# Endomorph and chain clearance



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

Planning to build a snowbike. As I understand there are three different rear wheel setups, 17.5mm offset 135 hub, 150 hub or 165mm hub. In all three cases there seem to be an issue with clearance between the chain and tire. How does Fatback pull it off with 80 or 100mm rims ?

-Are my drawings incorrect ? Have I made a mistake somewhere ?

-Where do I find a 150 or 165mm hub (preferably at a reasonable cost) that has a quick release ?

-Where do I find a 100mm BB shell ?

Thanks !


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*A few answers?*

Here's what I know:

-You can solve some of the chain clearance problems by running just part of a 9 speed cluster (take off the 11/12/13t) and using spacers on the inboard side. You don't need the super high gears on a snow bike anyway, so it's not much of a sacrifice.

-Paragon sells 100mm shells, I think. Call them.

-150/165 hubs are almost all bolt-on/12mm axle. I am honestly not sure that a QR model exists, though I certainly am not the expert.

-The chain is going to be really close to the tire in the granny no matter what you do. To some extent, you will have to live with this. Hammerschmidt or Rohloff (or Nexus, if you're skint) might be options worth considering if it's a deal-killer.

Good luck! Let us know how it turns out!

-Walt



Peter E said:


> Planning to build a snowbike. As I understand there are three different rear wheel setups, 17.5mm offset 135 hub, 150 hub or 165mm hub. In all three cases there seem to be an issue with clearance between the chain and tire. How does Fatback pull it off with 80 or 100mm rims ?
> 
> -Are my drawings incorrect ? Have I made a mistake somewhere ?
> 
> ...


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

I think your BB spindle is too short. Phil Wood sells their 100mm BB as 145mm and 145mm with a 5mm right side offset.

I don't know what they use for hubs. I would use Phil Wood or DT Swiss 540 as they are disc compatible. What you can do is space them out with a longer axle and make them bolt-on. I don't think QRs are even available in the longer 160+ widths. You'll want to add all the spacers to the disc side to make it dishless, so then you'll have to space the tab inward on the frame, or just use longer bolts on the IS tabs and a good large spacer. If you call up Phil Wood I'm sure they'll make you whatever you're after for less than $500.

You'll have a hard time using internal gear hubs as the lube won't flow properly in lower temperatures. You'll have to change it to something thinner.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

I just assumed that a 100/148 BB would place the crank arm 15mm more to the right of a standard 68/118. 

How far from the BB center would the Phil Wood BB place the middle chain ring ?

Can’t figure out how Fatback can run 100mm rims.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Peter E said:


> Can't figure out how Fatback can run 100mm rims.


Adding chainstay length and a double bend on the drive side makes all of this a lot easier. I'm sure if you look at some other big tired bikes, you will see that they have very long stays.

I saw a Moots 'Pugsly' at NAHBS. They had a cool fabricated CS yoke. That may give you some ideas.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

pvd said:


> Adding chainstay length and a double bend on the drive side makes all of this a lot easier. I'm sure if you look at some other big tired bikes, you will see that they have very long stays.


Chain, not chainstay

longer chainstays won't make any difference when it comes to chain and tire clearance (theoretically it will actually make things worse&#8230


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*I think the chainline is about right.*

Looks right to me, if we're comparing to a "standard" 50mm Shimano chainline, it makes sense that the rings would run about 15mm further outboard. Maybe the 100mm setups are different somehow, but I doubt it.

-Walt



Peter E said:


> I just assumed that a 100/148 BB would place the crank arm 15mm more to the right of a standard 68/118.
> 
> How far from the BB center would the Phil Wood BB place the middle chain ring ?
> 
> Can't figure out how Fatback can run 100mm rims.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

The official Shimano chainline for Saint 150 single ring (middle position) is 57.9mm. For two ring (36/22) it's 54.3mm (measured between the two gears, middle and granny).

The 135 stuff is all 50mm at the middle ring, except for a few oddball systems.

FSA specifies a 57.5mm chainline for a triple on 83/150 systems.


----------



## coconinocycles (Sep 23, 2006)

sees like just a middle ring with a gaurd on either side would be the way to go. i'd look here: lots of snow bike pics in real action, www.arcticglass.blogspot.com steve.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

here is a photo of the wildfire. 
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=1298499#poststop

more info further down. 85mm BB shell 73*127.5 mm BB ? I dont get it 
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=1299378#poststop


----------



## timroz (Feb 25, 2007)

I know this is bad, but measure a Pug! I have a Pug with full use of a 3 x 9, no chain clearance probs. 6 or 7 mm in 1st gear.

The fatback frame is not offset and allows 3 x 9. I rode the ultrasport with 2 guys on fatbacks with 165 rears and they definitely had QR's. Don't know the hub brand, but it exists. Disc brakes, no mods, no spacers.

Several guys had pug's with remolinos or the new 80's with no problems. Didn't see any 100's on a Pug.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

Unfortunately the puglsey is not a very popular bike where I live  

The rear hub is 17.5mm offset on the Pug and the cassette is 15mm more to the right (compared to a 135mm hub) on the Fatback. 

As I understand both bikes can use all gears with endomorphs and 80mm rims. What BB and cranks are you using on your Pug and do you know what your chainline measures ?

Thanks


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

timroz said:


> Didn't see any 100's on a Pug.


100's won't work on a Pugsley.


----------



## timroz (Feb 25, 2007)

Peter E said:


> Unfortunately the puglsey is not a very popular bike where I live
> 
> The rear hub is 17.5mm offset on the Pug and the cassette is 15mm more to the right (compared to a 135mm hub) on the Fatback.
> 
> ...


FSA BB 100 / 150(?) with 2mm spacer on drive side. Truvative Fire X crank. 58mm to little ring, 66mm to middle ring. Eyeballing cause calipers won't reach BB shell. But it's close.

Also - Endomorph on a Marge at 20 psi = 89.8.

So 2mm spacer, 2mm less tire, youre getting close to the 6mm clearance that I have.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

Thanks,

then it would look something like this. 100mm rims and the smallest chainring up front does not seem possible on the Fatback


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

So how is this snow bike coming along.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

don’t hold you breath. only build when I get some free time. With a full time job, two small kids and other interests that does not happen very often. I'll let you know when I have something to show but don’t be too surprised if it’s not ready until next winter. Have another frame to finish first.


----------



## husaberg (Oct 26, 2007)

Hadley makes the 165mm rear hub. The extra long skewer can be found at Old Man Mountain.


----------



## rocwandrer (Oct 19, 2008)

Those are some really nice drawings. I usually end up with lines representing 3d parts which works, but isn't nearly as pretty.

I'm building a similar bike and of course am having a similar dilemma, although i am willing to compromise on the gearing a bit more than you are. 

I actually have a Rohloff hub I am tempted to use, but the 100mm rims are 36 hole drilling only. That sounds really stupid... "can't use a hub because my rims aren't the same drilling", but really there is only one rim for this bike, and it doesn't come in 32 hole. I am reluctant to redrill the entire spoke pattern (which is possible without overlap because of the current symetric offset drilling.)

I think I have convinced myself to use the SRAM/Truvativ 65mm chainline and 100mm shell bb. It would sure be nice if they made the leap to bigger shell diameters sooner so I could use whatever they settle on for this bike.....

I'm toying with the idea of running something like 137.5mm rear spacing with 9mm of drive side offset (small enough difference so practically any wheel and hub can be made to work), and run a 9 speed cassette chopped down to 6 sprockets with inboard spacers. I don't mind a bigger leap between gear ratios at higher speeds, and so I think I will probably run an 11-34 cassette, with 12, 13, and 15t sprockets removed, and a spacer under the rear der mount to get the 34t to work.

160mm hub spacing seems like the obvious choice to solve this problem, but the cost, relative rarity, and uncertain future (150 and 160/165 are close enough it seems like one will fall away when a standard evolves) of 150, 160, and 165 mm hubs are mostly what is stopping me from using one of those. Anybody know of a good place to get a really robust 150-165mm 36 spoke hub for a reasonable price? Thoughts on which size is likely to be the most common going forward?


----------



## rocwandrer (Oct 19, 2008)

by my guestimation, the endomorph should swell to ~108mm and 29.13" diameter on a 100mm rim. anyone have any better numbers, like ones measured off a tire mounted to a 100mm rim?


----------



## FrozenK (Mar 17, 2005)

There's something wrong with your first set of drawings, my Fatback clears a 9spd with 80mm rims using a PW bottom bracket. I've also seen 100mm rims mounted on a Fatback -but that required using only 8 cogs on the cassette if I'm not mistaken. The Endo mounted on a 100mm rim is indeed about 108mm wide.

For what is worth I wouldn't worry too much about not being able to use an 11 tooth cog with 100mm rims. With the weight of those rims -approx 1,550 grams- plus the Endos -approx 1,300- we are talking over 6lbs of rotating mass per wheel in tire and rim alone -a lot of people have wheel _sets_ lighter than that. Actually, I don't see much need for 100mm rims for the _average_ rider. 80mm are what I consider the sweet spot. Mike Curiack, Pete Basinger and other Iditasport veterans may disagree. One more thing: use 2.4 tubes. They work fine and weigh and cost less than the Surly Endomorph tubes.

There are 165mm hubs available with quick release. The easiest one to work with seems to be the Hadley, the most affordable one I know is the Ringle -which requires some modifications. Speedway Cycles in Anchorage can hook you up with those hubs and offer other choices. I would recommend a search on the Alaska forum too, it will probably answer some of your questions.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

FrozenK said:


> There's something wrong with your first set of drawings.


Yes, that's why I posted them here.

Are you running 3 rings up front and still able to use all 9 in the rear ?

If possible, could you measure the distance from the BB centre the middle chain ring, the measurement that reads 66 in the illustration a few post up.

I would also be interested in the distance between the chain and tire (the chain in the biggest cog in the rear, smallest ring up front) as well as the distance between chain and your 80mm rim.

What is the width of the endomorph with the 80mm rim ?

Where can I find info on 80mm rims, weight, price etc.

Thanks !


----------



## FrozenK (Mar 17, 2005)

Peter E said:


> Yes, that's why I posted them here.
> 
> Are you running 3 rings up front and still able to use all 9 in the rear ?


I'm only running two rings -middle and small- using a Phil Wood BB and old Turbines (110mm BCD) I know several people who do run three rings with 80mm rims and are still able to use 9 in the rear


Peter E said:


> If possible, could you measure the distance from the BB centre the middle chain ring, the measurement that reads 66 in the illustration a few post up.


I'll try. No promises on when I'll get to it.  


Peter E said:


> I would also be interested in the distance between the chain and tire (the chain in the biggest cog in the rear, smallest ring up front) as well as the distance between chain and your 80mm rim.


Distance between chain and tire on the big cog/small ring combo is small, about 6-8mm one cm at most. But it has never rubbed and it seems similar as what I've seen on a Pugs.



Peter E said:


> What is the width of the endomorph with the 80mm rim ?
> 
> Where can I find info on 80mm rims, weight, price etc.
> 
> Thanks !


Greg from Speedway posted measurements in the Alaska forum. Here's a link to that thread. I would suggest contacting Speedway about weight, price and availability of the 80mm rims.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

Has anybody ever needed thier big Chainring with Endos? I would think 24/34 might be enough.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

Thanks for the link FrozenK, very helpfull

CrubDestroyer: I agree, probably no need for a big ring, but its not big ring that will cause problems, its the granny/ big cog combination that don't seam possible (at least on the drawing board) unless one use a never heard of super wide bottom bracket 

Really like to know the chainline on the Fatback


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

Peter E said:


> Thanks for the link FrozenK, very helpfull
> 
> CrubDestroyer: I agree, probably no need for a big ring, but its not big ring that will cause problems, its the granny/ big cog combination that don't seam possible (at least on the drawing board) unless one use a never heard of super wide bottom bracket
> 
> Really like to know the chainline on the Fatback


I guess there is no way to really get away from a 100mm BB. The reason I say that is because the only BB's I've seen are ISIS. I've had nothing but bad luck with ISIS. They all end up with rusted bearings, and I'm about as careful as you can get. Not only that there are just a few makers.

Also Should I order the offset Large Marge for the rear. I don't see anyway around it.


----------



## FrozenK (Mar 17, 2005)

CurbDestroyer said:


> I guess there is no way to really get away from a 100mm BB. The reason I say that is because the only BB's I've seen are ISIS. I've had nothing but bad luck with ISIS. They all end up with rusted bearings, and I'm about as careful as you can get. Not only that there are just a few makers.
> 
> Also Should I order the offset Large Marge for the rear. I don't see anyway around it.


There are three 100mm BB options right now -there I know. ISIS, which works but seem to have some drag at low temps (think 10F) Phil Wood square taper, which is great but expensive and the Surly Mr. Whirly cranks which have an external BB. I have never seen a Mr. Whirly and can't comment on quality.

You don't need an offset rim if you are going with 150mm or 165mm hubs. And I think there's a way you can do it with 135mm rims -a friend has a Vicious built bike that I'm almost certain uses non-offset LMs with 135mm hubs. If you have a Pugs or other bike that relies on the offset rear -like the Wildfire/Desalvo- then you need the offset LMs.


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

not decided yet what rear hub to use but I'm leaning to a 17.5mm offseted 135, just like the Pugsley. Like the look of the symmetrical Fatback but a 135mm rear spacing gives me so much more freedom.

-Is there any problem using an 17.5mm offseted 135 hub and the 80mm rims from Speedway ?

- Are the rims offered by Speedway the same rims as these ? http://www.choppersus.com/store/category/3/71/Rims-Only/

-quite often I read about a rim named Remolino. Where can I find info on this rim ?

Thanks !


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

The Remoline is no longer made. 
80mm rims fit the Pugsley, so I would assume they'd fit yours if built correctly. 
I don't think that they are the same rims. The Speedway ones will probably be lighter, and are available drilled.


----------



## rocwandrer (Oct 19, 2008)

update on this project?


----------



## Peter E (Feb 16, 2004)

Been really busy at work lately. Haven’t built much at all this fall. I’ll let you know when this project get started. It will most likely have to wait few month…. 

Still have not decided what rear hub to use. Found two 165 hubs on sale (a Ringle and a DT Swiss). The 165 standard seems like a dying standard and the hubs are heavy. Will probably go for a 135mm hub…..or 165 ….aaaahh . Then there is the rim decision. 65, 80 or 100.


----------



## rocwandrer (Oct 19, 2008)

Peter E said:


> Been really busy at work lately. Haven't built much at all this fall. I'll let you know when this project get started. It will most likely have to wait few month&#8230;.
> 
> Still have not decided what rear hub to use. Found two 165 hubs on sale (a Ringle and a DT Swiss). The 165 standard seems like a dying standard and the hubs are heavy. Will probably go for a 135mm hub&#8230;..or 165 &#8230;.aaaahh . Then there is the rim decision. 65, 80 or 100.


oh well.... i was hoping to learn from your mistakes.... I hope to be riding my snow bike in a month, so maybe you can learn from mine instead.


----------



## liem (Aug 28, 2005)

I am surprised Profile Racing cranks and bb's don't see more use for these kinds of applications. They are relatively heavy and expensive (and stiff) but the range of bb sizes and a 6 7/8 inch axle length with spacers would allow for more chainline adjustment than standard offerings. Their system has remained relatively unchanged for decades.


----------

