Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    542
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Fat tire frame for 25" standover???

    Is that workable or just a pipe dream? I have a Trek 520 with a good standover and 700C wheels. But my road bike has 650 wheels to get the standover right. I find that top tube realllllly short. I need to make some adjustments to that. So that is the history. What do frame builders see here for a fat tire frame?
    " If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand which feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countryman " Samuel Adams, 1772

  2. #2
    Have bike, will travel Barrettscv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Windy City
    My Bikes
    A road bike for every purpose
    Posts
    9,015
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    25 inches is difficult in an adult bike. How tall are you?

    A mixte frame with 26inch wheels will provide 25inch standover. This Soma has room for 1.5 inch (38mm) wide tires: http://www.somafab.com/archives/product/buena-vista

    These bikes can provide 27 to 28 inch standover.

    Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen. Room for 40mm wide tires. It comes in sizes 47cm thru 71cm; and the 47-50-52-54-56-58 frame sizes are for 650B wheels. http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/f-hilsen.htm

    Soma San Marcos. Room for 38mm wide tires. The 47 and 51cm are designed for 650b http://www.somafab.com/archives/prod...rcos-frame-set

    Surly Long Haul Trucker for 26inch wheels. Room for 2.1 inch wide tires. 42-46-50-52-54 and larger frame sizes. http://surlybikes.com/bikes/long_haul_trucker
    Last edited by Barrettscv; 01-01-13 at 09:49 AM.
    2014 Trek DS.1: "Viaggiatore" A do-it-all bike that is waiting in Italy
    2012 Pedal Force CG2: "Secolo Bicicletta" the modern carbon fiber road bike
    2012 Pedal Force CX2: "Carbone CX" the carbon fiber CX bike
    2010 Origin 8 CX 700: "Servizio Grave" Monstercross/29er bike
    1997 Simoncini Special Cyclocross: "Little Simon" lugged Columbus steel CX bike
    1987 Serotta Nova Special X: "Azzurri" The retro Columbus SPX steel road bike

  3. #3
    Andrew R Stewart Andrew R Stewart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    My Bikes
    Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Raleigh Pro, Trek Cycle Cross, Mongoose tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder
    Posts
    3,229
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd explore the 559 diameter as a start. But I don't know what you mean by fat tires exactly, now we have 4"+ stuff and maybe the 2"+ widths that are very common with 559 is not enough? Making a frame with a low TT is not too hard but the angles (of the TT) and the possible extra tubing (for best triangulation) are not the usual. Often the need for heavier walled tubes comes into play and the lightness one would want is lost a bit.

    The other, and unspoken, aspect of this fit need is your seat/bar relationship. You make passing reference to the 650c TT being too short but no mention to the seat/bar height differences. Making a TT longer is quite easy (it's getting one less then 45/58cm that's a challenge without going to straight gauge tubes). But if you need a bar height that's up there the HT top will be up there too (even with a custom stem) and this will complicate the TT stand over.

    In the ideal world you'd first plot out your three contact points (seat/bars and pedals) then move to components like crank arms and bars before looking at what frame designs (and I include the wheels at this point) will fit all together. BITD we use to draw out a scale blueprint for the fitting step then a full scale frame design to further confirm/tweak the dimensions.

    The last point I'll make is that the rolling feel of a small wheel is, for some riders, not prefered. This is where mixing wheel sizes might be another option. Andy.

  4. #4
    coprolite fietsbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NW,Oregon Coast
    My Bikes
    7
    Posts
    633
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a Bike Friday, Its standover , (on top of the Abus Lock Pouch mounted on the top tube), measures 24".


    Is the plan building a step through, or a Mixte frame?
    Last edited by fietsbob; 01-01-13 at 12:13 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    542
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm looking at a fatbike, AKA/ Pugsley, Mukluk, Necromancer..... Faaaat tires. I'm 5'2" tall. As I meant to say the Trek 2300 has 650Bs and is the right standover. It is a bit short in cockpit length(top tube?). The Trek 520 is the right height and has 700Cs, standover is acceptable. The fatbike with the huge tires and 26" wheels would give at least 29" tall tires. This is not coming out in words. I use the 2300 for road and club rides. The 520 for commutes and tours.
    Last edited by Blues Frog; 01-01-13 at 02:37 PM.
    " If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand which feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countryman " Samuel Adams, 1772

  6. #6
    Have bike, will travel Barrettscv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Windy City
    My Bikes
    A road bike for every purpose
    Posts
    9,015
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues Frog View Post
    I'm looking at a fatbike, AKA/ Pugsley, Mukluk, Necromancer..... Faaaat tires. I'm 5'2" tall. As I meant to say the Trek 2300 has 650Bs and is the right standover. It is a bit short in cockpit length(top tube?). The Trek 520 is the right height and has 700Cs, standover is acceptable. The fatbike with the huge tires and 26" wheels would give at least 29" tall tires. This is not coming out in words. I use the 2300 for road and club rides. The 520 for commutes and tours.
    What is the standover height of your current bikes?

    A Surly Pugsley has a 29.8 inch standover in the smallest size. A fat bike will not improve your cycling and is really not needed for a lighter cyclist. A regular 26 inch mountain bike with 2.25 inch tires will cover the same terrain as a fat bike if you weigh less than 130 lbs.
    Last edited by Barrettscv; 01-01-13 at 04:21 PM.
    2014 Trek DS.1: "Viaggiatore" A do-it-all bike that is waiting in Italy
    2012 Pedal Force CG2: "Secolo Bicicletta" the modern carbon fiber road bike
    2012 Pedal Force CX2: "Carbone CX" the carbon fiber CX bike
    2010 Origin 8 CX 700: "Servizio Grave" Monstercross/29er bike
    1997 Simoncini Special Cyclocross: "Little Simon" lugged Columbus steel CX bike
    1987 Serotta Nova Special X: "Azzurri" The retro Columbus SPX steel road bike

  7. #7
    Randomhead
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I suspect you could do something. Do you know your pedal to saddle height?

    do an image search online for 36er, and you'll see what people have done in a similar situation. Squishing the seat in there is the one concern I have. The fact that you have short legs and a longer torso probably helps in this case
    Last edited by unterhausen; 01-02-13 at 01:18 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member GrayJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    EagleRiver AK
    Posts
    1,225
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Active forum thread over at fatbike forum on small rider fit;
    http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/any...er-831163.html

    Concensus is that extra-small 907 frame is the smallest available standover, I saw an 8-year old girl riding a XS 907 this year, you should be able to get a good fit no problem.

  9. #9
    Randomhead
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    those are some really small bikes. Pretty neat

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    542
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That 9zero7 looks good. Almost out of my range though. I'm not accustomed to building frame up. I guess I could start with a frame. It would give me the incentive to continue. Have you seen the one Black Sheep calls "Two Face"?
    " If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand which feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countryman " Samuel Adams, 1772

  11. #11
    Randomhead
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    fat bikes are very expensive, even if someone gives you a frame. Is that what you mean by "out of my range"?
    If you are going to go to someone like Black Sheep, they will make you a frame that fits, but there is going to be a premium over a stock bike.

  12. #12
    Senior Member GrayJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    EagleRiver AK
    Posts
    1,225
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fatbikes definitly can be fairly expensive, it wouldnt be too hard to blow $800-$1000 on a fat wheelset with surlys latest extra-wide tires, supple casing and folding bead, 100mm wide rims and 170mm hubs. THe 100mm bottombracket shell cranksets can also be expensive.

    I managed to rebuild an on old hardtale 26" MTB with a fat clearance rear triangle and got rolling over the snow for a total of around $500. Build Album at;
    https://picasaweb.google.com/1102452...eat=directlink

    A few fatbike cheapskate build tips;

    For my frames 68mm BB shell, I used an old extra wide (137mm) square taper MTB spindle to shift the crank out enough for fat chainline using the middle and inner chainrings. If you have "real" fatbike frame with a 100mm BB shell, there are 100mm ISIS bottom brackets that allow use of cheap ISIS MTB crankset and are probably the cheapest solution for a fatbike crank. I am using an old 7-speed casette & hub in the rear which also helps with the chainline. Using an offset frame setup for regular 135mm hubs is a big cost saver over symetrical fat frames that need very expensive 170mm hubs.

    Cheap Neon trials bike rims are 47mm wide and work fairly well for semi-fat bike. Not all the floatation capabilities of wider rims but 3.8" tires fit them and provide 90% the benefit for about 1/3 the cost of wider rims
    http://www.nwtrials.com/apps/webstor...s/show/3003280

    Surlys stiffer 27tpi tires are a bit of a cost saver but the fat v-rubber devistator tires can be had for as cheap as $45ea.

    I managed to get an old manitou suspension fork working with fat tires, saved over buying a fat-specific fork.


    For my next framebuilding project, I am planning a singlespeed fatbike with symetrical 135mm rear end. If you dont use gearing, a singlespeed chainline provides clearance for fat tires without needing asymetrical offset.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •