Tumbleweed Prospector frame? Then you’d be able to play around with the tire sizes! And selfishly, I get to see another sweet prospector build. Haha!
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:07:25 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: > One more non-variable: a single 65" gear that is high enough to prevent > making flatland, hard-surface cruising with 175 mm cranks hateful, but low > enough (with the tires described) to make even shorter stretches of 4" > sand, as well as the shorter hills, rideable, with effort. > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 4:49 PM Patrick Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ryan and Hotch: Thanks, but a 3" tire, or rather rims and frame that >> allow full 3" plumpness of my WTB Rangers, labeled 3", is not a variable; >> I've long since worked out what I want, which is not a sand bike but a >> sand-capable all-rounder. >> >> IME, which is extensive enough to make a considered judgment, the current >> 71 mm/2.8" at 13-15 floats better over such sand as pictured than 61 mm at >> 18-20, which in turn is better than 50 mm at 21-23 psi. And I want a tire >> that is not entirely disheartening on pavement. >> >> OTOH, if I can find or commission a frame that with a ss drivetrain lets >> me use a 26 X 4" tire with a Q factor =/< 160 mm, and a 26 X 4" tire >> weighing less than 700 grams, I'll take them both, seriously; but I expect >> neither is possible. I'll be happy to be shown wrong. >> >> (Sorry, Tarik.) >> >> That sand was the worst, or almost the worst I ride in (there are a few >> patches deeper or longer which require me to walk, but I rarely ride on >> those stretches). >> >> A 3" 700C tire at 13 psi or so is, for my all rounder but sand-biased >> riding needs, a good compromise, just as the earlier Matthews with 61 mm >> (450 gram) Big Ones is an excellent pavement biased bike that can handle 3" >> sand, perhaps even that pictured if I use the small-ring gears. The Monocog >> replacement would also be a more "just get on and ride" bike that I can use >> to "walk" the dog with -- tho I use all my freewheel bikes for this purpose >> on the appropriate terrains. >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:29 AM Hoch in ut <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Make sure a 3” tire will be enough for you. I’ve ridden deep sand in >>> southern Utah. 3” tires (Chupacabra and XR4) were ok. You’re still putting >>> out a ton of wattage to keep going, especially on climbs. >>> Nothing beats fat tires. 4” or bigger. Get yourself a fat bike with >>> light carbon rims and fast rolling tires. >>> >>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:00:20 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks again, Keith. I want to hold out for true 3"/76 mm tires and 5 >>>> mm clearance at all 4 stays, and from such research as I've done, the >>>> Krampus and one other off-shelf bike which I forget -- in my archive -- >>>> should allow this with a =/< 160 mm Q, which is the goal (again, single >>>> speed), as also of course would a custom. >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:17 PM iamkeith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think I responded to the question last time, but just in case: >>>>> >>>>> I have my 1st run, size L Susie set up with 29x2.8 tires, measuring at >>>>> least 74mm on 42mm rims, with a 3x9 drivetrain. My tires don't have >>>>> huge >>>>> knobs, but there are no absolutely no clearance or interference issues >>>>> anywhere, in any gear. By far the biggest constraint is the height of >>>>> the >>>>> fork crown. If it was higher, I could and would put fenders on the >>>>> bike, >>>>> too. >>>>> >>>>> If I can find a 2.6 tire that I like, I will eventually switch to >>>>> those. I want fenders,. And the 2.8 tires are fine on dirt but have a >>>>> little too much self-steer on hard surfaces. >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Erik and others. Garth, come to think of it, I think that I >>>>>> did ask this before -- more Ralph Wiggumry. Oh well. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I would prefer disc brakes, tho' that's not a deal breaker. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, any Monocog replacement would be a single speed, or perhaps use >>>>>> a hub gear -- typical wide range 3 speed or perhaps a 2 speed kickback; >>>>>> but >>>>>> probably just a simple single speed. >>>>>> >>>>>> The dealbreaker tho' is 76 mm tires with 5 mm clearance on each side, >>>>>> so 86 mm between stays at tire level. >>>>>> >>>>>> Garth, I find that an extra cm of width and corresponding 5 psi or so >>>>>> drop in pressure makes a huge difference when negotiating sand. 60 mm at >>>>>> 19 >>>>>> psi is much better than 50 mm at 23 psi, but 71-2 mm at 13-15 psi is >>>>>> even >>>>>> better, and 76mm+ I daresay would improve things further. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:28 PM Erik <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, that sand looks brutal! As you noted, the max listed tire >>>>>>> size on the Gus or Susie is 2.8, but I feel like that would be pushing >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> for a couple of reasons. I'm running 29" x 2.5 Terravail Ehlines. They >>>>>>> measure about 62mm without any weight on them on Cliffhanger rims, >>>>>>> tubeless. They have plenty of clearance on the sides (about 12mm on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> front, a little less in the rear). I measured the distance between the >>>>>>> inside of the chainstays and it looks like it's right about 80mm (I >>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>> measuring with calipers!), so I don't think you could fit 3" tires >>>>>>> (about >>>>>>> 76mm) with any meaningful room to spare. The forks have a little more >>>>>>> clearance so maybe a slightly larger front tire would be possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bigger issue that I would see with trying to get even larger >>>>>>> tires on the back is the bottom bracket width necessary to keep the >>>>>>> chain >>>>>>> off of the tire. It would push the chainline out pretty far. It's a >>>>>>> 73mm >>>>>>> shell and I'm running a 122 IRD bottom bracket with spacers. Even with >>>>>>> that and a chainline that is waaaay outboard, the chain runs pretty >>>>>>> close >>>>>>> to the tire in the 50t gear in the back. I think that if I sized up >>>>>>> even >>>>>>> to the 2.8 I might have to switch up to a 127 BB, pushing the chainline >>>>>>> out >>>>>>> even further. You almost need Boost spacing at that point to push the >>>>>>> cassette further out in line with the front chainring. Otherwise the >>>>>>> front >>>>>>> chainring is starting to line up with the smallest cog which makes for >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> terrible chainline. That's my amateur opinion at any rate! I'm sure >>>>>>> someone on here has tried it or knows this better than I do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Otherwise, even with "just" 2.5 inch tires it's handled the terrain >>>>>>> just fine and was easy to keep on track on multiple surfaces, including >>>>>>> rocky sections and sections with lots of roots and loose gravel. It >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> equally fine with all of it. Sand, however, is another matter. We >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> have much of that on the trails in my area so I can't really speak to >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I may try out a larger front tire soon and will happily report >>>>>>> back. I don't think I'm going to try a larger rear tire for the >>>>>>> reasons >>>>>>> above re: chainline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thanks for the nod on the build! Happy with all the shiny bits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Erik >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d8ca52d4-a8b3-499f-bea6-a3ca85fd1eabn%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/d8ca52d4-a8b3-499f-bea6-a3ca85fd1eabn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Patrick Moore >>>>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4c084692-104a-48c1-83c9-d87dff482caen%40googlegroups.com >>>>> >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4c084692-104a-48c1-83c9-d87dff482caen%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Patrick Moore >>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/65aad58a-62f6-44a3-80af-4a8aa1dcbfdfn%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/65aad58a-62f6-44a3-80af-4a8aa1dcbfdfn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Patrick Moore >> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >> >> > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Patrick Moore > Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/724050e3-befb-4b75-8e58-1f9a9ea9698fn%40googlegroups.com.
