rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4

One of the more surprising bikes introduced at Eurobike, Rocky Mountain was showing off their new Suzi Q. Fat bikes may be slowing down in sales, but that hasn’t stopped companies from trying to improve them. One of the biggest issues seems to be the wider Q-Factor of the massive cranks needed to clear equally massive tires. Following the launch of Otso’s new Voytek fat bike, Rocky Mountain was showing their version of a narrow Q-factor fatbike with the Suzy Q line. Not only does the bike build on the narrow Q-Factor design, it also follows in Trek’s footsteps with 27.5 x 3.8″ tires…

rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-5

rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-13 rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-3

Like the Otso, the Suzi Q’s design seems to revolve around a narrower bottom bracket shell. In this case, it’s also a PF107 shell which is the equivalent of an 83mm threaded bottom bracket. Rocky Mountain doesn’t specify which crank spindle is used (we’ll update this when we find out), but it’s assumed that they mean the RF149 spindle that Otso uses for the RaceFace Cinch cranks to achieve a Q-Factor of 183mm. Rather than build in the tire clearances of the Voytek, Rocky Mountain looks to have gone a different route with the narrower, yet taller 27.5 x 3.8″ Maxxis fat bike tires. Until now, Trek was the only company we know of using this size, but the introduction of Maxxis tires along with Bontragers signaled new bikes to come.

Also like the Otso, the Suzi Q line uses a 177 x rear hub which should offer better heel clearance and a narrower rear end. Available in S-XL frames, chainstay length is a short 434mm.

rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-14

rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-2 rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-15

At the top end of the line, the -90º RSL uses Smoothwall Carbon C13 for both the frame and the fork with internal cable routing that is also Di2 ready. All of the Suzi Q frames also include braze ons inside the front triangle for super clean frame bag mounting. To go with the 177 rear hub, the front uses a 150 x 15mm hub that is Bluto ready.

rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-6

rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-9 rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-10

Along with the carbon -90º and -70º RSL models, the Suzi Q will also come in a 6061 hydroformed aluminum frame for the -50º and -30º models. Built with nearly all the same specs as the carbon versions, the aluminum versions will offer similar Q-factor numbers, though as we learned with Otso, the Aeffect cranks provide a slightly wider Q-Factor than the RaceFace carbon cranks.

rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-12 rocky-mountain-275-fat-bikes-suzyq-eurobike-2017eurobike-day-3-4-11

The aluminum frames also include the braze ons for frame bags and the 150 x 15mm front hub and Maxxis 27.5 x 3.8″ tires on 65mm Sun Ringle Duroc rims. Pricing ranges from $1899 to $4299 for the top end.

bikes.com

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ken Perras
5 years ago

Extra sneaky detail: Fits 29×3.0 setups as well.

isrequired
isrequired
5 years ago

i wonder if these ride much different than 29er fat bikes (ie not “plus bikes”)

dizzy
5 years ago

I never know quite what to say when I read these things. For the record, people (me and surely others) have been using narrower Q factor cranks with wider hubs for years. For example, I’ve been speccing 29ers with 150/157mm back ends with standard width single ring cranks since 2008. I’ve been building fatter tire bikes with 177 back ends and 83mm shells since RF introduced the SixC cranks…because I could modify a SixC spindle to work with a NextSL crank arm and the chain line works out. Same goes for full fat snow/sand bikes…197mm back end with a 170mm spindle. Race Face actually deserves most of the credit for making their cranks in such a way that the rings can effectively have a middle or outboard chainline.

and since chainstay length was brought up, I feel I should share that most of my bikes (29ers, 27.5+ and fat bikes) go out with 410-415mm chainstay lengths. It’s not for everyone, but for those who like it, they really like it.

Tyler
Tyler
5 years ago

Sweet! Been looking for another tire maker to get in the 27.5X3.8 game!

ascarlarkinyar
5 years ago

I don’t think a 183 mm Q factor is enough to make people’s knees happy enough to buy a platform, wheels, etc… non interchangeable with other bikes.

Again more specific specialized parts that cannot be used on any of my other bikes. More and more fail from bike manufacturers.

Too much niche and not enough cross over.

atlbikeshop
5 years ago

These looks like some pretty fast fat bikes!

ThinAir Boy
ThinAir Boy
5 years ago

3.8 isn’t really a Fat Tire in my book. I use my fat bike to float on top of snow. 3.8 would just mess up the trail.

opignonlibre
opignonlibre
5 years ago

Why didn’t they go the elevated chainstay route ? Maybe I’m completely wrong but it look like they could have narrowed the qfactor a bit more that way without the chainring and chain hitting the tire.

Wombat
Wombat
5 years ago

Awesome bike from Rocky, very useful innovations IMO.

Any idea what the max tire clearance is? if you used a 26″ wheel? There are times when a 3.8 on a 65mm rim is just little narrow for snow.

Bike is up on their website but the geometry seems to be missing fork offset?

Also you say the rims are Sun Ringle Duroc but the pic show MulFut’s.

mac
mac
5 years ago

I feel like this mid-fat trend is just pulling us toward an inevitable “standard” of 3″ tires on everything except cross country race bikes.