Winter bike / Snow bike thread

And then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjLH89uXYmM

Heres a silly question for a forum. What finish do people like for a Ti fatbike frame?

I had planned to go with bead blast. As its more resiliant, and doesnt add cost.
Brushed adds cost, but looks flash.
Raw looks amazing, but would show up scratching etc.

1 Attachment

I vote bead, looks nice in an understated way.

bead blast

you can have logos etc left polished/raw just by having a sticker on the frame during the bead blast, like they have done in that photo

I vote bead, looks nice in an understated way.

This is my thought too.

I plan to build it up with blue details. So the frame need'nt be too busy. Those raw wields do look sexy though.

bead blast

you can have logos etc left polished/raw just by having a sticker on the frame during the bead blast, like they have done in that photo

I was thinking that the logo could be left raw in a band of beadblast finish. If I went with raw.

Ordered some Schalwbe Ice Spiker Pro for 29er in October, as last year everywhere seemed to be sold out and my LBS made me buy them the other day (after avoiding them for a few weeks!) - not a sniff of ice this year, meh......

I already told you all in mid-summer when I bought my Ice Spikers that we wouldn't get any snow or ice this winter.

^^^^^^^^

I'd powdercoat it orange.

I'm starting to find the grey of bead blasts a bit...um...grey. Out of the options you've suggested, I think raw would work best. It's a utility bike, so industrial makes sense. Plus the weld discoloration will work well with the blue theme.

Also why isn't this all of this as a new stand alone topic in the new current projects? Sort it out! No one want to have to dodge posts about studded tyres to get to your project. ;)

Raw looks amazing, but would show up scratching etc.

and that is bad how? it's a fatbike, it look more like a workhorse than a work of art.

TBH it only cost 60 notes to have it hand brushed.
I'm going to see if its possible to have a head tube and down tube band of bead blast, containing the brand name, and logo, in polished. All on a brushed frame.

hmmmmm shiney......

that sound nice, or you could even make it look lugged like the Condor;

Incidentally I'll be popping down to Charlie the bikemonger to test ride the Surly Pugsley, let see how it handle for touring...

that sound nice, or you could even make it look lugged like the Condor;

Incidentally I'll be popping down to Charlie the bikemonger to test ride the Surly Pugsley, let see how it handle for touring...

I can touch up a brushed finish myself. I may even polish it further. With blasted, its out of my hands.

Test the Salsa mukluk too, if you can. Both bikes have the braze-ons for touring, but the geometrys are at each end of the fat bike spectrum.

The Pugsly is more MTB like, and the Mukluk more snowbike like. Seems logical that the stability of the mukluk would pay off when loaded. But the ride of the pugs smittens folk.

I have a list of compatible racks etc somewhere.

No rack for me, I'm bikepacking instead, rack and panniers are an obsolete method of carrying item for touring;

No rack for me, I'm bikepacking instead, rack and panniers are an obsolete method of carrying item for touring;

Cant say I agree with you there. But the growing availibility of alternative options is nothing but positive.

My advice on trying out both the fatbikes Charlie stocks is good though. Just have a glance at the geo's. The Mukluk has considerbly longer chainstays, and slacker angles. On the downside it also has a massive headtube*, so you wont have room for a crazy spacer stack :(

(*too long for me even with 0 spacers and a 0deg stem.)

Cant say I agree with you there. But the growing availibility of alternative options is nothing but positive.

Having done some ride with such option, I can tell you it allowed me to enjoyed the road more not feeling the limitation of a normal road bicycle (no need for dedicated tourer strong enough to not flex under load), it's very disconcerting feeling how heavy the bike is when you lift it, but feel perfectly normal with minimal flex when riding.

(the saddlebag was pointed upward because there weren't enough room due to having the saddle set far forward causing the mount to be right at the end of the saddle rail).

On the downside it also has a massive headtube*, so you wont have room for a crazy spacer stack :(

Which is perfect for me, so a small model wouldn't look that strange with a normal spacer stack (I'm 6"), which concern me on the 16" Surly (HT - 102mm compare to Mukluk's 120mm).

The other reasoning for the Pugsley is that you can wack a 29ers wheelset on it and it'll be a decent rigid 29ers when needed.

Having done some ride with such option, I can tell you it allowed me to enjoyed the road more not feeling the limitation of a normal road bicycle (no need for dedicated tourer strong enough to not flex under load), it's very disconcerting feeling how heavy the bike is when you lift it, but feel perfectly normal with minimal flex when riding.
(the saddlebag was pointed upward because there weren't enough room due to having the saddle set far forward causing the mount to be right at the end of the saddle rail).

There are very good reasons for having your load low down by the sides of the wheels. There are also good reasons for not doing this on a off-roader/ fatbike.

The other reasoning for the Pugsley is that you can wack a 29ers wheelset on it and it'll be a decent rigid 29ers when needed.

Only if you can offset the rim 17.5mm relative to the hub. Which doesnt sound possible to me. You can build an undished wheel, which will get you part way there. Your back wheel is then not going to be perfectly centralised.

Probably an acceptable bodge. But not something I'd plan on doing, unless I had too.

The Mukluk will run standard 135mm rear hubs in an offset wheel (providing they are quick release, so not most IGHs), and 170mm in an non-offset wheel. The advantage with a 170mm rear is that you do not need a rim with offset drilling. So you can build nice strong wheels with almost any rim you want. The downside, is the cost of 170mm wide hubs.

There are very good reasons for having your load low down by the sides of the wheels. There are also good reasons for not doing this on a off-roader/ fatbike.

Assuming your good reason is stability, doesn't the fact a bike is an inverted pendulum mean putting the weight higher up increases stability, eg penny farthing, stable vs. recumbent, unstable.

In my experience using panniers ruins the handling of a bike, decreasing stability.

Assuming your good reason is stability, doesn't the fact a bike is an inverted pendulum mean putting the weight higher up increases stability, eg penny farthing, stable vs. recumbent, unstable.

In my experience using panniers ruins the handling of a bike, decreasing stability.

IMHO its a complex issue. Depend on personal preferance, type of riding, type of bike, type of load etc.

I was merely trying to point out that no one option is universally 'best' TBH.

Pugs

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Surly-Pugsley-Snow-Sand-Single-Speed-Steel-Hardtail-Frame-Fork-Wheels-/260926872640?pt=UK_sportsleisure_cycling_bikeparts_SR&hash=item3cc0741c40

added to watch list.

my size!

edit - damnit H!

Too small. Blah.

http://www.lfgss.com/thread77864.html#post2604657

Its F&F and wheels only though.