I’ve been reflecting on the past couple weeks of snow riding on the Mukluk, and have come to the following conclusion: we need more fat.
The Big Fat Larrys that I run on the Muk are nice. Volume is great. Floatation is great. Appearance is great. Traction is
It is completely and totally clear that the BFL is an improvement in traction over Endomorphs and regular Larrys. It is also clear that the BFL is lacking in the traction department compared to Nates and Husker Dus.
As detailed in my review of the Mukluk 2, the upright riding position I have set up on the bike puts a significant majority of my weight over the rear tire–the tire I use for traction. Since that tire is carrying a significant majority of the weight, I’m really not inclined to go to a narrower tire (even if the narrower tire is 3.7 or 4 inches). What I really want/need is a Big Fat tire that has aggressive tread, for use on the rear.
I wouldn’t change a thing about the BFL in the front. The tire is perfect.
I wouldn’t change a thing about the BFL in the rear for gravel, touring, or the various and sundry other non-traditional fat bike tasks that my Muk gets pressed into.
But for off-road use, mud use, and deep/slushy/cruddy/icey/otherwise inhospitable snow use, the world needs a Big Fat Nate. Or a Big Fat Husker Du. And if you’re listening, QBP/Surly/45NRTH, mock up a BFN or BFHD and show the Fatbike world. We will respond…enthusiastically. (And while you’re doing it, please confirm that the profile of a BFN or BFHD works well on a 82mm Rolling Darryl, so I don’t have corner/side tread knobs trying to gnaw through my chainstays). We need a tire that mixes the floatation of the Big Fat with the aggression of the Nate/Husker Du. That will be a tire that sells. I’ll take one…in 120tpi, please.
Less than an inch more girth. I have to end this post on that note, because I can’t come up with anything PG to follow that comment with.