously thick casing and they are made of an extremely hard rubber compound, but once the winter really digs in they seem less than optimal for a winter tire. (Except for the amazing float 5+ tires will provide, which kinda makes up for the poor rubber and casing) 
They feel "ok" down to just below freezing, but after that they don't seem to be made for winter riding.
The psc version shouldn't suffer from the same "hardening" in sub zero temperature, but except from that is there any other difference between the two?

Rolling resistance in general (again only comparing the two versions)
Any difference in casing, thickness and general "feel" when riding?
Weight?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

PSC is less affected by cold. Snow doesn't stick to it like it does to the Silica. 

End result is the PSC feels faster, more efficient, more supple on the same rims, same pressures, same conditions.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

mikesee said:


> PSC is less affected by cold. Snow doesn't stick to it like it does to the Silica.
> 
> End result is the PSC feels faster, more efficient, more supple on the same rims, same pressures, same conditions.


Thanks mate. 
That's a good review.
You'd reckon it'd be worth chasing a pair of psc's even though I'm running silica's? I guess what I'm asking is: are they like night or day or just a subtle upgrade?
They have identical casing, right?

Damn, "feels faster and more supple" sold me. That's the one thing I kinda miss with the silica version when running them back to back with most other tires I've tried.

Wonder if we'll ever see a competitor in the 5.1" ish size..


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

In cold temps the difference is night and day. If I had to run the Silica version I'd have punted and gone back to Bud/Lou.

AFAIK the casing construction is the same.


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

*$ 100 Can.*

VEE RUBBER Vee Snowshoe 2xl Tire - PhatMooseCycles


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

RockyJo1 said:


> VEE RUBBER Vee Snowshoe 2xl Tire - PhatMooseCycles


whoa, thanks for the link!

seriously considering this...even though most of my riding is on packed trails.

Winter is pretty much done here so these would be for next year

EDIT: no option to check out so i think they are OOS


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Can these tires be mounted on an 80mm rim? Or do they require a 100mm rim?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

endo_alley said:


> Can these tires be mounted on an 80mm rim? Or do they require a 100mm rim?


I run em on 80's with no issue.


----------



## Andy81 (Jan 25, 2016)

endo_alley said:


> Can these tires be mounted on an 80mm rim? Or do they require a 100mm rim?


I've seen them mounted even on 65's, but personally I believe they are best suited for 100's


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

I dream of a Dunberbeist 5.25" version, with the plyable sidewalls and monster lugs. But I'm not that naive to believe that QBP will ever do that, because there's no money in it. Why would they build a tire that fits (maybe) one model of the fat bike repertoire. Even fat bike companies are here to make money and not accommodate a small edge cases like us 4.8+ tire people. For now, I'm grateful that Vee even has an option....


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Here my farley 5. Drop out slided all the way to the back. I got excited mounted the tire backwards. And pumped it to 12psi. Realized afterward the bead didn't properly seat. Tire had a huge wobble. Despite all these issues. Cleared with good 6mm all around. This is on specialized 90mm stout rim


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

mbmattcor said:


> I dream of a Dunberbeist 5.25" version, with the plyable sidewalls and monster lugs. But I'm not that naive to believe that QBP will ever do that, because there's no money in it. Why would they build a tire that fits (maybe) one model of the fat bike repertoire. Even fat bike companies are here to make money and not accommodate a small edge cases like us 4.8+ tire people. For now, I'm grateful that Vee even has an option....


Well they did build the Endo when the fat bike repertoire was one. And they built that too.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I'm thinking about getting a pair of the all black version for the summer to let this fatness continue.
How well are these things wearing in the summer? I imagine they are fairly puncture proof as they have 2 inch thick carcass.


----------



## Blaster182 (Oct 29, 2016)

Will the 2xl on a 90mm rim fit on a wren fork?


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Blaster182 said:


> Will the 2xl on a 90mm rim fit on a wren fork?


from my experience, they wont work on the older non keyed version. i bought one to run 2xl , it did not work out

i personally dont believe they will work on the newer keyed ones. as the fork flex tire rub on leg


----------



## Blaster182 (Oct 29, 2016)

Thank you!


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

This post is so long I can't remember everything. Has it been decided that this tire will not work on a Bluto fork?


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

endo_alley said:


> This post is so long I can't remember everything. Has it been decided that this tire will not work on a Bluto fork?


does not work on bluto because it donest clear both sides and arch. does not clear rst renegade because it does not clear arch .

lefty with mendon clamps will work when you dish the wheel and turn the clamps.


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

What tubes are you tubeusers using to fill these monsters. 
I see V makes a 26x 4/x 4.25, but it's Schrader valve, not Presta.
Regular 3.0 to 4 tubes seem puney.


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

Did anyone on this thread do the ITI? I noticed 3 or 4 people running the PSC XXLs. Would love to hear your experiences?


----------



## Blaster182 (Oct 29, 2016)

kaleidopete
Specialized 26 x 3.8 - 4.8 which comes standard on the fatboy seems to do the trick just fine.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

kaleidopete said:


> What tubes are you tubeusers using to fill these monsters.
> I see V makes a 26x 4/x 4.25, but it's Schrader valve, not Presta.
> Regular 3.0 to 4 tubes seem puney.


I had mine aired up with Surly Lite's to shape and form em prior to tubeless. Had no issue either way. Just couldn't do less than 1.75 psi without the tube shrinking to the point of being loose inside the tire. Tubeless and I can do an EspenW...


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

i use specalized OE tubes


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

endo_alley said:


> This post is so long I can't remember everything. Has it been decided that this tire will not work on a Bluto fork?


That was decided 2 years ago when I made this 





(It is the somewhat bigger (and much lighter and much faster) 2XL prototypes from 2015 but you get the idea)


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Blaster182 said:


> kaleidopete
> Specialized 26 x 3.8 - 4.8 which comes standard on the fatboy seems to do the trick just fine.


Thanks, I'll check 'em out


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

akacoke said:


> Here my farley 5. Drop out slided all the way to the back. I got excited mounted the tire backwards. And pumped it to 12psi. Realized afterward the bead didn't properly seat. Tire had a huge wobble. Despite all these issues. Cleared with good 6mm all around. This is on specialized 90mm stout rim


How about the fork? No go?


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

*2XL compatable frame and fork*

You folks can add to this list too: just copy paste and edit as appropriate

here is the updated list of compatible frames and forks:

Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork 
Surly ict frame and fork
Quering Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
RSD Mayor (alu) frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims) 
Meriwether frame and fork
Carver (titanium) frame and fork
Pole taiga (frame and fork)
Motobecane FB5 (frame only)
Trek Farley (frame only?)
9:zero:7 Whiteout (FORK ONLY)

A few more out of Norway:
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X1 (455mm CS)
-Nakamura Big Bob F50 (455mm CS)
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 (467mm CS)

X1 and F50 come stock with JJ 4.8 on 90mm rims, but frame accepts 2XL on 100mm. Fork (Bluto) limited to 4.8'' on 100mm rims.

X2 comes with 2XL on 100mm rims, ie. 5.2'' casing width. Both frame (aluminum) and fork (carbon) fit up to 5.6'' (ie. ''3XL'' on 100mm+rim)

Not sure on the specifics of these:

KHS 1000
KHS 4 seasons 3000
Fuji Wendigo (frame only?) which is the same frame as Motobecane FB5?
Huffy (frame only)


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

stock 135mm fork, i did not try. im running a full carbon fork from trek farley 9.9. i dont have a 135mm front wheel. honestly the stock fork is ugly 

im either going with lefty which i already have and send it to medon cycle build a new wheelset with surly MOBD. or wait for new manitou fat fork and run spesh 150x15mm front wheel.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

here is the updated list of compatible frames and forks:

Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork 
Surly ict frame and fork
Quering Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
RSD Mayor (alu) frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims) 
Meriwether frame and fork
Carver (titanium) frame and fork
Pole taiga (frame and fork)
Motobecane FB5 (frame only)
197mm rear Trek Farley 5 and 7 works with both 80 and 90mm rims
9:zero:7 Whiteout (FORK ONLY)
OEM specialized fatboy 135x9 qr front fork both alloy and carbon. require removal of brake caliper
Connondale Lefty Max 140 reduced to 110mm with MSC fat clamp and dished 
150x15mm carbon fork off of trek farley


A few more out of Norway:
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X1 (455mm CS)
-Nakamura Big Bob F50 (455mm CS)
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 (467mm CS)
X1 and F50 come stock with JJ 4.8 on 90mm rims, but frame accepts 2XL on 100mm. Fork (Bluto) limited to 4.8'' on 100mm rims.
X2 comes with 2XL on 100mm rims, ie. 5.2'' casing width. Both frame (aluminum) and fork (carbon) fit up to 5.6'' (ie. ''3XL'' on 100mm+rim)

Not sure on the specifics of these:
KHS 1000
KHS 4 seasons 3000
Fuji Wendigo (frame only?) which is the same frame as Motobecane FB5?

forks dont clear:
bluto(does not clear on sides and arch)
renagade (clears sides not the arch by about 5mm)
Wren forks, due to flexing forks leans and tire will contact left leg
Huffy fits XL not 2XL


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

mbmattcor said:


> Did anyone on this thread do the ITI? I noticed 3 or 4 people running the PSC XXLs. Would love to hear your experiences?


I heard second hand that they were overkill for 90% of the route and that the 10% where they helped didn't compensate for the extra effort everywhere else.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Lars_D said:


> I heard second hand that they were overkill for 90% of the route and that the 10% where they helped didn't compensate for the extra effort everywhere else.


I think if you change the word "route" to "conditions" then that might get a little bit closer to the truth.


----------



## foresterLV (Dec 25, 2016)

I have Stevens Mobster (my first fat bike, now backup one), 2017 (or 2016? I got warranty frane replacement so it was free upgrade) year model, and it have alot of clearance with 4.8 tires on 80mm rims (100mm too but they are on another bike right now):














Its like 1.5cm+ clearance on each side rear, same or bigger at front. Fork on the photo is not original, its chinese carbon one. So I suppose it will fit 5.05 easily most probably on 100mm rims.
Its not very expensive and uses 197/150 thru axles by default. 2015 year model had smaller clearances.

Sent from my SM-G900F


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Added some Farley updates.

here is the updated list of compatible frames and forks:

Blackborrow size m and above frame and fork 
Surly ict frame and fork
Quering Tripple b frame and fork
Reeb badonkadonk frame and fork
RSD Mayor (alu) frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims) 
Meriwether frame and fork
Carver (titanium) frame and fork
Pole taiga (frame and fork)
Motobecane FB5 (frame only)
197mm rear Trek Farley 7 (fits front and rear) and 5 (rear only though, wont fit the fork on the Farley 5) works with both 80 and 90mm rims
9:zero:7 Whiteout (FORK ONLY)
OEM specialized fatboy 135x9 qr front fork both alloy and carbon. require removal of brake caliper
Connondale Lefty Max 140 reduced to 110mm with MSC fat clamp and dished 
150x15mm carbon fork off of trek farley


A few more out of Norway:
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X1 (455mm CS)
-Nakamura Big Bob F50 (455mm CS)
-Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 (467mm CS)
X1 and F50 come stock with JJ 4.8 on 90mm rims, but frame accepts 2XL on 100mm. Fork (Bluto) limited to 4.8'' on 100mm rims.
X2 comes with 2XL on 100mm rims, ie. 5.2'' casing width. Both frame (aluminum) and fork (carbon) fit up to 5.6'' (ie. ''3XL'' on 100mm+rim)

Not sure on the specifics of these:
KHS 1000
KHS 4 seasons 3000
Fuji Wendigo (frame only?) which is the same frame as Motobecane FB5?

forks dont clear:
bluto(does not clear on sides and arch)
renagade (clears sides not the arch by about 5mm)
Wren forks, due to flexing forks leans and tire will contact left leg
Huffy fits XL not 2XL


----------



## dovebiker (Jul 22, 2013)

I recently completed the Rovaniemi 300, Europe's longest arctic race and was riding with black 2XL / XLs and like other riders, found them pretty hard work with a laden bike in cold (-17F) conditions. I think the heavy sidewalls stiffened-up considerably in the cold - how I wished for the Dillinger 5s I left at home. I still think that a 5" deep-lugged tread on a lightweight carcass like a JJ is the answer - no need for heavy sidewalls for snow.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

dovebiker said:


> I recently completed the Rovaniemi 300, Europe's longest arctic race and was riding with black 2XL / XLs and like other riders, found them pretty hard work with a laden bike in cold (-17F) conditions. I think the heavy sidewalls stiffened-up considerably in the cold - how I wished for the Dillinger 5s I left at home. I still think that a 5" deep-lugged tread on a lightweight carcass like a JJ is the answer - no need for heavy sidewalls for snow.


But the Vee guys thought you were taking your fatbike to Redbull Rampage and needed DH casings to prevent a snowflake puncture! :ihih:

I have emailed Vee regarding the need of the lighter rider who doesn't require an extra thick stiff tire. they had a meh attitude toward it.

Going back a few years, 45Nrth had the Escalator, 1 a 180 tpi 4.0. They were discontinued and replaced with the D4. Just an example of 
how the tire market responds to the clydesdale and forgets the beanpole exists.

ak, the 5.05 needs to be inflated to a pressure appropriate for conditions present. Hard surface, more air. Powder snow deflate em and go!
This is why a Lezyne Microfloordrive XL is a feature on my Mayor. Like Jeepin, air up/down as needed. Same with my JJ 4.8's although, the 
JJ's actually roll nicely when they are under inflated, where the 5.05's let you know that they are low and rolling slow is what they have in 
store.

All in all, as fun and able as the 5.05's are, there is a time and place for them. I ride em when I go on an adventure that consists of very loose terrain and some hardpack mixed in to make it interesting. Definitely not the daily driver choice.
Concur with all the peeps that would like to see "liteSkin" options in 5+ tires for the super supple casing performance in snow/sand.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

dovebiker said:


> I recently completed the Rovaniemi 300, Europe's longest arctic race and was riding with black 2XL / XLs and like other riders, found them pretty hard work with a laden bike in cold (-17F) conditions. I think the heavy sidewalls stiffened-up considerably in the cold - how I wished for the Dillinger 5s I left at home. I still think that a 5" deep-lugged tread on a lightweight carcass like a JJ is the answer - no need for heavy sidewalls for snow.


Temps make little difference on the sidewalls -- you noticed the black rubber getting harder and slower as it got colder.

Vee isn't doing a great job of educating people about the PSC compound, and how much better it is at colder temps.

IMO, if you're riding snow (not slush, nor dirt) but sub-freezing snow, you should be on the PSC's. The colder the temps the more this should be mandated.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Temps in the lower 50s in the forecast, but fantastic conditions this weekend for some serious 5''++ monster tire fun and some informal roll, freeride and climbing tests vs. Jumbo Jim 4.0.

Seriously fun freeriding on Saturday. Had to get off in certain spots, and the snow was up to waist deep:






More freeride goodness:













Today, a ride in the fog with a buddy with a Canyon Dude with JJ LS 4.0 tubeless on 80s.

First an impromptu roll test with the 5.6's at 3.4psi and the JJs at 4.2psi. I'm some 15lb lighter (rider + bike). 





We have seen te same before, thought it was a fluke then, but it seems that the proto 2XLs aka 3XLs are much, much faster rolling than the production model.

''Freeride test'':





''Climb test''. 
That hill is WAY steeper than it looks in the video. 
Randomly picked soundtrack worked pretty well.





Here I tried to groom a trail for the ''skinny set'':





I like the allround capabilities of the big tires.


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

the ultimate test would require you to put on 30kg, Espen, and use flat pedals
only that would be indicative of how these tires would work for the rest of us


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

bruto said:


> ...how these tires would work for the rest of us


For the rest of us who can't have them?

Would be nice to have a wider option, here 2XL isn't enough anymore with current snow conditions.. Too much dry snow.. Had to take 2kg extra to home yesterday:


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Logged some rather excellent high mountain, partly powderish freeriding over the weekend:

Even with monster tires, going uphill (much steeper than in looks) in semi windpacked, knee deep powder is hard work:






Much easier on flat ground:










Back on the packed trail, i checked the pressure (or lack thereof). Had a feeling that I had been riding with negative pressure (aka. vacuum) for a while.

Turns out that I was right. 
This is 'lolo' as Snoop would say:






As I've mentioned before, big single ply casing tires are fast, even at 2psi on a packed trail. Saying Hasta to the skiing photographer:


----------



## testvehicle (Mar 25, 2017)

greetings from Germany

Frame: Sandman Atacama 197
Rims: Fatlab 100
Fork: Salsa Bearpaw


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

one more photo with the chain in the 1st gear please?


----------



## testvehicle (Mar 25, 2017)

bruto said:


> one more photo with the chain in the 1st gear please?


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

So a lot of time has passed this the Snowshoe 2XL has been out. Did any manufacturer ever release a suspension fork that can fit it?


----------



## OilcanRacer (Jan 4, 2008)

vadimhellbike said:


> So a lot of time has passed this the Snowshoe 2XL has been out. Did any manufacturer ever release a suspension fork that can fit it?


Why would you want front suspension with such a large tire. This tire is meant to be run in deep snow. Suspension not needed for that. I have run mine in dry dirt and they are SLOW and HEAVY. Most 4.5 to 4.8 tires have plenty of grip in dry dirt.


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*suspended forked*



vadimhellbike said:


> So a lot of time has passed this the Snowshoe 2XL has been out. Did any manufacturer ever release a suspension fork that can fit it?


 Lauf Carbonara works fine with 2XL on 100mm rim up to 9psi with tube on sand; tried neither higher pressure nor mud.


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*2XL suspense*



OilcanRacer said:


> This tire is meant to be run in deep snow.


 It works much better than 4.0 and usefully better than 4.5 on beach sand.


> Suspension not needed for that.


 Suspension is wanted for control if trying to carry speed over trampled sand. My understanding is that the same is true for footprints in snow and slush, particularly after refreezing.


----------



## OilcanRacer (Jan 4, 2008)

blekenbleu said:


> It works much better than 4.0 and usefully better than 4.5 on beach sand.
> Suspension is wanted for control if trying to carry speed over trampled sand. My understanding is that the same is true for footprints in snow and slush, particularly after refreezing.


For sand you are going to have to shave off 75% of the knobs. Essentially the center area. This tire throws sand (and rocks) everywhere like an angry 7 year old. With the air pressure needed to run on soft beach sand, again suspension is really not needed and will work against the low psi.
trying to turn these tires on soft sand with front suspension will be very difficult at slow speeds as well


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*different strokes*



OilcanRacer said:


> This tire throws sand (and rocks) everywhere like an angry 7 year old.


 I agree about small rocks, but find it no worse for sand than tires with much less tread. Those knobs seem to help traction in soft sand. Your comments about pressure are inconsistent with my experience. Pressure low enough to absorb trampled sand shocks increases rolling resistance too much for carrying speed.


----------



## Blaster182 (Oct 29, 2016)

I have been running a lou rear and 2xl up front on my Fatboy in all conditions and love how it soaks up the rocks and roots. Yeah it's slow but I use it instead of susp fork. For me, I love it.


----------



## bbudell (Jun 10, 2005)

Yes, the Manitou Mastodon supposedly will fit a 2XL.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

bbudell said:


> Yes, the Manitou Mastodon supposedly will fit a 2XL.


I've installed the 2XL in my Mastodon. Fits, no problem, even on a 105mm rim.


----------



## akacoke (May 11, 2011)

Here is couple more pictures of mine unfinished build


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*jib*

Torque on bars from wind gusts around 20mph approx 30 degrees left of heading @ 5psi is comparable to self-steering @ 1-2psi and unexpectedly stronger than recalled with 4.0 and 4.5 Juggernauts (which were in rigid fork instead of Lauf)


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

My Moonlander runs these tires just fine on 100 mm rims. 
I ride from 2 PSI TO 8 PSI, depending.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Nice to have the big tires for some mid May riding in Oslo, Norway:






These trails were bone dry in January.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

Crap, I am heading to Trondheim Sunday. As much as I like snow I was hoping for warmer


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

sryanak said:


> Crap, I am heading to Trondheim Sunday. As much as I like snow I was hoping for warmer


More spring like weather in the forecast (note: temps in degrees celsius, of course):
https://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Sør-Trøndelag/Trondheim/Trondheim/long.html?spr=eng


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

Espen W said:


> More spring like weather in the forecast (note: temps in degrees celsius, of course):
> https://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Sør
> ...han we have been seeing. I am going with it:)


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

My Salsa is still in winter mode, awesome tire in the summer too, at least when the "trails" are full of rocks.. 









Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## cedar_lake (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm interested in getting a bike that can accommodate these tires on 100's and right now it sounds like a newer KHS 1000 (with single ring) is the most economical way to do it (100mm rims out of the box, just buy the tires and make sure the rear wheel is far enough back in the dropouts). Given the Blackborrow was phased out in favor of "a wider mukluk," has anybody seen somebody try to fit these to it (I'm thinking 2017 Mukluk Nx1 plus whatever shows up for 2018)? 

I do want something with a sliding dropout and I've been back and forth on a Lurch but I think I'm moving towards a "no" on that bike because i want to buy from a shop.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

My Mayor clears the 5.05's on 80's with a fair amount of space however on 100's I think they would rub. Never tried it to learn the outcome tho...


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

I just retired a Vee Snowshoe 2XL (used in the rear) because the tread is worn down. I rode 1073 miles on it. The front tire (same Vee tire) still looks practically new.

During this 1073 miles, I had zero flat tires! I use tire liners and slime.

The worn rear tire mentioned above will now see years of service as a tire liner. I grind off the knobbies (my riding already did this on the center knobbies). This works very well.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

no post for you


----------



## cedar_lake (Mar 31, 2009)

Thanks!


----------



## alias (May 9, 2005)

mikesee said:


> I think if you change the word "route" to "conditions" then that might get a little bit closer to the truth.


Bingo


----------



## mbmattcor (Mar 14, 2012)

2018 Mukluks look like the same as last year's frame specs, so I'm assuming no 2XL action? It does have alternator dropout though. Anyone know? I know it's vaporware still until they are out on the streets.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

*Vee Snowshoe 2XL tires with a 70T chainring*

I thought you guys might want to see what Vee Snowshoe 2XL tires look like on a bike with a 70T chainring:









I was reluctant to put this in this thread because this bike has a motor, but at least I hid the electronics. This is my ride to work and back which is always the most fun part of my day! The average commute speed is 30mph. My rear tires last 1100 miles and the front tires show almost no wear after 4000 miles.

The freewheel is a 5-speed 13-32T IRD.

This chainring was hard to find because I have a 110mm BCD. I only found one place in the world with this chainring, TriSled in Melbourne, Australia.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete
View attachment 1168922


View attachment 1168923


View attachment 1168924


View attachment 1168925


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

As most folks know, the 5.05 size is quite misleading, and it is partly my fault, dating back to the fall of 2014.

In order to give a better understanding of how big these tires are, let us compare them to some well known tires on the market.

The true, available volume of a tire will be determined by the bead to bead width, most commonly referred to in millimeters. For flotation, we want a high number since that means a tire that will spread out nicely at low pressures and create a flat, ''belt like'' interface.
A tire with big casing width but low sidewall height might look impressive on paper, but might have a smaller footprint at (super) low psi than a narrower tire with tall sidewalls.
The bead-bead size takes the guesswork out of this, but most folks are much, much more familiar with the casing/knob width measurement, so it is helpful to understand the relationship and translate the true volume measurement to the commonly used size measurement.

I have never seen anyone complain about Surlys true vs. stated sizing, so let us pick a Surly tire that has been around for a while. 
Completely random pick will be the Big Fat Larry.
It has a stated size of *4.7* and it has a bead to bead measurement of *245mm*.
This gives us a true volume to stated size ratio of *52.12*

This can be used to provide a comparable size for other tires.
In this example the production 2XL and my prototypes, often referred to as 3XL.
Plus a bonus tire. A big one. Very.

The 2XL has a stated size of 5.05 and a bead-bead measurement of 297mm.
Using the true volume (bead-bead) size and applying the correction factor that we derived from the Big Fat Larry measurement, we find the following:
297/52.12= 5.69

In other words, using the Big Fat Larry sizing as the norm, the 2XL would be referred to as a *5.7.*

My 2XL prototypes (aka 3XL) also have a stated size of 5.05 and a bead-bead measurement of 315mm.
Using the true volume (bead-bead) size and applying the correction factor that we derived from the Big Fat Larry measurement, we find the following:
315/52.12= 6.04

In other words, using the Big Fat Larry as the norm, the 2XL (''3XL'') would be referred to as a *6.0 and close to a 6.1
*
Oh, the bonus tire:
The big tire on my shelf has a stated size of 5.5 and a bead-bead measurement of 345mm.
(I asked the manufacturer to make a 5.5 when Vee downsized the 2XL back in the day)
Using the true volume (bead-bead) size and applying the correction factor that we derived from the Big Fat Larry measurement, we find the following:
345/52.12= 6.62

In other words, using the Big Fat Larry sizing as the norm, this tire would be referred to as a *6.6.*
Big then. 
Too bad it has sidewalls that make the sidewalls of the production 2XL feel like silk in comparison.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

ak-rider said:


> Do you know their reasoning for making the bonus tire with such a thick and stiff casing? Is it a production issue or a liability/durability issue? Like in the other thread, I'm hopeful something bigger will be coming out soon but have a thin, supple casing so it works and rolls much better than the current 2XL.


They probably had no clue as how to make a tire that big.
An inch wider than requested, armadillo skin casing and shallow knobs with ramps on all sides..


----------



## Blaster182 (Oct 29, 2016)

ak-rider said:


> Do you know their reasoning for making the bonus tire with such a thick and stiff casing? Is it a production issue or a liability/durability issue? Like in the other thread, I'm hopeful something bigger will be coming out soon but have a thin, supple casing so it works and rolls much better than the current 2XL.


Probably to keep the tire from growing over time, most frames running these tires are pushing the clearance limits.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

After using Blackborow with 2XL two winters, it seems that wider would be nicer.. it's sad that there still isn't any other options :/ (not that this frame would run with wider tires)

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen W said:


> Too bad it has sidewalls that make the sidewalls of the production 2XL feel like silk in comparison.


I'd say, you lucked out and they made a prototype with the correct casing and screwed the pooch on the production 5.05.

Either way, til there's an option out there regardless of maker, I'll run the 5.05's in the conditions that make em shine!
Only reasoning for the heavy casings would be puncture resistance for the peeps that don't use common sense, cut em up and bellyache that stupidity is teh fault of the tire and not operator.


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

Espen W said:


> ...The true, available volume of a tire will be the bead to bead width, most commonly referred to in millimeters. For flotation, we want a high number since that means a tire that will spread out nicely at low pressures and create a flat, ''belt like'' interface...


Hi, Espen. To be sure, when you refer to the "bead-to-bead width" of a tire, do you determine it by simply placing a tape measure inside the tire and measuring from one edge to the other (following the curvature of the tire)? I seem to remember reading a long time ago that people were somehow trying to determine this measurement by flattening the tire, but that doesn't seem to lead to a very reliable measurement method. So, is the proper approach to simply do as I describe above? Thanks!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

FitmanNJ said:


> Hi, Espen. To be sure, when you refer to the "bead-to-bead width" of a tire, do you determine it by simply placing a tape measure inside the tire and measuring from one edge to the other (following the curvature of the tire)? I seem to remember reading a long time ago that people were somehow trying to determine this measurement by flattening the tire, but that doesn't seem to lead to a very reliable measurement method. So, is the proper approach to simply do as I describe above? Thanks!


Yep, us a tape measure (a flexible one, think the type that is used for measuring garments and stuff works best)


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Espen, I've noticed a few little teases coming from you in the last little while. A new frame based on the Diamant X2 that *might* be available next year from another "mystery" manufacturer... All this talk about your proto 3XL and now this shelf-treasure that I'm going to call the 4XL++...

What exactly are you up to? 

Ps. If my suspicions are correct and you have a fleet of prototype bikes with 122mm rims and 3XL tires, I'll be happy to test ride one in some Canadian snow. Shouldn't be much to ship over here, since I reckon they only weigh about 22lbs... PM for shipping address!


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

Espen W said:


> Yep, us a tape measure (a flexible one, think the type that is used for measuring garments and stuff works best)


Thanks, Espen!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

MaximumX said:


> Espen, I've noticed a few little teases coming from you in the last little while. A new frame based on the Diamant X2 that *might* be available next year from another "mystery" manufacturer... All this talk about your proto 3XL and now this shelf-treasure that I'm going to call the 4XL++...
> 
> What exactly are you up to?
> 
> Ps. If my suspicions are correct and you have a fleet of prototype bikes with 122mm rims and 3XL tires, I'll be happy to test ride one in some Canadian snow. Shouldn't be much to ship over here, since I reckon they only weigh about 22lbs... PM for shipping address!


Good questions!
However, on the tire side, there are little news. My ''3XLs'' are two of only four known ones in the world and the ''4XL'' is not usable with its ultra stiff casing and ramped knobs. The company (Chao Yang) downsized my 345mm prototype to a true 5.5'' (I measured it at Taipei in 2016) and they showed it at Interbike last year, but it gathered little attention:

__
http://instagr.am/p/BJ0Dkm1ByTi/
They kept the ultra thick casing and ''non optimal'' knob shape from the protos.
I reviewed the knob pattern when they proposed it before the proto was made and I naturally told them to redesign, but it did not happen.

Frames:
Might do a production run of an improved version of the X2 frame/bike as a fairly low cost option, but I actually forgot (honest!) that we already have a 3XL capable frame ourselves, with adjustable chainstays from 445-465mm. It was made before I joined the company as a custom made match for our Kindernay XIV 14 speed internal gear hub. 
Short presentation of the bike and hub:








__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1928290440519437


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Espen W said:


> The company (Chao Yang) downsized my 345mm prototype to a true 5.5'' (I measured it at Taipei in 2016) and they showed it at Interbike last year, but it gathered little attention:
> 
> __
> http://instagr.am/p/BJ0Dkm1ByTi/
> They kept the ultra thick casing and ''non optimal'' knob shape from the protos./


Wow... That tire actually looks stiff in pictures. And yeah, horrible tread pattern / knob design.

Honestly, I'm kind of on the fence about the 3XL. If they existed with a nice, supple casing, I would definitely want them and put them to good use. But I have to temper that against the expense of a new frame. All things considered, I might be just as happy riding the 2XL with a more pliable casing on the bike I have.


----------



## Comfisherman (Jul 6, 2016)

Had experience with chao yang atv tires back in the day. Seems like even if they get the design right, and at the time they had some maxxis clones (gold standard back then for gncc). The rubber was crap, they were heavy and the belting was sub par. 

This might be why they made tires that weigh billions of pounds.


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

Espen W said:


> I have never seen anyone complain about Surlys true vs. stated sizing, so let us pick a Surly tire that has been around for a while.
> Completely random pick will be the Big Fat Larry.
> It has a stated size of *4.7* and it has a bead to bead measurement of *245mm*.
> This gives us a true volume to stated size ratio of *52.12*


A little part of the engineer in me died when you divided mm/in for that ratio.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete
.
View attachment 1171511


View attachment 1171512


View attachment 1171513


View attachment 1171514


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

View attachment 1174724

delete
View attachment 1174725


----------



## 1spd1way (Jun 30, 2006)

I'd like to see a picture of them on a small Moonlander....

After a couple of rides on the bud/Lou combo on my Moonie, I can't imagine what kind of crazy "float" the 2xl's are like.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## 1spd1way (Jun 30, 2006)

Hmmmm...thanks AK.

Bud/Lou are pretty awesome.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

ak-rider said:


> I was doing some reading about the Moonlander the other day and found some threads where guys were having cleanance issues both at the fork and frame. I've also seen photos with 2XL's on Moonlanders but it's my impression that they don't fit so well on the smaller size frames.
> 
> I recall emailing Surly about clearance for the 2XL on a small frame ICT and they said it was too big and didn't meet their minimum clearance requirements. What I've found with two different frames now that even if it fits and just barely clears on the stand, it will rub in the field due to the frame flexing. It also doesn't help that the 2XL's build quality is so shoddy that the carcass has a wobble cast into it. I've got 5 of these tires and every single one has the wobble.


I pretty sceptical of most of the claims that frames fit these tires. Maybe, they do under idea conditions, but with tire stretch and a little bump induced wobble, I bet not.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

I've been running 2XL's on my Moonlander for a while with no problem.
Right now I run Bud & Lou though because I can stud them with Gripstuds. 
I don't think a studded 2XL would fit because I use bigger Gripstuds than what is recommended. #3000 stud.


----------



## ak-rider (Jan 4, 2015)

delete


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

kaleidopete said:


> I've been running 2XL's on my Moonlander for a while with no problem.
> Right now I run Bud & Lou though because I can stud them with Gripstuds.
> I don't think a studded 2XL would fit because I use bigger Gripstuds than what is recommended. #3000 stud.
> 
> View attachment 1175117


"for a while" is that a few thousand miles or a few hundred?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

Lars_D said:


> "for a while" is that a few thousand miles or a few hundred?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


It is realistically 8 hundred miles. I've had them since 12/2015 but alternate tires for different occasions.
I got the 2XL's just because I thought they were cool. I don't use them for "float" on snow or sand, I just wanted to try them out and have fun at the very low air pressure I can run them at. They are great fun! My tires of choice are still Bud & Lou. I run them studded in the winter ice and snow and unstudded in the summer months. If I'm going for road riding I switch over to Knards, as they roll better. I don't do any serious riding for competition, I'm just out having fun, and the 2XL's are a lot of fun for me.


----------



## racefit (Aug 26, 2010)

kaleidopete said:


> I've been running 2XL's on my Moonlander for a while with no problem.
> Right now I run Bud & Lou though because I can stud them with Gripstuds.
> I don't think a studded 2XL would fit because I use bigger Gripstuds than what is recommended. #3000 stud.
> 
> View attachment 1175117


What is that attachment on your rear rack?

I have the same rack and am interested in attaching some various items.

Also I see the brackets that attach to the top of the seat stays are black. Did you paint them? If so how did you prep/paint them?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kaleidopete (Feb 7, 2015)

racefit said:


> What is that attachment on your rear rack?
> 
> I have the same rack and am interested in attaching some various items.
> 
> ...


I made those extra brackets out of Aluminium and painted them. They give me a little extra strength for my chain saw or whatever I carry. 
The other holder I made is also Aluminium and holds my flask.


----------



## cjbiker (Jan 11, 2016)

I just installed 2XLs on my Surly Ice Cream Truck. I used the slotted through-axle dropouts in the rear. There's plenty of clearance to the frame all around with the axle pulled all the way back. The chain rubs the tire in the inner chainring/largest cog combo with the stock Surly OD crank. I put a spacer from an 8 speed cassette behind the cassette and removed the second-smallest cog. So far, so good. A 1x drivetrain with the front chainring spaced out a bit would probably work as well.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

(Posted in the film thread too, but at home here as well):

Major, chaos inducing snow dump here in Oslo, Norway, so the #1 MTB magazine in the country asked me to make a video clip showing some good old fashioned powder ridin' with some street action thrown in for some good measure.
I was happy to oblige as it involved three favorite things:
Powder, fatbike & Mavic Pro drone.

30-40cm of fresh powder with a touch of humidity for traction. ''Snowshoe 3XL'' at 0psi meant go-anywhere conditions. Lots of fun. Pumped back up to 3.5psi for the ride back home, tested that in the powder and was going nowhere, so sub 1psi was the clue, no surprise.

Got an article that is on the front page of their website right now, and the video is on their ''TV'' channel:
Puddersykling - fftv.no

Here it is on Youtube as well:


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Tricky conditions last night with approx. a foot and a half of fresh snow. Biggest problem was downed trees.

Interesting detail:
Stuff that was competely rideable at 0.0psi was mission impossible at still ''fairly low'' 0.4psi (zeropointfour)
A stock 2XL, with its somewhat smaller size and most importantly, stiff casing will, even at 0.0psi, not have the ability to spread out and conform to the surface as well as the single ply version at for example 0.4. Throw thick tubes into the 2XLs and they are much further off.

Cool to have such insane tires for myself, but would be nice if others could get snow riding capabilities at this level too.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

I'm almost relieved that the 3XL's aren't available, because I would want to / have to have them. And then a frame to fit them into... and then rims to maximize their potential... and then components to fit around them... and then, and then, and then... 

That said, I continue to be amazed by the traction I get with my 2XL's. Conditions and terrain that would've been unrideable on other tires are easy on these, as long as I can keep my legs moving. And returning to tracks a few days later often showed that other riders tried to follow but either gave up and turned around or walked their bikes. 

Loving my 2XL's!!


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

*Vee shoots self in foot*

To those who are interested in the 2XL, 3XL or larger and willing to purchase a frame or even build one to accommodate these tires and there float capabilities, only to learn that the tire is manufactured w thick heavy casings and poor lug patterns.

Vee's neglect must be hurting sales.

I do appreciate Vee for at least making a 2xl, but can we send them a JJ lite-skin tire as an appropriate sidewall sample? Or something?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

From last nights ride. Approx. 20'' of cold, fresh snow, but one person had walked there, and that makes a massive difference. The footprints are MUCH deeper than what it looks like in the vid, as the 2D nature of video makes it look like there is hardly any snow on the ground 

0.0psi


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

I've been using 2XL's (PSC) on 100mm rims for a year and they definitely do better in fresh deep snow than "conventional" fat tires, but even at 0 PSI 4-5" is the absolute limit. 6" or deeper, you're not going anywhere. The 3XL's must be a real game-changer.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

campykid said:


> I've been using 2XL's (PSC) on 100mm rims for a year and they definitely do better in fresh deep snow than "conventional" fat tires, but even at 0 PSI 4-5" is the absolute limit. 6" or deeper, you're not going anywhere. The 3XL's must be a real game-changer.


They are, and most of it vs. the (production) 2XL comes from the 1 ply casing.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Nothing like riding on the moon, Espen!

Sure would be nice if my 2XL's weren't so stiff and heavy. Makes riding a real 120 tpi tire feel like riding one a tube with no tire...

Perhaps you can get it through Vee's thick heads on tire requirements for real snow riding, as I've been stonewalled by dimwits that think we are wanting a tire for Redbull Rampage instead of snow! The 2XL's are not what I thought they would be with the stupid thick and stiff casings.
Perhaps the damn things just need to be 240 TPI :/

I find the Bud/Lou to be my go to for most of my adventure rides in the high country since they are many times more supple for my 72kg ass to get the right performance. 

6" does NOT stop a Mayor! 10-12" and we're Jeepin for sure. Above that and it's just too much like work...


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

try talking to Duro (Hwa Fong) too - they already make a production tire with quite thin and pliable casing which works tubelessly (Crux)


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

That might be doable although, Duro is notorious for heavy as hell thick wall tires.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bruto said:


> try talking to Duro (Hwa Fong) too - they already make a production tire with quite thin and pliable casing which works tubelessly (Crux)


My good friend Luke used to work at Duro, but just moved jobs to Goodyear, but Duro might be able to do something.
When Vee decided to downsize my 2XL protos for production back in 2015, I contacted Schwalbe, Chao Yang, Maxxis and Kenda to see if they would do a 5.5''.
Chao Yang agreed to do it, but as mentioned, the 345mm bead-bead (6.5'' on a 100mm rim) proto that I got was just massively overbuilt and the knob pattern, etc was sub standard.

A 5.5'' Schwalbe LiteSkin would be nice, but the casing that comes the closest to my Vee protos is the one that Kenda uses on the Juggernaut Pro.
It is not that the casing is exceptionally thin on either (same thickness as a XC racing tire), but most fatbike tires are so massively overbuilt that the Vee proto and Kenda ones feel super thin in comparision.
Two things prevent a tire from spreading out and taking the optimal form for flotation and traction on soft snow and that is air pressure and the stiffness of the casing. Air pressure is easy to manipulate, but a stiff casing will try to keep its round shape, preventing flotation and reducing grip vs a soft and conformable casing. Not to mention, much higher rolling resistance at low pressures too, as we have to constantly deform that stiff casing as the tire rolls.
Imagine rolling an almost deflated basket ball vs an almost deflated party balloon and one gets the concept.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

BansheeRune said:


> Nothing like riding on the moon, Espen!
> 
> Sure would be nice if my 2XL's weren't so stiff and heavy. Makes riding a real 120 tpi tire feel like riding on a tube with no tire...


Think it would be worth carefully grinding down the side of the casing w a small rotary tool that would not get out of hand on a $$ tire? Might just ruin them DEPENDING on the construction of the casing but if there was extra material on the inside or outside that is not cord ( just rubber) it might work. Imagine brushing off extra (not needed) rubber.

Anyone BORED!? 



BansheeRune said:


> Perhaps you can get it through Vee's thick heads on tire requirements for real snow riding, as I've been stonewalled by dimwits that think we are wanting a tire for Redbull Rampage instead of snow!


Maybe that's what Vee is unwittingly hoping for!? A 2XL on the Rampage course! Bah!! :skep:


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

Espen W said:


> Imagine rolling an almost deflated basket ball vs an almost deflated party balloon and one gets the concept.


Maybe this ^^ is exactly what Vee needs to see to get it across to them. Or some other example? Have you attempted anything of the sort w them?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Kirkerik said:


> Think it would be worth carefully grinding down the side of the casing w a small rotary tool that would not get out of hand on a $$ tire? Might just ruin them DEPENDING on the construction of the casing but if there was extra material on the inside or outside that is not cord ( just rubber) it might work. Imagine brushing off extra (not needed) rubber.


IF only that would be viable! Durometer of the casing rubber as well as the layup of the fabric is what makes these so damn stiff. Quantity of rubber in the fabric during casing fabrication is also a contribution to stiffness.

Have a look at the light weight casing of the JJ or Jugger. They have a very light coating over the threads where Vee opted to use a thick coating.

Could be awesome to come up with a 5.05 with a lightskin casing and 42a tread compound to make for the best loose conditions tire for the rider that isn't north of 200#'s. A softer compound used to fabricate the casing fabric would certainly make em more supple too.

Espen has an in over there at Vee that absolutely hooked him up on those 5.6's.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

BansheeRune said:


> They have a very light coating over the threads where Vee opted to use a thick coating.


yeah just thinking it may be possible to get that thicker coating off till starting to see threads like lite-skin but not cutting them. Now that I think more about it, it would be a grueling surgical procedure taking hours but possible. NOT viable...


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Maybe it's time to use tubulars on fatbikes...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Velobike said:


> Maybe it's time to use tubulars on fatbikes...


Here ya go!!


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Espen W said:


> My good friend Luke used to work at Duro, but just moved jobs to Goodyear, but Duro might be able to do something.
> When Vee decided to downsize my 2XL protos for production back in 2015, I contacted Schwalbe, Chao Yang, Maxxis and Kenda to see if they would do a 5.5''.
> Chao Yang agreed to do it, but as mentioned, the 345mm bead-bead (6.5'' on a 100mm rim) proto that I got was just massively overbuilt and the knob pattern, etc was sub standard.
> 
> ...


Since you have a good enough relationship with Vee for them to make and send you one-off prototypes, could you get them to make more exactly like them? Studded, larger, and lighter than 2XL are the three most important factors; I guess they could use a different tread pattern such as snow avalanche and people wouldn't be too upset. But we have a whole thread full of hungry people here (well here and the 3XL thread) and for some reason none of the manufacturers are stepping up. It would help if somebody like you with manufacturer contacts could step up and speak for us!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Willum said:


> Since you have a good enough relationship with Vee for them to make and send you one-off prototypes, could you get them to make more exactly like them? Studded, larger, and lighter than 2XL are the three most important factors; I guess they could use a different tread pattern such as snow avalanche and people wouldn't be too upset. But we have a whole thread full of hungry people here (well here and the 3XL thread) and for some reason none of the manufacturers are stepping up. It would help if somebody like you with manufacturer contacts could step up and speak for us!


+1

Studs as an option. 2XL based on the 3XL prototype, yus!


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Willum said:


> Since you have a good enough relationship with Vee for them to make and send you one-off prototypes, could you get them to make more exactly like them? Studded, larger, and lighter than 2XL are the three most important factors; I guess they could use a different tread pattern such as snow avalanche and people wouldn't be too upset. But we have a whole thread full of hungry people here (well here and the 3XL thread) and for some reason none of the manufacturers are stepping up. It would help if somebody like you with manufacturer contacts could step up and speak for us!


I think the limitation here is the (lack of) availability of frames to run them on. Even the 2XL was a big leap of faith, and I have no idea if it even paid off for them. Maybe I missed it if it was mentioned, but did VEE make any money on their production?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Willum said:


> Since you have a good enough relationship with Vee for them to make and send you one-off prototypes, could you get them to make more exactly like them? Studded, larger, and lighter than 2XL are the three most important factors; I guess they could use a different tread pattern such as snow avalanche and people wouldn't be too upset. But we have a whole thread full of hungry people here (well here and the 3XL thread) and for some reason none of the manufacturers are stepping up. It would help if somebody like you with manufacturer contacts could step up and speak for us!


Trust me, I have tried for the last 2.5 years...
I used to be the Product / R&D manager for bike brands (Diamant and Nakamura) that produced 90,000+ bikes per year, and that would give me some leverage.
However, now being in the drivetrain section of the bike biz there is less impact. 
I am very, very good friends with the top guys/owners at Vee, though. 
A 2XL with single ply casing could possibly be doable, however, a 5.2'' / 31.5'' version of the Snow Avalanche, ie. the casing size of the 2XL with single ply casing would be very, very cool. I will certainly suggest that to them.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

MaximumX said:


> I think the limitation here is the (lack of) availability of frames to run them on. Even the 2XL was a big leap of faith, and I have no idea if it even paid off for them. Maybe I missed it if it was mentioned, but did VEE make any money on their production?


There are quite a few frames in current production that support 5.05. (Not to be confused with custom)



Espen W said:


> Trust me, I have tried for the last 2.5 years...
> I used to be the Product / R&D manager for bike brands (Diamant and Nakamura) that produced 90,000+ bikes per year, and that would give me some leverage.
> However, now being in the drivetrain section of the bike biz there is less impact.
> I am very, very good friends with the top guys/owners at Vee, though.
> A 2XL with single ply casing could possibly be doable, however, a 5.2'' / 31.5'' version of the Snow Avalanche, ie. the casing size of the 2XL with single ply casing would be very, very cool. I will certainly suggest that to them.


I elect Espen to be our mouthpiece!

I'd love either the 2XL or Snow Avalanche in a squishy ply casing.

Now that we have an official super fAt advocate, we're in business! :thumbsup:


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

BansheeRune said:


> There are quite a few frames in current production that support 5.05. (Not to be confused with custom)
> 
> I elect Espen to be our mouthpiece!
> 
> ...


+1
I'm def down for a single ply casing 2xl or 2xl avalanche set of tires. I'd even invest in a frame that can handle 'em

they can fit on the front of my 907 whiteout but the full package is the way to go


----------



## joeduda (Jan 4, 2013)

How about a bigger 5.05 version of Bud and Lou.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

joeduda said:


> How about a bigger 5.05 version of Bud and Lou.


A tubeless ready version of the Bud/Lou (superlight casing version)with the same casing size as the 2XL would be great.
A 5.05 would not be big enough, as even the production 2XL is 5.2'' and with a huge rolling diameter of 31.5''.
5.05 stuck with the 2XL since I advised Vee back in the day to make a 5.05 instead of the 5.15 that they proposed.
How times have changed 

The production 2XL is approx 298mm bead-bead, so 300mm would be a nice number to shoot for.

Using the true size/volume info, the 2XL would have been called a 5.5'' if using the same bead-bead vs claimed width ratio that Surly used on the Bud/Lou (260mm and 4.8) and Nate (218mm and 4.0).

My own 315mm tires are also marked 5.05, but would be considered 5.8 by using the ''Surly ratio'' above. Seeing that other brands are calling a true 4.5'' tire a 5, and 4.8 frequently referred to (for good reason) as 5'', I guess that my bike can be considered a 6'' bike.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

joeduda said:


> How about a bigger 5.05 version of Bud and Lou.


Time to Barrage Surly with requests for em.

While Espen would be all over a 5.6", the rest of us would be all over the 5.05's! 
At least Innova has successfully made fat tires with little failure rate in a 4.8...

Vee has successfully made the 5.05 with a very low failure rate, but missed the mark substantially in the weight and suppleness dept.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> Time to Barrage Surly with requests for em.
> 
> While Espen would be all over a 5.6", the rest of us would be all over the 5.05's!
> At least Innova has successfully made fat tires with little failure rate in a 4.8...
> ...


Again, if Surly made a 5.05 true width tire based on the sizing formula used for Bud/Lou and Nate, you would end up with a tire that is much smaller than the production 2XL.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen W said:


> Again, if Surly made a 5.05 true width tire based on the sizing formula used for Bud/Lou and Nate, you would end up with a tire that is much smaller than the production 2XL.


I have a simplification, I'll use my vernier caliper on a tire mounted on a 100mm rim with a couple psi in it and get the hight/width. I'm friggen lazy!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> I have a simplification, I'll use my vernier caliper on a tire mounted on a 100mm rim with a couple psi in it and get the hight/width. I'm friggen lazy!


That will do it, but test at 20psi as that is the ''industry standard'' for measuring fat tires.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen W said:


> That will do it, but test at 20psi as that is the ''industry standard'' for measuring fat tires.


@[email protected]

I refuse to ride my tires at or above 10 psi and that just sounds like I'll be measuring Fred Flintstone's fatbike tires! 
I know there has been many mentions of measurement at 20 psi...

All I want is a 2XL or Snow Avalange in a super soft, super supple casing. This alone would prolly drop some of the dead weight of the production 2XL!
Damn things are almost as heavy as the 12.50 33 15's on my friggen pickemup! *exaggerates*


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

My vote is for the 3xl tire (as opposed to 2XL). We know that size will work, and the tire seems to be the choke point. Plus you can always get a custom frame made, but a custom tire seems to be a much more difficult proposition. 

Vee should do a kickstarter if they’re curious just how much interest there is in a studded 3XL. I’d put money down.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

BansheeRune said:


> There are quite a few frames in current production that support 5.05. (Not to be confused with custom)


Apologies... I was referring to the production of the 3XL. I'm not aware of any readily-available frames that can accommodate that size and, sadly, I'm not in the custom-frame tax bracket. :-(


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

MaximumX said:


> Apologies... I was referring to the production of the 3XL. I'm not aware of any readily-available frames that can accommodate that size and, sadly, I'm not in the custom-frame tax bracket. :-(


I designed the Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 to be able to fit a 3XL (comes with 2XL stock). The bike (and remaining fatbikes from the brand) are now discontinued as far as I know, but there are some used ones out there for sale.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

MaximumX said:


> Apologies... I was referring to the production of the 3XL. I'm not aware of any readily-available frames that can accommodate that size and, sadly, I'm not in the custom-frame tax bracket. :-(


From what Espen stated, it looks like the only choice is custom for 3XL.
As for 2XL, there are a handful of production bikes that will sport em nicely.
Looked as though Diamant was the only option for the possibility of vaporware 3XL's.

Since my Mayor is able to sport a pair of 2XL's, I'll gladly put up the $$ for a pair of 2XL's or equivalent in a 42a tread with a very light exceptionally supple casing as opposed to the production pair I currently have. They are just too bloody stiff. Yeah, they'll squish, they'll wrinkle but need to be far more supple for the purpose I bought em to do.

Espen, your move! :cornut:


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

BansheeRune said:


> Since my Mayor is able to sport a pair of 2XL's, I'll gladly put up the $$ for a pair of 2XL's or equivalent in a 42a tread with a very light exceptionally supple casing as opposed to the production pair I currently have.


I hear ya... I have mine on a Farley and I love them! My only concern about a single-ply version is the number of sticks and thorns and broken branches lurking under the snow where I ride.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

MaximumX said:


> I hear ya... I have mine on a Farley and I love them! My only concern about a single-ply version is the number of sticks and thorns and broken branches lurking under the snow where I ride.


Fortunately, in the high country (above 9000' elevation) I have no intention of breaking out a track hoe to dig down to those things!
On the other side is being aware of where your tires are about to roll. We have these wonderful little cactus patches to be wary of. Little bastards are bout the size of your thumb with many 1" thorns just waiting to pop your balloon, uh, tire! Orange Seal is your friend where there are lotsa thorns and other nasties.

Being a beanpole at 160 #'s makes for the desire for lighter exceptionally supple tires immense! DH tires need not apply...


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

Espen W said:


> I designed the Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 to be able to fit a 3XL (comes with 2XL stock). The bike (and remaining fatbikes from the brand) are now *discontinued* as far as I know, but there are some used ones out there for sale.
> View attachment 1179742


NOoooo!! 

Maybe I can find one some day... Thanks for the info! Did they sell in the US?


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Kirkerik said:


> Did they sell in the US?


Here's a hint... If you decide to google Diamant BLCK X2, make sure you have your browser translator plug-in set to Viking. ;-)


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

BansheeRune said:


> Being a beanpole at 160 #'s makes for the desire for lighter exceptionally supple tires immense! DH tires need not apply...


Ah. Well there's one more difference. My tires have about 240# bearing down on them, between fatbike and fatter biker.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Espen W said:


> I designed the Diamant BLCK Diamond X2 to be able to fit a 3XL (comes with 2XL stock). The bike (and remaining fatbikes from the brand) are now discontinued as far as I know, but there are some used ones out there for sale.


So when you revive the design under another brand, you promise to make sure a couple containers of bikes and framesets make their way to North America, right? Once you get VEE on board with the 3XL, of course... ;-)


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

MaximumX said:


> Ah. Well there's one more difference. My tires have about 240# bearing down on them, between fatbike and fatter biker.


Gym membership for two!

Espen's a beanpole too. Like he's said before, the tire needs to be as supple as possible in order to flatten out to its widest footprint without allowing the crown of the tire to press down into the powder for maximum float. For a 240 #r this would be key as it is for us weight weenies!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

MaximumX said:


> So when you revive the design under another brand, you promise to make sure a couple containers of bikes and framesets make their way to North America, right? Once you get VEE on board with the 3XL, of course... ;-)


We will go to Norway, snag Espen and bring him back to the states and turn him loose in a machine shop...


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

MaximumX said:


> Here's a hint... If you decide to google Diamant BLCK X2, make sure you have your browser translator plug-in set to Viking. ;-)


I actually have some viking friends! Maybe I should put them on it... Hmmm

show me the 3XL first.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

From yesterday's ride:

Fresh and deep:


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

Awesome Espen! Those are the proto 2xl's I take it?

You need a step tool to get back on the bike! Or use a tree!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Kirkerik said:


> Awesome Espen! Those are the proto 2xl's I take it?
> 
> You need a step tool to get back on the bike! Or use a tree!


Yep, the protos (from way back in 15). I doubt that I could have made it on the production version, small margins in these condition.

A foldable, carbon fiber step stool would be nice!


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

"A foldable, carbon fiber step stool would be nice!"

Heli-fatbiking!!! Dropped in by helicopter.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

campykid said:


> "A foldable, carbon fiber step stool would be nice!"
> 
> Heli-fatbiking!!! Dropped in by helicopter.


Jet Boots, keep your feet warm and float over any snow depth.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

A little more powder, including a Curiak inspired slo-mo scene


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Nice pic of 2XL vs. Lou vs. Nate, care of William over at the Fatbike World Facebook group:









The group:
https://goo.gl/vnVdZN


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

Do you know the rim widths for the 2xl, lou and nate just so there is a little more context. Pretty crazy the difference in size! I'm definitely going to be upgrading my frame for next year as I need the ability to fit larger tires (I have an older 907 that is on it's 7th season!).


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Overkill said:


> Do you know the rim widths for the 2xl, lou and nate just so there is a little more context. Pretty crazy the difference in size! I'm definitely going to be upgrading my frame for next year as I need the ability to fit larger tires (I have an older 907 that is on it's 7th season!).


Will check.
The numbers that count the most is the bead-bead.
In this case right under 300mm vs 260mm vs right under 220mm.
As mentioned before, using the real world volume vs printed size used on the Lou and Nate, the 2XL would have 5.5 printed on the side.
The 2Xl really belongs on a 120mm rim.
And it needs to be single ply so it would weigh much less, grip better, float better and not to mention, roll much, much better than it does with the unyielding double ply casing.

EDIT: did check, and all are on 80mm rims.
The 2XL really gets squeezed on a 80mm. It would appear even bigger vs the Lou with both on 100mm. Nate fits well on 80, Lou on 100 and 2XL really should be on a 120mm


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

Thanks for the info - the fact they are all on 80mm really shows the difference in size. I agree, if they were on 120, 100, and 80 (the appropriate widths), the size differences would be even more dramatic. 

I'm hoping a nice supple single-ply 2XL comes out for next season. I really want to up my tire game next winter, but I don't want to invest in the current 2XL config.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

After trying to deal with deeper snow on 4.4 tires I really want to get a fat bikr next season that will fit 2XLs. I dont care if I have to spin a 22t ring with a 50t low gear to go anywhere, better than falling over every time I slide off the narrow, packed path made by skinny guys.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

I’m running an 11spd with a 26 front and 42 in back with PCS 2XL’s. There have been many times I’ve thumbed the shifter looking for a lower gear just due to the conditions the 2XL’s will allow you to ride. I just got a 49 but am waiting for my longer chain to arrive. I got to use it a little bit today and the lower gearing felt really great but then my rear tire was rubbing bad because I had to slide it forward to get enough chainslack. There were a couple times today I was thinking how nice a 24 would be on the front.


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

at 22/50 you'd be running a significant risk of falling backwards unless pedaling very, very softly


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Overkill said:


> Thanks for the info - the fact they are all on 80mm really shows the difference in size. I agree, if they were on 120, 100, and 80 (the appropriate widths), the size differences would be even more dramatic.
> 
> I'm hoping a nice supple single-ply 2XL comes out for next season. I really want to up my tire game next winter, but I don't want to invest in the current 2XL config.


We can only hope that Vee gets their heads outta their asses on that one!


----------



## arc (Sep 9, 2004)

Espen W said:


> The 2Xl really belongs on a 120mm rim.
> And it needs to be single ply so it would weigh much less, grip better, float better and not to mention, roll much, much better than it does with the unyielding double ply casing.
> 
> EDIT: did check, and all are on 80mm rims.
> The 2XL really gets squeezed on a 80mm. It would appear even bigger vs the Lou with both on 100mm. Nate fits well on 80, Lou on 100 and 2XL really should be on a 120mm


I've been having problems keeping the front tire on the trail, and it looks pretty rounded on my 90mm rim. Depending on the trail conditions it tends to surf side to side and then the cornering blocks dig into the edge of the trail, or an imperfection in the trail surface causes one side of the tire to loose traction and then it darts the opposite way throwing me off balance. Lowering tire pressure just makes it floppy and steer slowly. The tire is perfect when breaking trail and when things get packed just right it's a cornering demon.

I suspect the front tire just needs more weight on it, but that will mess with my riding position. A wider rim is an easier solution, but I don't want to go too wide for a bud. Do you think a 105 or 110mm rim would have much of an effect?


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

Espen W said:


> ...... and 2XL really should be on a 120mm


I'm pretty happy with them on 100's. Today I had them down around 0-1 psi and I was riding on some icy ruts from the thaw and re-freeze we get here in SE Michigan. Never slipped out or crashed.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Espen W said:


> Trust me, I have tried for the last 2.5 years...
> I used to be the Product / R&D manager for bike brands (Diamant and Nakamura) that produced 90,000+ bikes per year, and that would give me some leverage.
> However, now being in the drivetrain section of the bike biz there is less impact.
> I am very, very good friends with the top guys/owners at Vee, though.
> A 2XL with single ply casing could possibly be doable, however, a 5.2'' / 31.5'' version of the Snow Avalanche, ie. the casing size of the 2XL with single ply casing would be very, very cool. I will certainly suggest that to them.


Lately I've been thinking how if I wasn't so heavy, I'd dump the 2XL's as they are poorly constructed, heavy, don't roll well and add a ton of resistance. The only thing they have going for them is their size, otherwise they leave much to be desired. The tires are so out of true it is embarrassing to show people and unacceptable to the consumer. I'll never buy another VeeTire product just because I don't want to support a company with such bad QC.

The Innova Bud & Lou tires are so much more supple, lighter and better constructed that they'd be head and shoulders better than the 2XL's if they were just upsized. There is obviously a market for these type of tires and I wish some other company would jump in and take it over.

The 2Xl's are so inefficient and roll so poorly that I've taken to running two different bikes. One with 2XL's when conditions are really bad and one with Bud/Lou's for everything else. I'm extremely frustrated that the thin, light cased 3XL prototypes you are running are not in production. They obviously work well and are so much better than the consumer version of the 2XL that there is no reason they shouldn't produce more of the tires you've got. I don't understand their reasoning?


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Snowfat said:


> They obviously work well and are so much better than the consumer version of the 2XL that there is no reason they shouldn't produce more of the tires you've got. I don't understand their reasoning?


Well... I think the major sticking point is that there are no frames available to run them in. Espen's Diamant X2 being the only exception, even that is no longer manufactured.

Until a big enough manufacturer is willing to design and produce a frame that accommodates 3XL's, I don't see VEE or anyone else lining up to produce a tire of that size.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Sounds like the chicken and the egg scenario. There weren’t hardly any bikes that could fit the 2XL and more crop up every month now. The Big Fat Dummy could fit the 3XL right now and I believe the Quiring Triple B also has room. Ideally an OEM would launch a new frame/bike with 3XL sized tires as they’d own the market for a while. Surly seems like the logical company to do it as they’ve not done squat to be innovative in years. I could see their new 3XL bike being called the Monster Trucker or Grave Digger, something like that. I’d buy one.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Exactly. The bike manufacturers don't have as much to lose... You can put skinny tires on a fatter frame, after all. You just can't put a fatter tire on a skinny frame. So if someone steps and builds frame, I'm sure the tires will follow. 

Of course the narrow-hipped Nancies will have fits over the outrageous Q on these ultra-fat frames and what it does to their poor knees. You know... cuz these bikes should be ridden at high cadence like a track bike. *sigh*


----------



## adam1367 (May 19, 2016)

Seems like I've managed to combine everything I wanted in one nice package (narrow q-factor and widest tire-rim combo)

frame: Trek Farley 5 2016
tires: vee tire snowshoe 2xl silica
rims: nextie xiphias 105mm
cranks: race face next sl (for 170mm hub, q-factor 202mm)
chainring: race face cinch 28t (set with dish outwards)

Clearances are quite tight (winter only, I would say), but it works
The biggest problem is the chain. You can (i tried my best to get a good angle) see from the pictures, that it's just a couple millimeters from chain to tire on the biggest cog (36t) in the back

I'll see how it works when the tires get a bit stretched. Frame is not really a problem so far, and for the chain there's an option to get boost chainring (+3mm dish)


----------



## bme107 (Jul 23, 2008)

arc said:


> I've been having problems keeping the front tire on the trail, ...............Depending on the trail conditions it tends to surf side to side and then the cornering blocks dig into the edge of the trail, or an imperfection in the trail surface causes one side of the tire to loose traction and then it darts the opposite way throwing me off balance........


This is snow riding non-groomed trails in a nut shell. Not tire specific in my experience. A delicate tight rope ride using body English to steer rather than the bars.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

I'm on a Farley 5 too, but I just took the front derailleur off and run the chain on the small ring of the stock crank. I'd actually bought a Cinch crankset with the intention of running a 190mm spindle and a single ring, but realized I don't even need it for clearance once I fitted the tires. They're on 90's. 

That said, I did trim the corner knobs when trying to fit the tire on another bike, but I'm not sure it makes any real difference. Well... other than allowing a little extra room for the Vee-wobble. 

I'm really not too concerned about Q on this bike. It's intended and set up for trailbreaking, bushwhacking and general low-speed grinding. I might feel differently if I were planning to spin a century, but I'd probably opt for a different bike for that...


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

adam1367 said:


> Seems like I've managed to combine everything I wanted in one nice package (narrow q-factor and widest tire-rim combo)
> 
> frame: Trek Farley 5 2016
> tires: vee tire snowshoe 2xl cilica
> ...


The clearance on my current bike are only slightly better at the chain stays and the POS 2XL wobbles so much that it rubs on the frame. Really annoying because they'd be fine for snow riding if they ran true since you don't deal with mud build up. I still ride them but the rubbing gets on my nerves. None of the other tires I own have so much wobble and run out.


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

adam1367 said:


> Clearances are quite tight (winter only I would say), but it works
> The biggest problem is the chain. I can (i tried my best to get a good picture) see from the pictures, that it's just a couple millimeters from chain to tire on the biggest cog (36t) in the back
> 
> I'll see how it works when the tires get a bit stretched. Frame is not really a problem, and for the chain there's an option to get boost sprocket (+3mm dish)


You could also take out a cog or two and space out the cassette to get more chain clearance....


----------



## adam1367 (May 19, 2016)

I don't think you'll get a lot out of it, since cassette is so far from the spot where you need more clearance. Rohloff (SS or any IGH) could do better, though

Another option that I'm contemplating is getting one (or actually two) of those chain guides, that you mount on chainstays


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Snowfat said:


> The clearance on my current bike are only slightly better at the chain stays and the POS 2XL wobbles so much that it rubs on the frame. Really annoying because they'd be fine for snow riding if they ran true since you don't deal with mud build up. I still ride them but the rubbing gets on my nerves. None of the other tires I own have so much wobble and run out.


Tip: Stop whining about your tires, contact the retailer that sold them to you, and if they're as bad as you say they are they'll get you some warranty replacements.

My 2XL's run true -- all 5 of them.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

mikesee said:


> Tip: Stop whining about your tires, contact the retailer that sold them to you, and if they're as bad as you say they are they'll get you some warranty replacements.
> 
> My 2XL's run true -- all 5 of them.


Tip:
Try not being such a dick when giving advice. You come off as rude.

BTW, I also have a set of black 2XL's and they also wobble and don't run true. Maybe you got a hand picked good set because the company or distributor was hoping you'd write good things about them? I'm not too excited about fighting a battle with a mail order company to warranty the tires and then get to pay shipping both ways. Particularly when I've had the black set for over a year and the PSC versions since late summer. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to warranty tires that old even though they wobbled from day one just like other reviews have stated.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Snowfat said:


> I'm not too excited about fighting a battle with a mail order company to warranty the tires and then get to pay shipping both ways.


I had one with a pretty bad wobble. Made a video and contacted VEE directly. They shipped me a replacement without any fuss, other than asking for proof of purchase and a mailing address.

The only "annoyance" was that the original pair was black... the replacement they sent was white. So now I have mismatched tires. I mean, the upgrade was nice... but mismatched tires!?!?!


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Snowfat said:


> Tip:
> Try not being such a dick when giving advice. You come off as rude.
> 
> BTW, I also have a set of black 2XL's and they also wobble and don't run true. Maybe you got a hand picked good set because the company or distributor was hoping you'd write good things about them? I'm not too excited about fighting a battle with a mail order company to warranty the tires and then get to pay shipping both ways. Particularly when I've had the black set for over a year and the PSC versions since late summer. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to warranty tires that old even though they wobbled from day one just like other reviews have stated.


You seem like a good guy but calling something a POS that other people have had good luck with is not the best thing. Perhaps you should have contacted VEE when you mounted the XXLs up and noticed they were not running true?

Mike C is a highly regarded member of the mountain bike community and gives a LOT of advice...almost all of it free or at a cost to himself because he tests and tries things for the benefit of others. Yes, he makes a living building and selling bike wheels and tires but what he provides is a quality experience from start to finish. Lighten up a little!


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Snowfat said:


> Tip:
> Try not being such a dick when giving advice. You come off as rude.
> 
> BTW, I also have a set of black 2XL's and they also wobble and don't run true. Maybe you got a hand picked good set because the company or distributor was hoping you'd write good things about them? I'm not too excited about fighting a battle with a mail order company to warranty the tires and then get to pay shipping both ways. Particularly when I've had the black set for over a year and the PSC versions since late summer. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to warranty tires that old even though they wobbled from day one just like other reviews have stated.


Just making sure I have this straight: You have the means and understanding to affect a change to a situation you find unacceptable. And you're choosing not to solve it, instead to simply whine about it on the internet?

I've had a dozen or so 2XL's come through my shop. Some through distribution channels, some straight from Vee. One of them wobbled, the rest are straight.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

adam1367 said:


> frame: Trek Farley 5 2016
> tires: vee tire snowshoe 2xl silica
> rims: nextie xiphias 105mm


It amazes me that that combo works. I have that frame (albeit in a 17.5") and i get full contact of the tire at the seatstay bridge. all fupa'ed up in there.

seems like the only concern is that long-term the tires will stretch and no longer fit. maybe going to a narrower rim will solve that? if it happens, of course.

thanks for sharing.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

mohrgan said:


> You seem like a good guy but calling something a POS that other people have had good luck with is not the best thing. Perhaps you should have contacted VEE when you mounted the XXLs up and noticed they were not running true?
> 
> Mike C is a highly regarded member of the mountain bike community and gives a LOT of advice...almost all of it free or at a cost to himself because he tests and tries things for the benefit of others. Yes, he makes a living building and selling bike wheels and tires but what he provides is a quality experience from start to finish. Lighten up a little!


Honestly based upon my experience with 4 of these tires and having read multiple different reviews on this site about them, my impression was they all wobbled. I figured it was just something you accepted to run the biggest tire currently available. I live in a remote area so most everything I buy is from mail order and if everything was as easy as sending things back with Amazon I'd be all over it. Now that I've been made aware that Vee warranties these tires for wobble I'll try that route and see what happens.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Snowfat said:


> Honestly based upon my experience with 4 of these tires and having read multiple different reviews on this site about them, my impression was they all wobbled. I figured it was just something you accepted to run the biggest tire currently available. I live in a remote area so most everything I buy is from mail order and if everything was as easy as sending things back with Amazon I'd be all over it. Now that I've been made aware that Vee warranties these tires for wobble I'll try that route and see what happens.


Sounds like a plan...Never hurts to ask! Good luck and keep us posted as the more information that's out there the better it is for us all. Despite the "popularity" of fat biking the XXL is still a niche product and hopefully VEE will make good on their defect and use that information to make them better going forward.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

mohrgan said:


> Sounds like a plan...Never hurts to ask! Good luck and keep us posted as the more information that's out there the better it is for us all. Despite the "popularity" of fat biking the XXL is still a niche product and hopefully VEE will make good on their defect and use that information to make them better going forward.


And if enough of us ***** about em being way too stiff, they might just make an offering like Espen's prototype tires!!!


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

BansheeRune said:


> And if enough of us ***** about em being way too stiff, they might just make an offering like Espen's prototype tires!!!


I second that! I firmly believe there is definitely a market for these type of tires and the ones that Espen has are the ones I want. People have been making pneumatic tires for over 100 years. I just don't see it being rocket science to produce a lighter weight, more flexible 2XL or better yet produce the 3XL. People pay $240 for a single 4.8 studded 45 north and I think that is crazy. Particularly when it isn't even a true 4.8.


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

mikesee said:


> It amazes me that that combo works. I have that frame (albeit in a 17.5") and i get full contact of the tire at the seatstay bridge. all fupa'ed up in there.
> 
> seems like the only concern is that long-term the tires will stretch and no longer fit. maybe going to a narrower rim will solve that? if it happens, of course.
> 
> thanks for sharing.


Mike, tha fact is - that *adam1367* was VERY lucky to get a nice exemplar of the frame. :thumbsup:

Because, according my experience - ALL aluminium frames of TREK Farley are QUITE different in geometry... and during my experiments I had seen the two ones that fit 2XL more or less OK, and the two or three ones that did not fit them at all by all means... 
They have HUGE differences in the geometry of the chain stays and seat stays (how they were prepared/bent) and how they were welded together... e.g. on some frames with GOOD tire capacity - the gap between the outer surface of the chainstays and the inner surface of the crank arms was just 2-3 mm (nearly perfect)... and on the frames with POOR tire capacity - you could even nearly put a thinger between them (and the tire was completely blocked between the stays)... that's the story. 

You can find something useful about it on the pictures below.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Snowfat said:


> ...I just don't see it being rocket science to produce a lighter weight, more flexible 2XL or better yet produce the 3XL....


Back around 1890 -1910 it was not unusual for riders to make their own tyre from a set of existing wires or retread it. I've got a book with the instructions somewhere.

I must admit I have been tempted.

I wonder how a tough fabric like Dyneema would go for a single ply.


----------



## Steve Balogh (Feb 20, 2008)

MaximumX said:


> I had one with a pretty bad wobble. Made a video and contacted VEE directly. They shipped me a replacement without any fuss, other than asking for proof of purchase and a mailing address.
> 
> The only "annoyance" was that the original pair was black... the replacement they sent was white. So now I have mismatched tires. I mean, the upgrade was nice... but mismatched tires!?!?!


You said the magic word there - video. I've done that twice with two other tire MFG's. One asked that I delete the video


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Velobike said:


> Back around 1890 -1910 it was not unusual for riders to make their own tyre from a set of existing wires or retread it. I've got a book with the instructions somewhere.
> 
> I must admit I have been tempted.
> 
> I wonder how a tough fabric like Dyneema would go for a single ply.


On my last sufferfest of a ride the thoughts of how to make lighter, balloon type tires was running through my head. I watched a video a few months back they did in Alaska about the fatbike pioneers and the guy from New Mexico (I think that's where?) modified existing tires by cutting them in half and sewing in a wider strip down the center. He called them his Raggedy Ann tires.

I'm don't think going taller is the answer like with the 27.5's. I'm running single ring 26x11-49 11 spd gearing and I think there is a limit to how tall of a tire a guy can pedal through deep snow. I believe a shorter, wider, more balloon type tire similar in concept that was used on the first three wheelers is a better way to go. I'm not saying go with a 22x11x8" tire but the idea behind it as greater volume will spread out wider at the contact patch yet the tire can still remain more narrow where it passes through the chainstays. We've not yet hit the limit on how big of a tire can be pedaled so I want things to keep progressing. A big, fat tire should be labeled for snow use only so the carcass can be made light and thin and people won't be complaining about getting flats or tears by using them in summer.

These old three wheelers had enough buoyancy to actually float on water. The soft, flexible low pressure 2psi tires provided great float and traction but were pretty bouncy. The 2XL with its greater volume was a wonderful idea. More volume would be even better.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Snowfat said:


> These old three wheelers had enough buoyancy to actually float on water.


Current fatbikes, even with 3.8" tires, will also float on water. They just lack the tripod effect to make them stable.

Personally I'm happy with my PSC 2XL's. If I had my druthers I'd just like to get to ride them more often.

If Vee (or Surly, or anyone) comes out with a yet-floatier platform, for sure I'll try it and see how it compares. But the fact is that the current 2XL's can take us so much further than we ever dreamed, that complaining about them seems ridiculous.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

mikesee said:


> Personally I'm happy with my PSC 2XL's. If I had my druthers I'd just like to get to ride them more often.
> 
> If Vee (or Surly, or anyone) comes out with a yet-floatier platform, for sure I'll try it and see how it compares. But the fact is that the current 2XL's can take us so much further than we ever dreamed, that complaining about them seems ridiculous.


Same. I'm really impressed with what I can do with these. I've been riding over terrain that was pretty much impossible on smaller tires, like puny 4.8's. I don't even mind the 2-ply casing that everyone hates so much... I'm usually charging through brush and rolling over fallen branches and broken sticks that lurk under the snow. Sealant works well enough on thorns and such, but it'd break my heart to have to replace an expensive tire because of a sidewall tear.

Would I like to ride something even bigger? Sure! But I'm not sure how much money I want to throw at new, premium tires and a new frame for what might turn out to be a marginal improvement over what I already have.

Either way, I'd be happy to see a 3XL size tire hit the market, along with frames to match. I might not be an early adopter, though. I think the 2XL works pretty well for my needs.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Snowfat said:


> These old three wheelers had enough buoyancy to actually float on water. The soft, flexible low pressure 2psi tires provided great float and traction but were pretty bouncy. The 2XL with its greater volume was a wonderful idea. More volume would be even better.
> 
> View attachment 1184554


As a teenager back in the 80s I had several 3 wheeled ATVs. They were terrible in more than 8" of soft snow. The front would try to push snow and in the process would eventually float after the snow was packed under the front wheel. The rear would spin out and trench a lot because of the power. Just like fat bikes they would perform great in compacted snow but they were no panacea in powder!


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

mikesee said:


> But the fact is that the current 2XL's can take us so much further than we ever dreamed, that complaining about them seems ridiculous.


Pfffttt.... that kind of thinking reminds me of the Amish episode of the Family Guy.

"Dear Amish Lord: Thou lookest sternly down upon us-thine flock-even though we did not do anything wrong, and have been doing chores like $&@%? crazy. Please make us humble and deliver us more hardship-that we may get thick calloused hands, much larger than other peoples; and grant that we become dull, like Eric Bana-who we have never seen but are just going by reputation-because it is your will. *We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850-not too little, not too much.* Please deliver us from Thomas Edison, the worst human being who ever lived, and protect us from those who laugh at our buggies or our hats. And deliver us from mustaches. Amen."



mohrgan said:


> As a teenager back in the 80s I had several 3 wheeled ATVs. They were terrible in more than 8" of soft snow. The front would try to push snow and in the process would eventually float after the snow was packed under the front wheel. The rear would spin out and trench a lot because of the power. Just like fat bikes they would perform great in compacted snow but they were no panacea in powder!


There certainly was a limit to the depth of snow they could ride through or over but compared to the early 4 wheelers that came out a couple years later the ATC's could run rings around them because they were like a wedge going through the snow. Compared to a dirt bike the ATC's were mind blowing because they were truely all terrain cycles. Those large, low pressure tires only took 2psi. I envision a larger than 2XL fatbike tire built to the same principle. That prototype 3XL sure looks to have that in mind.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Snowfat said:


> There certainly was a limit to the depth of snow they could ride through or over but compared to the early 4 wheelers that came out a couple years later the ATC's could run rings around them because they were like a wedge going through the snow. Compared to a dirt bike the ATC's were mind blowing because they were truely all terrain cycles. Those large, low pressure tires only took 2psi. I envision a larger than 2XL fatbike tire built to the same principle. That prototype 3XL sure looks to have that in mind.


I totally agree with you regarding the early Suzuki Quad 4 wheelers! They were clumsy for sure. I was really upset when 3 wheelers were outlawed...They could be dangerous but the industry was starting to figure things out regarding suspension and wheel size that made them handle better and safer.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Hemsedal
Norway
Powder
Active track mode:


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> And if enough of us ***** about em being way too stiff, they might just make an offering like Espen's prototype tires!!!


They might. And then they'll have to listen to people whine that they cut/punctured/killed said tires riding rocky singletrack.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

mikesee said:


> They might. And then they'll have to listen to people whine that they cut/punctured/killed said tires riding rocky singletrack.


That is a point.
However, remember that Vee runs 1 Ply casing on other fatbike models:
https://www.veetireco.com/technology/#casings

Plus: other brands run superlight type casings too:
Schwalbe LiteSkin
Surly Super Light casing
Thin casing on the Juggernaut Pro (Kenda)

2ply edition for summer/allround and one 1ply clearly marked as ''FSO'' (for snow only) or something.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Espen W said:


> That is a point.
> 
> Plus: other brands run superlight type casings too:


True. But one company's "light" casing is another company's useless garbage. The Kenda's are about as durable as riding on papier mache.

Point simply being that many here are suggesting that there is a big market for these tires. There isn't. A few handfuls of people, mostly buying aftermarket, will never pay off the up front costs of producing/distributing the few thousand tires that Vee (or whomever) will need to make to get these rolling.

And if by some miracle these tires do come to exist, many will still complain that they aren't good enough at ___. Even your example of a For Snow Only label won't be quite enough, as there are many kinds of snow that are abrasive enough to wear through a sidewall in a few hundred miles, not to mention that some will think that snow = "some mix of snow, and ice, and maybe roots and rocks" and you can see where I'm going with that.

Do I want bigger tires? Sure. Do I think there is a market big enough to support them? I do not.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Funny thing is that I have ridden tons of offroad (and onroad) miles on shaved Kendas (essentially removed the knobs) so that I was constantly riding on the thin casing between the knobs, with an absolute minimal amount of flats.
However, running Schwalbe SnakeSkins on nothing but smooth pavement, I had nothing but flats. (Good luck with LiteSkins, though)

Too bad that the 2XL is 2ply and very slow rolling, as it has given folks the impression that they are slow due to the size, while under most snow conditions (except hardpack), my even bigger 1ply ones roll extremely well, and on softer snow, smokes anything (also roll wise). 
Folks (including bike magazine editors) who have tested my bike have commented how much faster that bike is than their own (4.0-4.8 bike) once we get off the hardpack.

That said. It is pretty cool to have a one-off


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Espen W said:


> That said. It is pretty cool to have a one-off


Why do you insist on torturing us mere mortals on 2-ply 2XLs?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

mikesee said:


> They might. And then they'll have to listen to people whine that they cut/punctured/killed said tires riding rocky singletrack.


Some people are inherently stupid from the word go. They think a tire is rubbish if they destroy it riding through the neighbors rose garden and then really ***** when they find out that riding through an area strewn with shards of broken glass and metal shards cuts em to ribbons. 
Then you and I get stuck with load range E tires to put on the ole lady's Subaru, so to exaggerate!

In our neck of the woods, a real snow specific tire would be 120-180 tpi single ply with paddles 8-10mm tall made of 42a. 
Mike, you and I know very well what a mountain sled has for a track vs. those flatlander oriented models...

Of course, Vee can continue to make the "load range E" 5.05's and add to the offering a light, single ply 180 tpi version that we can get our hands on without being a blood relative of Espen! Don't get me wrong, Espen... We still love ya!


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

mikesee said:


> And if by some miracle these tires do come to exist, many will still complain that they aren't good enough at ___. Even your example of a For Snow Only label won't be quite enough, as there are many kinds of snow that are abrasive enough to wear through a sidewall in a few hundred miles, not to mention that some will think that snow = "some mix of snow, and ice, and maybe roots and rocks" and you can see where I'm going with that.


I've got studded snow tires on my truck that are in their 8th winter and it sure isn't the snow that wears them out. It's the dry pavement and the tires and studs are still in awesome shape because I don't install them until the roads have snowpack and ice and take them off early in the spring when the pavement arrives. I've seen plenty of 30-40 year old snowmobile tracks that aren't worn down from "abrasive snow". They dry rot or have chunks and tears due to hitting rocks while spinning. My bud/Lou's set from three years ago still look brand new even though they have over a 1000 miles on them of winter use. The grip studs haven't even torn out yet. I can see if a guy likes riding in snirt wear he'd see more wear but snow doesn't qualify as anything I'd consider abrasive.

An OEM could easily make a balloon skin type tire that would provide plenty of longevity for the user and work so much better than what is currently available. If some guy uses a winter specific tire in summer and cry's about flats who cares? Kinda like racing a downhill course on a rigid bike and then complaining the frame bent/broke. Wrong tool for the application.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Mikesee, 
Gee thanks, I really appreciate you giving me negative feedback and leaving a snide comment. Seriously?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

campykid said:


> Why do you insist on torturing us mere mortals on 2-ply 2XLs?


Evil Inclination.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Vee only has a 250# crash test dummy to ghost ride their test bike with, when all they really need is Espen to try em out!

Frankly, I am amazed at the condition of my Bud/Lou with 4 winters on em and having never been inflated more than 4 psi and mostly >3 psi.
They look good as new. 

Mike, my 2XL's allow for going places that Bud/Lou just don't however, a more supple version for those of us that are sub 200 would be nice!


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> Mike, my 2XL's allow for going places that Bud/Lou just don't however, a more supple version for those of us that are sub 200 would be nice!


I totally agree. If the beancounters at Vee thought there were enough of us that they wouldn't lose their shirt in making these, we'd have 'em.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Vee deserves massive cred for making a tire with around 50% more volume than the 4.8s that were the biggest available at that time.

However, since the thick casing increases the rolling resistance so much (at the low pressures that can be run with this size tire) lots of folks have gotten the impression that they are slow rolling due to their size, and this has given big tires a bad reputation, and could prevent other brands from even attempting to make a similarly sized tire. 

For example a 300mm Liteskin Jumbo Jim would be very, very fast, and significantly faster than the 4.0-4.4-4.8 versions in softer snow conditions. 

My dream is a fatbike 315mm Maxxis Maxxlite with the One70 170tpi casing. That casing is very resistant to punctures (unlike its predecessors) and rolls like nothing else. My 11.6lbs 26er with the 2.0'' Maxxlite 285s just simply rolls away from 29ers, B's, CX, etc on gravel descents, even with a combined bike/rider weight of right over 140lbs vs. much heavier packages.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

mikesee said:


> I totally agree. If the beancounters at Vee thought there were enough of us that they wouldn't lose their shirt in making these, we'd have 'em.


They kinda messed that one up already...

With the few frame/fork options at the time the 5.05 was brought to the scene, bean counters abacus was in dire need of repair.


----------



## bruto (Nov 23, 2014)

What is that 26er made of?
at 11.6 lbs, it probably has no brakes (or gears)


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

bruto said:


> What is that 26er made of?
> at 11.6 lbs, it probably has no brakes (or gears)


_(Off topic, but: 900g carbon frame, 450g Trigon carbon fork, post, Answer 115g bar, 95g stem, 82g Trigon saddle, Notubes ZTR race 7000 wheelset, Next SL crank with 32T, 1x9 setup with Micro Shift Thumb shifter, XTR RD and 11-34T Recon aluminium cassette. KMC X10 SL, Maxxis Maxxlite 285 2.0'' tubeless. 140g Bebop pedals. Formula R1 racing brakes with Quaxar 67g rotors.)_


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Espen W said:


> _(Off topic, but: 900g carbon frame, 450g Trigon carbon fork, post, Answer 115g bar, 95g stem, 82g Trigon saddle, Notubes ZTR race 7000 wheelset, Next SL crank with 32T, 1x9 setup with Micro Shift Thumb shifter, XTR RD and 11-34T Recon aluminium cassette. KMC X10 SL, Maxxis Maxxlite 285 2.0'' tubeless. 140g Bebop pedals. Formula R1 racing brakes with Quaxar 67g rotors.)_


Pretty impressive, but that thing would just disintegrate if I rode it!


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Espen W said:


> Vee deserves massive cred for making a tire with around 50% more volume than the 4.8s that were the biggest available at that time.
> 
> However, since the thick casing increases the rolling resistance so much (at the low pressures that can be run with this size tire) lots of folks have gotten the impression that they are slow rolling due to their size, and this has given big tires a bad reputation, and could prevent other brands from even attempting to make a similarly sized tire.
> 
> ...


Exactly! All your videos of the 3XL have me convinced of this beyond a shadow of a doubt.



BansheeRune said:


> They kinda messed that one up already...
> 
> With the few frame/fork options at the time the 5.05 was brought to the scene, bean counters abacus was in dire need of repair.


Yep, there are quite a few bikes that emerged to handle the 5.05" tire afte4 it was released so that blows the idea that no market exists for an even larger tire.



Espen W said:


> _(Off topic, but: 900g carbon frame, 450g Trigon carbon fork, post, Answer 115g bar, 95g stem, 82g Trigon saddle, Notubes ZTR race 7000 wheelset, Next SL crank with 32T, 1x9 setup with Micro Shift Thumb shifter, XTR RD and 11-34T Recon aluminium cassette. KMC X10 SL, Maxxis Maxxlite 285 2.0'' tubeless. 140g Bebop pedals. Formula R1 racing brakes with Quaxar 67g rotors.)_


I'm blown away and humbled that you can push that gearing in the conditions you've ridden that bike. I like to spin at a high cadence and don't care for pushing a taller gear than necessary for sufferfest conditions. I'm hoping that prevents me from have knee issues in older age but I'm thinking it comes down to personal preference as my wife always pushes a taller gear than me when we are riding in the conditions.


----------



## Flying_Scotsman (Jul 12, 2011)

2017/18 Alu Mukluk..... is it gonna work with 2XL's?? Search isn't telling me!


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

Snowfat said:


> Exactly! All your videos of the 3XL have me convinced of this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> Yep, there are quite a few bikes that emerged to handle the 5.05" tire afte4 it was released so that blows the idea that no market exists for an even larger tire.
> 
> I'm blown away and humbled that you can push that gearing in the conditions you've ridden that bike. I like to spin at a high cadence and don't care for pushing a taller gear than necessary for sufferfest conditions. I'm hoping that prevents me from have knee issues in older age but I'm thinking it comes down to personal preference as my wife always pushes a taller gear than me when we are riding in the conditions.


32T fornt and 11-34 rear is for my 26er summer bike 
The ''3XL'' fat bike is running 26T front and 10-42 in the rear.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Snowfat said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Yep, there are quite a few bikes that emerged to handle the 5.05" tire afte4 it was released so that blows the idea that no market exists for an even larger tire.


There is a market for this product although, limited in scope.

With the length of this thread, Vee should get an idea of what their custy is asking for and being denied.

Espen makes some good points on tires and rolling etc. Choosing a tire that rolls fast and efficiently is key. Some exhibit terrible rolling resistance and handling properties where another in the same size weighs significantly less without the handling issues. Kinda like comparing a Mission to a Jumbo Jim.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> There is a market for this product although, limited in scope.
> 
> With the length of this thread, Vee should get an idea of what their custy is asking for and being denied.
> 
> Espen makes some good points on tires and rolling etc. Choosing a tire that rolls fast and efficiently is key. Some exhibit terrible rolling resistance and handling properties where another in the same size weighs significantly less without the handling issues. Kinda like comparing a Mission to a Jumbo Jim.


The dual ply XL (4.8) is/was also very slow rolling, while the single ply ones were/are perfectly fine.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Espen W said:


> The dual ply XL (4.8) is/was also very slow rolling, while the single ply ones were/are perfectly fine.


I have observed this with other tire varieties.

Nobby Nic snakeskin vs. performance without snakeskin. Performance version is notably better rolling than the snakeskin version. Both versions are 
27.5 x 3.0, as an example.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> They kinda messed that one up already...
> 
> With the few frame/fork options at the time the 5.05 was brought to the scene, bean counters abacus was in dire need of repair.


Que?!

I'd estimate they've sold fewer than 2000 of these tires. Probably, reasonably far less than half that. Even at 2000 tires they haven't yet paid off the mold and associated "start up costs" to get these to market. All of which need to be gone before they can realize a profit.

_(keeping in mind that profits are necessary to remain in business...)_

These tires have been out for 2.5 years now. Slow sales like that do not encourage a company to take risks on tires that are yet further on the fringe.

The only reason they've sold as many as they have is because the 2XL sorta, kinda fits a few frames, and because a few of us were willing to have customs made.

When you start discussing a 3XL, there are precisely zero frames out there that'll fit it off the shelf. And not really any appropriate width rims, either. So there is, effectively, zero market from Vee's perspective. Releasing a 3XL tire right now would be like throwing money out the window.

So, again -- yes I want 3XL's, and I want them with reasonable casings and durometer. That desire, when lumped in with the $.25 in my pocket, might be good enough for a gumball, somewhere...


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

mikesee said:


> When you start discussing a 3XL, there are precisely zero frames out there that'll fit it off the shelf. And not really any appropriate width rims, either.


....ahem....

The X2 was built to fit the ''3XL'' aka my 315mm tire on a 100mm (stock 2XL in the photo):









Likely some others like Carver and Quiring?

That said, that tire really belongs on a 120mm+ rim.

I discussed 110mm rims with Alex Rims back in 2014 or so. 
They were keen on doing it, but back then I advised against it, as frames could barely fit a 4.8 on a 100 then.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Espen W said:


> ....ahem....
> 
> The X2 was built to fit the ''3XL'' aka my 315mm tire on a 100mm


Available to order/buy right now? In inventory this model year?

Carver and Quiring (and others) can undoubtedly make frames to fit these, but what tire manufacturer is going to tool up to build a tire based on a custom-only frame market?


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Flying_Scotsman said:


> 2017/18 Alu Mukluk..... is it gonna work with 2XL's?? Search isn't telling me!


The '18 aluminum Mukluk can fit 2XLs on the stock 80mm wheels even down to the XS size frame.



Espen W said:


> 32T fornt and 11-34 rear is for my 26er summer bike
> The ''3XL'' fat bike is running 26T front and 10-42 in the rear.


Aha! That makes more sense. 



mikesee said:


> Que?!
> 
> I'd estimate they've sold fewer than 2000 of these tires. Probably, reasonably far less than half that. Even at 2000 tires they haven't yet paid off the mold and associated "start up costs" to get these to market. All of which need to be gone before they can realize a profit.
> 
> ...


Why would you be privy to how many tires Vee sold? If they would have used a lighter weight case they'd have sold a lot more because the existing tires leave much to be desired.

I guess they must have gotten advise from a certain somebody who convinced the factory in Vietnam that snow was super abrasive and nothing less than a thick, heavy 2ply case would hold up. Maybe some steel belted 2XL Extremes are in the works for those that ride on snow trails made by dogsleds? They'd be required because regular fatbike tires get shredded by the paw prints left behind in the snow.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Snowfat said:


> I guess they must have gotten advise from a certain somebody who convinced the factory in Vietnam that snow was super abrasive and nothing less than a thick, heavy 2ply case would hold up. Maybe some steel belted 2XL Extremes are in the works for those that ride on snow trails made by dogsleds? They'd be required because regular fatbike tires get shredded by the paw prints left behind in the snow.


So far you've exhibited a writ-large pile of ignorance that has recently devolved into douchebaggery. And that's your prerogative.

Got anything of substance, that you can back up with facts, to share?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

mikesee said:


> Available to order/buy right now? In inventory this model year?


It was in stores last summer/early fall. Available through 200+ stores at that time. The brand has discontinued fatbikes and high end bikes, so doubtful that it will be back. Sold for $1299 (before sales tax) for a while. Weight approx. 27.9lbs when tubeless (delivered tubeless ready with taped rims, etc).

Barely used ones pop up pretty frequently, as many riders feel that the bike is slow.
(The concept of swapping tires/wheels for hardpack use is obviously beyond the skill level of many over here. So is adjusting tire pressure for various conditions).

The 315mm ''3XL'' is bigger, but not that much bigger, so I suspect that it would fit on at least some of the other frames on the 2XL list, at least at low pressures.
Ie, Pole Taiga, Carver Titanium, Quiring Triple B, (possibly) the REEB.
I can get it to move freely in the Mastodon at approx 3psi or less (if I remember correctly), while it is completely stuck (sides and top) at pressures most often used to verify clearance (10-20psi), so for example that fork would not be approved, but still usable at low psi (and 3psi in that tire is very usable even on hardpack), feels like a smaller tire at 6+psi.
With a flipped chainring on the NEXT SL, the chain clears the tire at snow riding pressures. IGH or your 217 hub makes for a much prettier chainline, of course, but absolutely rideable with a 197.
This with 11 speed. Eagle 12 would worsen the chainline as it moves the big cog further inboard vs 11 speed.

The most important thing would be to have a lightweight casing on the 2XL, as weight and most important rolling resistance would improve tons. Flotation too, as the casing will fold out under low pressure instead of keeping its rounded ''wedge'' shape, especially in low temps, where the added stiffness of the thick casing really exaggerates its bad traits.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Great info Espen, thanks! It’s good to know that it can be run with a 197, 11spd drivetrain. To me, that’s even more reason they should produce it. From a historical perspective it would be interesting to know how many bikes could fit the 4.8 bud/Lou tire when they were released? People thought those were huge at the time and some likely thought they were unnecessary. But when a company introduces something better, people will want it and things will naturally follow along. Change and innovativation is a funny thing as people have trouble understanding or accepting it as often small, incremental changes seem mind blowing and much debate will occur over what only amounts to a few degrees, mm or inches of difference. Then you look back 5-10 later and laugh because things progressed so much further forward, those tiny changes didn’t even matter very much. 

The other thing is if not for progression we’d still be riding 2.1” tires stretched out over 44mm custom snowcat wheels that were very expensive at the time. I recall seeing them in the shops back when I was riding winter trails on my regular mountain bike with the then novel studded tires around 20 years ago.


----------



## campykid (Jun 24, 2007)

Snowfat said:


> The other thing is if not for progression we'd still be riding 2.1" tires stretched out over 44mm custom snowcat wheels that were very expensive at the time. I recall seeing them in the shops back when I was riding winter trails on my regular mountain bike with the then novel studded tires around 20 years ago.


Yep, I had a pair of Freddoes Revenges on 26" Snowcats and ruled the snowmobile trails until I got my first fatbike, Aluminum Fatback.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

mikesee said:


> And if by some miracle these tires do come to exist, many will still complain that they aren't good enough at ___. Even your example of a For Snow Only label won't be quite enough, as there are many kinds of snow that are abrasive enough to wear through a sidewall in a few hundred miles, not to mention that some will think that snow = "some mix of snow, and ice, and maybe roots and rocks" and you can see where I'm going with that.
> 
> I'm





mikesee said:


> So far you've exhibited a writ-large pile of ignorance that has recently devolved into douchebaggery. And that's your prerogative.
> 
> Got anything of substance, that you can back up with facts, to share?


Abrasive snow? Yeah, whatever. So weird how my front Bud I'm installing more grip studs into was even able to take them after three winters of use. By your logic and "experience" the knobs would be worn down. The tire hairs on this Bud must be infused with Kevlar or something?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Snowfat said:


> Abrasive snow? Yeah, whatever. So weird how my front Bud I'm installing more grip studs into was even able to take them after three winters of use. By your logic and "experience" the knobs would be worn down. The tire hairs on this Bud must be infused with Kevlar or something?


Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Are you aware of the 'first rule of holes'?

When you realize you're in one, put the shovel down.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

It's bizarre that some people's tires look like they have been scrubbed with an SOS pad for days on the sidewalls when after four years of wrinkling the hell outta my Bud/Lou they still look like new. The riding that I do with em requires at least one wrinkle or they are over inflated.

On the 2XL front, they are heavy as fvck, yus, they are fatter and can go over terrain and looser conditions that likely would bring even the best 4.8 to its knees, yus. Would I like a lighter, softer, more supple single ply version, YUS! For this reason, I have no desire to ever own another Vee product. That attitude is subject to change if and when Vee chooses to represent more than one anti lard, skinny motherfvcker on this damn planet!

There, I said it!


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

mikesee said:


> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
> 
> Are you aware of the 'first rule of holes'?
> 
> When you realize you're in one, put the shovel down.


It's interesting how you immediately go on the attack when someone disagrees with you. Instead of defending your abrasive snow claim you'd rather make personal insults which serve as a deflection away from the subject. Try following your own advice and provide something that proves your claim.

Back to the thread, yes, definitely the 2XL is way over built like many have stated on here. There is no need for that heavy duty of construction. Examples why not, the Bud/Lou and Jumbo Jim. You don't read posts about guys complaining how these thinner, lighter cased tires disintegrated or wore out prematurely when riding out in snow.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Snowfat said:


> It's interesting how you immediately go on the attack when someone disagrees with you. Instead of defending your abrasive snow claim you'd rather make personal insults which serve as a deflection away from the subject. Try following your own advice and provide something that proves your claim.


Attack?

??!

I pointed out that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit because you're going on about tread wear when my abrasive snow comment has/had nothing to do with wearing down the _tread_.

Had you bothered to read and digest that before going on a rant yourself, we'd be in a different place, wouldn't we?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Um, pipe down peeps! We're talking bitchen things, like bikes and tires an shyt...


----------



## adam1367 (May 19, 2016)

Espen W said:


> I discussed 110mm rims with Alex Rims...
> They were keen on doing it, but back then I advised against it...


First, you advised against 3xl to Vee, then you advised against 110mm rim.
Seems to me, that you wish to remain the only owner of the ultimate snow machine 

PS: I would also kindly ask you not to use 2xl in the titles of your videos. It's plain misleading, because your tires have nothing in common with current production version. Unless your plan is to make more sales for Vee


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

adam1367 said:


> First, you advised against 3xl to Vee, then you advised against 110mm rim.
> Seems to me, that you wish to remain the only owner of the ultimate snow machine
> 
> PS: I would also kindly ask you not to use 2xl in the titles of your videos. It's plain misleading, because your tires have nothing in common with current production version. Unless your plan is to make more sales for Vee


Yep, nice to have possibly the most capable ''normal'' fatbike out there, but I would really like for more people to experience it, as it would elevate the sport.

Agreed on the 2XL. I sometime use ''3XL'', but since the label on them says 2XL, I will refer to them as the bigger (and better) 2XL protos.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

Yes, I agree, the videos shouldn’t be titled 2XL since they aren’t the same tires as the prototype 3XL tires. 

I just switched back to my studded Bud/Lou’s today as conditions were mostly hard, wind scoured and slick and it was kinda mind blowing by how much faster they rolled and how much easier they were to pedal. I did trench out and have to walk one section of drifted over trail that I floated over with my 2XL’s but I was still much faster on my commute. 

The 2XL’s pretty much suck for everything except providing necessary float for riding trails that aren’t packed down to well. I’ll dump the 2XL’s if and when something lighter, softer and similar in size comes out. My new frameset has plenty of clearance for the 2XL’s that I may start looking at whatever wider wheels are available that could stretch out the bud/Lou’s even more. I’d easily have clearance for 110mm wheels which would likely be a noticeable difference over my current 100’s.


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

Snowfat said:


> My new frameset has plenty of clearance for the 2XL's


Which one do you mean?


----------



## DirtyHun (Jan 9, 2011)

I do wish there were a monstrous tire that was lighter than a brick.

Then again, I wish lead were easily turned into gold, too.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Does anybody know a frame with 100mm BSA BB that could fit these AND is sold in Europe?

Is it a fact that neither (alu & carbon) Salsa Mukluk can't fit these?



Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

Ekke said:


> Is it a fact that neither (alu & carbon) Salsa Mukluk can't fit these?


Of course, they COULD NOT fit this.


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

Ekke said:


> Does anybody know a frame with 100mm BSA BB that could fit these AND is sold in Europe?
> 
> Is it a fact that neither (alu & carbon) Salsa Mukluk can't fit these?
> 
> Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


This one but it is a 120 mm BB. They will fit a Trek Farley frame
https://polebicycles.com/polestore/product/taiga-snow-custom/


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

RockyJo1 said:


> This one but it is a 120 mm BB. They will fit a Trek Farley frame
> https://polebicycles.com/polestore/product/taiga-snow-custom/


Yeah, it's out of the game.. and "our Farleys" don't fit these, don't know why 

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

RockyJo1 said:


> They will fit a Trek Farley frame


Never.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Comrade Sukhov said:


> Never.


Yeah, I have tried them too, on 80mm and 100mm rims without any success. Can't understand why there have been at least two Farleys with 2XL tires..

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

It could hardly (but fit!) the aluminium Farley (5 or 7 model), if you lucky with the certain frame - even 2XL mounted on 105 mm rims!














































But would never fit the carbon Farley (9.6 or 9.8) - even mounted on 90 mm rims (problem with upper stays)...


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Yeah, but it isn't 100mm BSA BB even If it could fit these.. 

I have Salsa Blackborow with these and now looking for a second frame that could fit these.

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

Ekke said:


> Yeah, but it isn't 100mm BSA BB even If it could fit these..


It has PF121 - which is similar (in width) to BSA100... 
And it allows to install the "narrow" cranks, e.g. NEXT SL with 169 mm spindle (Q-factor 203 mm).


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

Comrade Sukhov said:


> It has PF121 - which is similar (in width) to BSA100...
> And it allows to install the "narrow" cranks, e.g. NEXT SL with 169 mm spindle (Q-factor 203 mm).


But I need 100mm BSA, not narrow cranks.. 

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

If Surly bikes are available where you are, the Ice Cream Truck has been redesigned with a 100mm BSA BB and fits 2XL.

There's a thread on here, but here is the pertinent link: 
https://surlybikes.com/blog/move_over_push_pop


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

MaximumX said:


> If Surly bikes are available where you are, the Ice Cream Truck has been redesigned with a 100mm BSA BB and fits 2XL.
> 
> There's a thread on here, but here is the pertinent link:
> https://surlybikes.com/blog/move_over_push_pop


Thank you! Might be The Only option... Just a little wait, it seems 

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Ekke said:


> Thank you! Might be The Only option... Just a little wait, it seems
> 
> Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


Oh... Also RSD Mayor. Forgot about that one, but also takes a BSA 100.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

MaximumX said:


> Oh... Also RSD Mayor. Forgot about that one, but also takes a BSA 100.


Sorry, didn't remember to mention 100mm rims too.. so might be a no-go. 

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

In this topic there is this info: "RSD Mayor (alu) frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims)"

But asked from RSD and they said it will fit 5.05" with 100mm rims.. said it might be old version. Sounds promising, will ask their postage...

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Ekke said:


> In this topic there is this info: "RSD Mayor (alu) frame and fork (limit to 80mm rims)"
> 
> But asked from RSD and they said it will fit 5.05" with 100mm rims.. said it might be old version. Sounds promising, will ask their postage...
> 
> Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


RSD shipping is included with sale price. And yus, my mayor has a pair of clown shoes with 5.05's for winter and really loose sand.


----------



## Ekke (Mar 10, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> RSD shipping is included with sale price. And yus, my mayor has a pair of clown shoes with 5.05's for winter and really loose sand.


Not to Europe / Finland...

Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Ekke said:


> Not to Europe / Finland...
> 
> Sent from my TA-1004 using Tapatalk


Doh!


----------



## arc (Sep 9, 2004)

MaximumX said:


> If Surly bikes are available where you are, the Ice Cream Truck has been redesigned with a 100mm BSA BB and fits 2XL.
> 
> There's a thread on here, but here is the pertinent link:
> https://surlybikes.com/blog/move_over_push_pop


"It fits 26" x 5.1" tires no problem,"

I'd like to hear more about the 5.1 tire, I really want a bigger bud that's tubeless ready.


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

BansheeRune said:


> RSD shipping is included with sale price. And yus, my mayor has a pair of clown shoes with 5.05's for winter and really loose sand.


You've probably mentioned this elsewhere on this site, Banshee, but which Vee 2XL are you riddin' -- the Silica (Black), or Pure Silica (White)? I just got me a Mayor frame to build-up for the winter and I'm not sure which tire to invest in. Several posters have been outspoken about the unneccesarily stiff/heavy sidewalls of the 2XL, but I get the impression that the "Pure Silica" version is at least a little better in this regard than the "Silica" tire. Then there's now the Terrene Johnny5, which could be a contender pending a little more info...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

FitmanNJ said:


> You've probably mentioned this elsewhere on this site, Banshee, but which Vee 2XL are you riddin' -- the Silica (Black), or Pure Silica (White)? I just got me a Mayor frame to build-up for the winter and I'm not sure which tire to invest in. Several posters have been outspoken about the unneccesarily stiff/heavy sidewalls of the 2XL, but I get the impression that the "Pure Silica" version is at least a little better in this regard than the "Silica" tire. Then there's now the Terrene Johnny5, which could be a contender pending a little more info...


Waiting on the updates on Johnny5, too!

I have the black 2XL's. It does take some time and miles with very low pressure to break em in and get em feeling more supple. If Vee would just break down and make em single ply for bean pole peeps like I am it would make for a far better tire on every level. Rolling resistance would be highly improved too. I have spoken with Vee about this issue and they have no interest in making a light version for the lighter riders to enjoy.

Hopefully, just hopefully, Terrene will be intelligent on this and also think carefully about tread that is as good as Bud/Lou for a real fat snow tire that isn't a 28 ply tire.

After speaking with the US rep for Duro I learned that if we could get enough peeps together and design what we want, they will produce em. Any TPI, any durometer of our choosing. Might be worth considering.


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

BansheeRune said:


> Waiting on the updates on Johnny5, too!
> 
> I have the black 2XL's. It does take some time and miles with very low pressure to break em in and get em feeling more supple. If Vee would just break down and make em single ply for bean pole peeps like I am it would make for a far better tire on every level. Rolling resistance would be highly improved too. I have spoken with Vee about this issue and they have no interest in making a light version for the lighter riders to enjoy.
> 
> ...


I'm all of 162 lbs, so I guess that I fall into the "beanpole" category, too. There's very little info on the Johnny5 at this point, but I did see a comment on Facebook from Terrene's Tim Krueger in which he described the tread as being, "...quite large, deeper than Bud/Lou for sure." Another Terrene posting continued later to say that the tire was designed to excel in "...soft, deep conditions like the dry snow of the Rockies." That could be just what you need for your riding (you live in Colorado, right?), but I'm not sure how the tire will match up with the wetter, transitional East Coast white stuff that I see locally (New Jersey). Maybe it will be fine -- I guess time will tell.

I don't know much about tire design, but I'd be willing to participate in a group buy if the tire being ordered would be suitable for my conditions. There's little doubt that I'll be investing in a pair of big, winter tires in the October-December timeframe. A 2XL-like tire with more pliable sidewalls seems to make a lot of sense. The biggest tires that I've ridden to date are Bud & Lou's on 90mm rims (was limited to that on my '15 Fatboy), which lack a bit in floatation potential, but otherwise are winter troopers...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Fitman, I am 165, so we're about the same in terms of weight.

Of tires I have experimented with, my Nobby Nic 3.0 collection consists of a pair of snakeskin and two pair of the performance version. The snakeskin version is notably loaded with rolling resistance that is not present with the performance tires. One pair of performance are the early version, the other are the new Addix version. Addix is notably more supple than the early version and actually rolls a little better than the early tire. Both pair of performance 3.0's out perform the snakeskins by a long shot.

On the next test was at the LBS where they had two identical fatties, one with the snakeskin JJ 4.8's and one with the liteskin JJ 4.8's. We did a test of both bikes beginning with 10 psi (both tires) and a two mile rip. Each adjustment was a 1 psi lower pressure drop. Frankly, the liteskin feels better than the snakeskin at any pressure. The liteskins rolled better at each pressure tested. We took the pressure down to 4 psi and stopped dropping pressure and testing. Liteskin rolls faster with less effort at all pressures tested. Each test ride was the same predetermined route and distance ridden.

Honestly, what I really want in a winter tire is the highest tpi rating, single ply with a 42a compound. I know there will be peeps that think they are too delicate however, in the dead of winter when the snow is 6-12' deep in the high country, who in their right mind is gonna take the time and break out a shovel to get to something to pinch flat on? Seriously! 

Currently, the 2XL's are run at 3 psi max or mostly at 1.5 psi for the powder day. I haven't gone to the Espen test pressure of .7 tho'.

Johnny5 is sounding like something I need to follow. Frankly, if they are softer, more supple and as a side benefit are lighter than 2XL, I'm dropping the coin for em. 

Bud/Lou are the best tires in their class, hands down. I don't ride my bike at the hockey rink so studs are simply extra dead weight to haul. The amazing thing is what the Bud/Lou have been subjected to over 4 winters, never having been inflated to remove the wrinkles, ever! Those wrinkles are required for the high country sled trail rides. No wrinkles = overinflation, period. They have their place, indeed!


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

BansheeRune said:


> Fitman, I am 165, so we're about the same in terms of weight.
> 
> Of tires I have experimented with, my Nobby Nic 3.0 collection consists of a pair of snakeskin and two pair of the performance version. The snakeskin version is notably loaded with rolling resistance that is not present with the performance tires. One pair of performance are the early version, the other are the new Addix version. Addix is notably more supple than the early version and actually rolls a little better than the early tire. Both pair of performance 3.0's out perform the snakeskins by a long shot.
> 
> ...


Banshee, during Spring-Fall, I've been running JJ4.8's (Lightskin) on a 65mm rim and found them to be compliant, light, and protective of my left wrist and thumb joint, which have some arthritis. I've been very pleased to see the relative durability of the tire. At first I thought I might be flatting constantly considering the light casing (and the rocky places that I ride), but about 8 months in now, this hasn't been the case. I do use sealant, however. The extra cushion of the 4.8's is, for me, "just what the doctor ordered."

Tires with a high tpi rating sound good to me. I assume that the 42a compound is one of the softer tire materials out there (or do have that completely backward)?

In the Johnny5 thread, Lars_D listed the tire's weight at ~1700 grams, which, if accurate, would put them a little north of Bud/Lou, and south of the 2XL (moreso the black one than the white one, though, if my recollection is correct). Other than a few photos, however, not much info seems to have been released.

Bud/Lou have been my "goto" winter tires until now. I have one pair that's lasted 4 seasons at 1- 4 psi and they're still in fine shape. They've proven to have great durability even though they usually have more wrinkles than Willie Nelson! I have a second pair with gripstuds for icy conditions...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Fitman,

I can relate to the sweetness of 4.8's. I have scoliosis along with kidney disease and the softer tires just do what I need em to do. Being light is awesome so I can keep single digit pressure for that beloved magic carpet ride that only a supple tire can deliver. For the second summer, my JJ 4.8 liteskin tires have been simply excellent for what I do. Usually run em at 6-8 psi and they serve very nicely.

The 2XL's are fun to ride from time to time as they are just so absurdly fat and amazing. Rolling resistance could be far better but Vee insists on pissing me off. Thus the Duro 3.25's for the +bikes cause I am done with Vee and their inability to provide what I am looking for in a tire. 

Sorry Vee, until you break down and make tires for us bean poles to enjoy, you're outta here! 

On the Bud/Lou front, I love em! Sure, they get piss poor fuel economy going for some riding however, they are spot on for my purposes. With the amount of miles they have done, each and every mile with 3-5 wrinkles at all times, they are simply amazing! To not have broken threads from here to kingdom come with all that wrinkle action they are one of the best made tires on the market. Not exactly light with all that deep tread of soft, sticky compound rubber, but I bought a fatbike as opposed to a road bike with weight being a secondary consideration.

Rubber durometer numbers run low = soft and high = hard. 42a is very soft and a common compound used primarily on DH tires. What that does is allow the tire to be as supple as possible and conform to the terrain. 50-60a is a very common range of durometers used on mountain tires.


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

Banshee, it would really be nice if Vee was a better listener (and, yes, I know there are business issues/production costs that, pardon the expression, "weigh heavily" in decisions of this type), as you aren't the only person who's wished for a more supple 2XL. Maybe the Johnny5 will be much more to our liking.

It seems like tire manufacturers are "hit and miss" regarding the reporting of the durometer of their products. For reference, since I'm familiar with Bud/Lou (and JJ Lightskin and Snakeskin, for that matter), do you happen to have a guess on the durometer used in these tires?


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

Bikerumor on the Johnny5: https://bikerumor.com/2018/07/17/eb...riswold-studded-commuter-cake-eater-29-x-2-8/


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

I'd venture to say 50a 

Fickle market these are!


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

Has anyone tried fitting these tires on the Diamondback El Oso Grande - the model with the rigid fork? I tried searching and didn't get any results for it.


----------



## blekenbleu (Aug 17, 2016)

*grip!*

Having moved inland, 2XL beach flotation no longer benefits me.

Raising pressures from around 2 to 9 psi reduces resistance by about 20% (based on elapsed times for the same average heart rate and perceived effort) but also reduced clearance between 2XL and Carbonara to nearly nil. Swapping the 2XL for a Juggernaut Sport 4.0 @ 8 psi seemed to yield minimal (5% ?) resistance reduction, but drastically impacted grip, running wider on curves and/or requiring more braking (which is less noticeably effective)..


----------



## one piece crank (Sep 29, 2008)

Anyone know how the Vee 2-ply sidewalls compare to Maxxis' EXO sidewalls in their Colossus/Minions? I'm at the other end of the weight scale and need slightly stiffer sidewalls...


----------



## Mk3Rider (Dec 7, 2008)

I'm not going to lie, I am actually looking forward to building up a bike around these tires. I have been digging thru the interwebs looking for a more aggressive tire than the bud and lou for deep snow. 

Frame coming will be an RSD Mayor V3 along w/ a bikes direct carbon fork. I have an extra clownshoe wheelset that will be used for mounting the 2xl. I plan on using fattie strippers to set these up tubeless from the get go. Gearing will be 22f 11-40r in the snowy months. This is a 3rd fatbike for me dedicated to horrible condition riding. I am a heavier rider, so the thick sidewalls should not be much of an issue. ~200# range with my b-day suit on.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

You’ll like them, the heavier one weighs the more they benefit from the extra floatation of the 2XLs.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

FitmanNJ said:


> You've probably mentioned this elsewhere on this site, Banshee, but which Vee 2XL are you riddin' -- the Silica (Black), or Pure Silica (White)? I just got me a Mayor frame to build-up for the winter and I'm not sure which tire to invest in. Several posters have been outspoken about the unneccesarily stiff/heavy sidewalls of the 2XL, but I get the impression that the "Pure Silica" version is at least a little better in this regard than the "Silica" tire. Then there's now the Terrene Johnny5, which could be a contender pending a little more info...


Get the cream colored pure silica tires, they are more flexible and snow doesn't stick to them like the black 2XLs. The cream colored tires are much better for winter riding.


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

Snowfat said:


> Get the cream colored pure silica tires, they are more flexible and snow doesn't stick to them like the black 2XLs. The cream colored tires are much better for winter riding.


Thanks, Snowfat. I thought that might be the case so I went ahead and bought a pair of the pure silica/cream tires after hearing that the Johnny5s are similar in size to Bud/Lou (which I already have). The Mayor is looking all set for winter action!


----------



## one piece crank (Sep 29, 2008)

If Bud/Lout have super flexible sidewalls, and FBF/FBR Minions have stiffer/dampened sidewalls, where do the Vee Avalanche and 2XL sidewalls fall in relation?


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

The 2XL’s are stiffer than the Surly tires but because they have so much volume they wrinkle more than the Maxxis tires you listed primarily due to the lower sidewall height of the Maxxis. The Maxxis roll faster than the 2XLs, but probably pretty much every fat tire does. The 2XLs get wrinkles at low pressures and the resulting footprint is impressive.


----------



## CycleBeast (May 10, 2017)

Hey folks, I've been in the market for a new light frame that can handle this tire so I emailed Salsa asking if the 2XL could fit their 2019 carbon Mukluk and what rim size it could handle. 

The response I got was
"Looks like the Snowshoe is going to be a little too big (that’s a whole heap of rubber!), and the Mukluk can fit up to a 100mm rim."

I didnt think it would but I was told the 2018 model did so I figured I'd ask anyway just incase.

I also contacted Trek about whether their 2019 carbon Farley model could fit it. Their website Says its built to accommodate 26x5˝ or 27.5x4˝ wheels. 

The response was 
"Unfortunately, a five-inch tire isn't compatible for that bike. For a 26-inch wheel will fit a max 4.7" tire."

I replied asking if Trek produces Any model that can handle the tire. The response was 
"No though that may be something we see moving forward."

Lol got shot down twice so I'm back to searching. Anyway, justa heads up.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

CycleBeast said:


> Hey folks, I've been in the market for a new light frame that can handle this tire so I emailed Salsa asking if the 2XL could fit their 2019 carbon Mukluk and what rim size it could handle.
> 
> The response I got was
> "Looks like the Snowshoe is going to be a little too big (that's a whole heap of rubber!), and the Mukluk can fit up to a 100mm rim."
> ...


The standard Farley 5 can run that tire. I had those tires on my 2016 Farley 7. My new Farley 7 has the Mastodon so that may be the limitation. But the bike is 27.5 so I can't run the tires regardless.
But the standard Farley 5 with the carbon fork will fit that tire using a 26 inch rim of course.


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

headwind said:


> The standard Farley 5 can run that tire.


That is not really true. 
So, everyone should be careful - if/when going this way!
Because, ALL aluminum frames (I am speaking now especially and exactly about TREK Farley) are VERY MUCH DIFFERENT (bending tubes, welding, etc...).
And, indeed - THERE ARE some certain exemplars that (hardly, but) COULD TAKE 2XLs... but they are really few (small part of all produced frames), and there are some "bad" ones, that even COULD NOT TAKE Surly BUD 4,8" (on 105 mm rims) - I had personally seen these both cases. 
So, IT IS POSSIBLE to take Farley's frameset, as a base to build a "2XL machine" - but you will need some good luck - to find the matching one, that will help you!


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

CycleBeast said:


> I emailed Salsa asking if the 2XL could fit their 2019 carbon Mukluk


Never. Forget it.



CycleBeast said:


> I also contacted Trek about whether their 2019 carbon Farley model could fit it.


If they did not change the shape of the seatstays - then NO.
I do not know it for sure for the moment (if they had changed or not - looking onto the photos in the internet, it seems that they had changed them a bit).
I think, I will have an opportunity to check this in a couple of weeks. 
Could be really interesting!


----------



## pbasinger (Dec 5, 2004)

This may have been mentioned before but the 2XL on 80 mm rims fit on a Fatback Corvus.

I think I had them pumped up pretty firm and the tires had been used enough they were fully stretched. There was some chain / tire interference when in the last 2 or 3 cogs on the cassette, but this was also with a narrower crank designed for 170 hubs.


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

pbasinger said:


> 2XL on 80 mm rims


Seems to be an "epic fail"... because - what's the use...?! 
It goes without saying - that it should/must be used only with the 100 or 105 mm rims.

Moreover - Bud&Lou on 105 mm rims will be much better from ALL points of view, then 2XL on 80 mm ones...


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

Comrade Sukhov said:


> That is not really true.
> So, everyone should be careful - if/when going this way!
> Because, ALL aluminum frames (I am speaking now especially and exactly about TREK Farley) are VERY MUCH DIFFERENT (bending tubes, welding, etc...).
> And, indeed - THERE ARE some certain exemplars that (hardly, but) COULD TAKE 2XLs... but they are really few (small part of all produced frames), and there are some "bad" ones, that even COULD NOT TAKE Surly BUD 4,8" (on 105 mm rims) - I had personally seen these both cases.
> So, IT IS POSSIBLE to take Farley's frameset, as a base to build a "2XL machine" - but you will need some good luck - to find the matching one, that will help you!


I found the same issue.
I went to a shop with a not very stretched 2XL on a 90mm rim.
It fit in a 2018 medium alum Farley.....but did not fit in the large ( hit the chain stays and bridge...even with the drop outs all the way back)

It did fit fine in a older Salsa Blackborrow( not he cargo version)....isn't that the new Mukluk?

It does fit in the Mastodon fork.

It does fit RSD Mayor and Surly ICT


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

the mayor said:


> It does fit Surly ICT


Yes. But there is still a problem with transmission (two bigger sprockets in the cassette are unavailable, because of the chain-rub on the tire sidewall).


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

Comrade Sukhov said:


> Yes. But there is still a problem with transmission (two bigger sprockets in the cassette are unavailable, because of the chain-rub on the tire sidewall).


Only if you're not smart enough to set your chainline....


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

Ha-Ha! 
I'm just warning...


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

I've got mine on a Farley 5, but did trim some of the corner blocks to take care of some occasional rub under load. (For some reason, I really like the sound of that...)

I guess I got lucky-ish with my frame. It's a 2016, I think...


----------



## ThatAlaskaGuy (Jan 14, 2019)

For general information my Pole Taiga is set up with the 2XL’s on 105mm Nextie wheels and has no rub or clearance issues at all.


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

Could you share some nice photos, please...?


----------



## ThatAlaskaGuy (Jan 14, 2019)

Comrade Sukhov said:


> Could you share some nice photos, please...?


Here you go, the 105's made my 2XL's measure 5-1/4" wide. The Taiga fits them no problem. The tires don't rub, the chain doesn't rub, the bike works really well, I'm very happy with it.


----------



## Comrade Sukhov (Aug 8, 2016)

Thanks for the nice pics! 
The mud/snow clearance is really nice (between the stays and the tire)...
And what is the chainline? 
Seems to be 85 mm, because that it is a "wide" TURBINE cranks (with the Q-factor of 233 mm) with the flipped chainring? 
Of course - there will be no issues with the chain rub for the tire sidewall (on the lowest gear), but the chain distortion/curve is also tremendous...


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

are there any chinese carbon frames able to run 5.05 on clownshoes?


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

syl3 said:


> are there any chinese carbon frames able to run 5.05 on clownshoes?


Yes.
Carbon Speed CS-197 has enough clearance for a normal 2XL on a 100mm.
My own 2XL was completely jammed, though. Too bad, as it is a sweet frame.


----------



## ThatAlaskaGuy (Jan 14, 2019)

Comrade Sukhov said:


> Thanks for the nice pics!
> The mud/snow clearance is really nice (between the stays and the tire)...
> And what is the chainline?
> Seems to be 85 mm, because that it is a "wide" TURBINE cranks (with the Q-factor of 233 mm) with the flipped chainring?
> Of course - there will be no issues with the chain rub for the tire sidewall (on the lowest gear), but the chain distortion/curve is also tremendous...


I'm not sure what you are asking about chainline? The chainring had to be flipped to clear the rear tire in the two lowest gears. It was flipped the other way with 100mm wheels. I geared my bike so low that in hard, set up conditions I'm running in the upper gears on the cassette. But I also run out of top gears pretty fast on any type of slight downhill.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

Comrade Sukhov said:


> Seems to be an "epic fail"... because - what's the use...?!
> It goes without saying - that it should/must be used only with the 100 or 105 mm rims.
> 
> Moreover - Bud&Lou on 105 mm rims will be much better from ALL points of view, then 2XL on 80 mm ones...


The use is it's still a big tire and that way it will fit into that frame.

Where on earth does it say you have to use 2XL tires on 100 mm + rims. Mountain bikers and fat bikers have been using tires that are much wider than the rims for years. Sometimes it improves the tire shape sometimes not so much.

Bud and Lou on 100's might be better or they might not depends on what they are being used for.

I would not dismiss what Pete says out of hand. He has many thousands of miles on fat bikes, often in very remote places, and has been in on it from the beginning.


----------



## alias (May 9, 2005)

It's not 'legal' but it works just fine. Salsa will say no if asked.


----------



## alias (May 9, 2005)

Keep in mind that you have simply recieved CYA responses from folks who are obliged to give such an answer if they want to keep their jobs.

My Blackborow fits 2XL on 95s with heaps of room to spare.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

My wife and I and some riding partners have been comparing the 2XL to the Terrene Johnny 5. I've been writing about it for a few weeks, here: https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/search/label/testing one two

Because it's a blog it lists the results last first, and first last. So you have to read backwards, in a manner of speaking.

Most recent post has some test results from a direct, quantitative comparison. The results might surprise you -- they did us.


----------



## cjbiker (Jan 11, 2016)

mikesee said:


> My wife and I and some riding partners have been comparing the 2XL to the Terrene Johnny 5. I've been writing about it for a few weeks, here: https://lacemine29.blogspot.com/search/label/testing one two
> 
> Because it's a blog it lists the results last first, and first last. So you have to read backwards, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Most recent post has some test results from a direct, quantitative comparison. The results might surprise you -- they did us.


No surprise here. My testing isn't as methodical, but switching from Surly Bud&Lou to PSC 2XLs was a night and day difference in rolling resistance in cold temperature.


----------



## Mk3Rider (Dec 7, 2008)

I just want to state some observations and thoughts about these tires after a good ride from yesterday.

Trail conditions are mechanically groomed w/ a snowdog and drag. On top of that was about 2" of loose fresh snow of the 30 degree type. In the cabbage, snow was greater than 2ft of loose. Trail had a two-three tracks in front to follow.

Tires are set up tubeless with fattie strippers on clown shoes. 1 wrinkle up front and 1.5 to 2 wrinkle rear while sitting stationary.

Flat sections:

You can pick and choose where you want to ride, edge to edge of the groomed trail. Other riders with narrower tires seem to get stuck in the tracks of the rider in front of them with an aggressive snap on the wheels when they finally get out of the pack. With these tires, you just ride out. Most ruts, other than the really deep kind, you just carefully drive out of. If you are in the rut, and cant get out, it is actually not hard to ride due to the tire wider than most ruts. You just kind of marshmallow around the trail system. Not too fast and not too slow.

Decreasing slop:

Pick and choose with comfort, watch the 4" bike in front of you fight the tires tracks in front of them. Ride where you want, assuming the rut hasn't formed too deeply. Just be careful about corners, as you are still going to drift if too much speed is available and throw you into the cabbage. The increase in confidence is a wonderful thing, as it removes the excess stress from your focus.

Increasing slop:

You get to a hill of some sort and you wonder if the person in front of you was even trying... Just sit back and grab an easy gear, keep the rear tire weighted and spin up. Even on the boot tracks from people pushing their bikes, you can hook up and go. I was really impressed with the amount of available traction. Granted I still needed to push up the really loose slopes.

Now for an excellent observation. With these huge sidewalls on these tires, it is a huge benefit. Think of when you apply torque to the wheel via pedaling, the rim is going to start twisting / turning, this force is getting applied to the bead of the tire, transferred through the sidewall and ultimately to the tread / surface. Now when you start loading up the wheel in a climb, you are going to create a slip angle from the rim/bead surface to the tread surface. This is a huge benefit. Once the tire on a climb starts to pile snow behind the tread, just before it starts to dig. You can slightly remove wheel torque and let the slip angle on the tire relax. (this is stored energy) This is usually enough to prevent the tire from digging and push you slightly further up. You can start applying more torque on the wheel once you relieve that slip angle and keep moving up the slope.

End notes:

These tires are not terrible fast do to the width and weight. But, set up tubeless, they are lighter than the bud/lou w/ tube combo I use to ride. And the PSC 2xl roles a lot better than the bud/lou combo. The extra width helps with float also (200# rider).

Next upgrade is probably going to be some nextie 105mm single wall carbon rims. I can drop ~1.5# of rotating weight off the bike this way. Maybe a little more due to not having a rim strip installed.

These are the biggest / baddest loose snow tires on the market. Vee made an excellent winter tire with no competition. The 2xl actually steers better than the bud ever did up front.

The bike:

Large RSD Mayor
BD carbon fork (tire barely clears)
RF cinch w/ 24t
907 rear hub w/ 11-50t 12 speed cassette
GX eagle
Carbon bars
BB7 brakes w/ 160mm rotors
Clown shoes w/ fattie strippers and ~6oz stans per tire

Pics from previous ride:


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

Sorry, sorry I have been out of the game for a long time..

Just to be clear the *Vee bulldozer 26x4.7* are not the same Vee tires you are taking about and on the 4.7 model they will fit my Farley 9.8

Right...??


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

patineto said:


> Sorry, sorry I have been out of the game for a long time..
> 
> Just to be clear the *Vee bulldozer 26x4.7* are not the same Vee tires you are taking about and on the 4.7 model they will fit my Farley 9.8
> 
> Right...??


The tire being discussed here is the Vee XXL 26x5.05, not the smaller XL or Bulldozer.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

bikeny said:


> The tire being discussed here is the Vee XXL 26x5.05, not the smaller XL or Bulldozer.


Thank you very much, I wish i have the clearance but i do not..


----------

