Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: 27.5+ vs 29+

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450

    27.5+ vs 29+

    I am plotting to finally build myself a new bike, I want a + bike, can't decide on the wheel size. It will likely be a Gnarvester frame, unless someone comes out with a reasonably priced Ti 27.5+ frame, I will build it 1x10 with a suspension fork, but will also swap to SS and rigid at times. I am 5'8", ride in New England, so lots of short technical climbs, twisty trails, not much high speed flow, but I do take trips to CO/UT/etc. With my height, and the trails I ride, what makes the most sense for wheel size?

    I have only ridden a 29+ around a parking lot, so I have no real world experience on either + size...and there aren't any demos I can try easily...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Anyone? Did I ask the question wrong?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    60
    For tight tech trails a 29+ sounds awfully big. I have a 26+ and my son a 29er. On my 26+ I feel more confident in the nasty tight stuff. If the bike was for 20 mile cross county trips then 29+ might be better. I do the idea of the new 27.5+ bikes and hope to see and ride one on the trail.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    463
    My $0.02:

    I've got a Krampus and while the frame itself is cool the dearth of aggressive 29+ tires means you can't ever get the most out of it. It's kind of like riding a downhill bike shod with Maxxis Ikons - sure it works and sure it rolls fast but you'll never be able to use the bike like it was intended.

    If/when the Dirt Wizards come out it may change things but do you really want a bike with only one tire choice? I'm aware of the Knard, TraxFatty, Chupacabra, Fat-B-Nimbles, etc but they're all the same sort of low profile/fast rolling tires.

    If I was starting over I'd go with a regular 29er with 27+ clearance based on the tire options alone.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by jnroyal View Post
    If I was starting over I'd go with a regular 29er with 27+ clearance based on the tire options alone.
    Would you every run 27.5+ on the Krampus? I am told 27.5+ fits on the Gnarvester (by Carver)...although I worry about BB height.

    I've been riding a 29er for a couple years now, I don't really have a problem with how it handles in tight stuff, and I like the improved rollover, just concerned 29+ might be too much.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: croatiansensation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    348
    Another $0.02:

    29+ was a bit of a no brainer for me since I am 6'5" and wanted to stick with the 29'er format. I have my Krampus setup as a single speed (32x22), and was worried about building one up this way due to the wheel/tire weight. After around 200'ish miles, I have zero regrets, and really only notice the additional tire weight on extended climbs. The knards work well for my local sandy, non-techie trails, but I would be a little concerned with them in rocky, techie stuff where you would want more aggressive tread and better sidewall protection. If I still lived on the Front range, I would probably be giving the new Maxxis Chronicles a try.

  7. #7
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,452
    For New England, and your size, I would steer clear of 29+. You are on the bleeding edge of fitting and you'll be stuck on longer stays/wheelbase than is optimal. 27.5+ would be the way to go, and it won't hold you back out west, either. Plus you can always do a second 29x2.x wheelset if you want to get racey.

    -Walt

  8. #8
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,114
    Agree with Walt. B+ should be the solid choice... now we just need to see more wheels and tires geared toward wider rims and agressive technical riding!
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto Night Train
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 Cannondale Rush
    99 GT XCR
    93 Raleigh MT 200

  9. #9
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,452
    Honestly, at 5'8" and riding in NE, I would look at 26+/26xbig and then have a 27.5xnormal wheelset as well.

    Hopefully we'll see lots more tire/rim/etc options soon.

    -Walt

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Coloradoxj13 View Post
    Would you every run 27.5+ on the Krampus? I am told 27.5+ fits on the Gnarvester (by Carver)...although I worry about BB height.
    I'm sure 27.5+ would fit the Gnarvester but the BB would be too low for me.

    Walt makes some good points, have you given any thought to an Instigator 2.0? Surly has screaming deals on frame/rim/tire packages right now. Not sure if you can run 27.5+ on it but you can definitely run 26+ and "regular" 27.5.

  11. #11
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    Even at 6'4", my Krampus is not ideal on super tight twisty trails.....although a ton of fun rolling over rocks and roots on technical trails.

    I think the b+ would be cool for a suspension bike.

    With your description, I agree with others to go with b+ I'm sure it is noticeably quicker while still having great float and better cush that "normal" tires, and still be able to use regular 29" wheels if needed. Personally, I wouldn't buy a frame that is set up for fat with the wider everything, or 29+ with longer CS and angles not designed for that wheel size. I guess this means a little bit of waiting for tires, frames, etc. Buying a frame specific for b+ would be ideal.

  12. #12
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,452
    Yeah, an Instigator would be pretty great, I bet. Good idea!

    I mean, if you can stand having a (shudder) 26" frame.

    Maybe 26" is so uncool it's going to be back again in a year or two.

    -Walt

    Quote Originally Posted by jnroyal View Post
    I'm sure 27.5+ would fit the Gnarvester but the BB would be too low for me.

    Walt makes some good points, have you given any thought to an Instigator 2.0? Surly has screaming deals on frame/rim/tire packages right now. Not sure if you can run 27.5+ on it but you can definitely run 26+ and "regular" 27.5.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    839
    I rode a really sweet 27.5 full carbon boinger in Moab and thought it was a complete waste of time. Felt like a 26'' bike to me. 29er plus is my favorite platform I've ever ridden and will never own another tire that doesn't measure at least 3'' wide X 29'' If you care what I think, that's what I think.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,456
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    I rode a really sweet 27.5 full carbon boinger in Moab and thought it was a complete waste of time. Felt like a 26'' bike to me. 29er plus is my favorite platform I've ever ridden and will never own another tire that doesn't measure at least 3'' wide X 29'' If you care what I think, that's what I think.
    How tall are you?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    839
    6' even

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,456
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    6' even
    At 6' 29+ makes more sense. The OP is 5'8". It's much harder to get a good fitting frame for someone that height using 29+ wheels, thus the suggestions to go with 27.5+.

  17. #17
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    I rode a really sweet 27.5 full carbon boinger in Moab and thought it was a complete waste of time. Felt like a 26'' bike to me.
    If you're used to riding fat bikes and 29ers, of course a 27.5 bike will feel small.

    I'm hesitant about the wide BB of most fat bikes, but I like the idea of a short travel full suspension 29+ bike.
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    I'm a little heartbroken that everyone seems to think a 29+ isn't for me. I've decided that after the spring thaw, I'm going to go visit Carver (Bikeman, Bath Bike and Ski) and give the Gnarvester a real ride, and see how it fits. I would probably buy a 17" frame, and I've always liked to ride frames a bit too large for me, by conventional standards. I was on an 18" Kona for a long time, then a 18.5" Giant, and have an 18" Motobecane cheapo SS now. My medium Ibis Mojo has always felt too small for me. The CS length on the Gnarvester is not really any longer than most aggressive 29ers (listed below), and I am fairly strong, so I think I can handle muscling around the big tires (5'8" but 175lbs, and not fat)

    I am not enthused about the risk of choosing a 29er frame and hoping it will fit a b+ tire. I'd like to go with a nice frame, steel or Ti, but a production model, and there isn't anything out there that I know will fit a b+ tire. If I could be guaranteed that the Ver Hauen, Reeb 29er, 420, or something else would fit a b+, I could go that route, but I'm not going to build the bike hoping that the tire will fit.

  19. #19
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,452
    Just keep your powder dry, then. You don't *need* to buy a new bike *right now*. There will probably be some great options in a year.

    -Walt

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Just keep your powder dry, then. You don't *need* to buy a new bike *right now*. There will probably be some great options in a year.

    -Walt
    Nobody ever needs to buy a new bike, but I want to In a year, that money might be somewhere else un-retrievable.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Coloradoxj13 View Post
    I'm a little heartbroken that everyone seems to think a 29+ isn't for me. I've decided that after the spring thaw, I'm going to go visit Carver (Bikeman, Bath Bike and Ski) and give the Gnarvester a real ride, and see how it fits. I would probably buy a 17" frame, and I've always liked to ride frames a bit too large for me, by conventional standards. I was on an 18" Kona for a long time, then a 18.5" Giant, and have an 18" Motobecane cheapo SS now. My medium Ibis Mojo has always felt too small for me. The CS length on the Gnarvester is not really any longer than most aggressive 29ers (listed below), and I am fairly strong, so I think I can handle muscling around the big tires (5'8" but 175lbs, and not fat)

    I am not enthused about the risk of choosing a 29er frame and hoping it will fit a b+ tire. I'd like to go with a nice frame, steel or Ti, but a production model, and there isn't anything out there that I know will fit a b+ tire. If I could be guaranteed that the Ver Hauen, Reeb 29er, 420, or something else would fit a b+, I could go that route, but I'm not going to build the bike hoping that the tire will fit.
    I think the responses (at least mine) have to do with your height as well as the kinds of trails you ride. I've been riding a Gnarvester for the last 1.5 years, setup as a 1x10. While I've enjoyed it, it feels a little ponderous on my techy twisty trails. I'm 5'10" riding an 18" frame. Over the winter I built up a B+ bike to test my theory that it would work better on most of my trails. I'm only 2 rides in, but I think my ideas are correct. The B+ does not have the awesome rollover of the 29+, but it's more nimble and easier to change direction and quickly accelerate.

    I think it's a great idea to test ride a Gnarvester, preferably on the same kind of trails you normally ride. If you're in Southern NY anytime soon you're welcome to try mine too.

    You are correct that there's nothing out there right now designed for B+. The only thing I know about, besides custom, is a place called Colorado Specialty Velo, facebook page here:

    https://www.facebook.com/ColoradoSpecialityVelo?fref=ts

    They mentioned doing a run of Ti B+ frames soon. They have been trying the B+ tires in other frames too, so might be worth talking to them.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: croatiansensation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    I think the responses (at least mine) have to do with your height as well as the kinds of trails you ride. I've been riding a Gnarvester for the last 1.5 years, setup as a 1x10. While I've enjoyed it, it feels a little ponderous on my techy twisty trails. I'm 5'10" riding an 18" frame. Over the winter I built up a B+ bike to test my theory that it would work better on most of my trails. I'm only 2 rides in, but I think my ideas are correct. The B+ does not have the awesome rollover of the 29+, but it's more nimble and easier to change direction and quickly accelerate.

    I think it's a great idea to test ride a Gnarvester, preferably on the same kind of trails you normally ride. If you're in Southern NY anytime soon you're welcome to try mine too.
    Totally agree with this. I don't notice a massive difference with my Krampus in tight, techie stuff versus my regular FS 29'er because all my bikes need to be huge due to my height. At your size, 29+ is definitely a "try before you buy" type of thing.

  23. #23
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    I think the responses (at least mine) have to do with your height as well as the kinds of trails you ride. I've been riding a Gnarvester for the last 1.5 years, setup as a 1x10. While I've enjoyed it, it feels a little ponderous on my techy twisty trails. I'm 5'10" riding an 18" frame. Over the winter I built up a B+ bike to test my theory that it would work better on most of my trails. I'm only 2 rides in, but I think my ideas are correct. The B+ does not have the awesome rollover of the 29+, but it's more nimble and easier to change direction and quickly accelerate.

    I think it's a great idea to test ride a Gnarvester, preferably on the same kind of trails you normally ride. If you're in Southern NY anytime soon you're welcome to try mine too.

    You are correct that there's nothing out there right now designed for B+. The only thing I know about, besides custom, is a place called Colorado Specialty Velo, facebook page here:

    https://www.facebook.com/ColoradoSpecialityVelo?fref=ts

    They mentioned doing a run of Ti B+ frames soon. They have been trying the B+ tires in other frames too, so might be worth talking to them.
    bikeny, your responses are always very well thought out and helpful. Thanks for your presence.

    Coloradoxj13, at least Fox has a dedicated fork for b+ on its way soon. That's more than 29+ can say unless you consider the Bluto - which I do not. With a fork on the way, frames and tires are very close behind. The wait is not long.....
    Try the Gnarvester, but I'm pretty sure at your height and terrain (like bikeny said above) the b+ is the way to go.
    It would be awesome if you could test both, but as we all know here (and the reason why a lot of come to these forums), it is very difficult if not impossible to test a lot of stuff before buying. So, we try to sift through the BS comments to try to find some credible members who are taking their time here to inform and be informed.

    With that said, if you set a 29+ with a fairly steep HA and short stem, it could be pretty quick. My Krampus is set up with a lefty that is lower than the stock fork with about the same offset, so it is a little quicker than stock esp. after sag. The BB height of the Krampus is already high so I have no pedal strike. And I hate low BBs so you know where I'm coming from. The XL is already too short for me so I have to use a 90mm stem. If I could go with an 80 or 70mm, I bet I could get it pretty quick. With your height, you could go with a long bike with a pretty short stem that would likely steer pretty awesome in the twisties.
    FWIW, I have no experience with the Gnarvester, but the Krampus is the best built hardtail frame I have every ridden. Very stiff and responsive! just not light.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: croatiansensation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet View Post
    b

    With that said, if you set a 29+ with a fairly steep HA and short stem, it could be pretty quick. My Krampus is set up with a lefty that is lower than the stock fork with about the same offset, so it is a little quicker than stock esp. after sag. The BB height of the Krampus is already high so I have no pedal strike. And I hate low BBs so you know where I'm coming from. The XL is already too short for me so I have to use a 90mm stem. If I could go with an 80 or 70mm, I bet I could get it pretty quick. With your height, you could go with a long bike with a pretty short stem that would likely steer pretty awesome in the twisties.
    FWIW, I have no experience with the Gnarvester, but the Krampus is the best built hardtail frame I have every ridden. Very stiff and responsive! just not light.
    Interesting, I have kicked around getting a carbon XC470 fork from Carver for my Krampus, and was a bit worried about the shorter A-C length.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet View Post
    It would be awesome if you could test both, but as we all know here (and the reason why a lot of come to these forums), it is very difficult if not impossible to test a lot of stuff before buying. So, we try to sift through the BS comments to try to find some credible members who are taking their time here to inform and be informed.
    This is exactly why I posted here, and I appreciate all the insightful feedback in this thread. The bike that bikeny mentioned looks like it is coming from Pact Cycles and will be a Ti b+ frame

    ISSUU - BATTLECAT by Pactbikes

    Might be similar to this
    https://instagram.com/p/1F7apCL3bf/

    27.5+ vs 29+-10350616_1587768388107427_3604538068552972301_n.jpg

  26. #26
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by croatiansensation View Post
    Interesting, I have kicked around getting a carbon XC470 fork from Carver for my Krampus, and was a bit worried about the shorter A-C length.
    With a stock BB height of about 12.8" and HT angle of 69.5 degrees, I would not worry at all with lowering the front end a little. It actually makes the bike handle better in most situations.

  27. #27
    Professional Hobbyist
    Reputation: RPK3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet View Post
    With a stock BB height of about 12.8" and HT angle of 69.5 degrees, I would not worry at all with lowering the front end a little. It actually makes the bike handle better in most situations.
    Handle better?!? I'd say that's subjective.

    It will definitely give it a steeper HA and less trail, therefore quicker steering. But better? Not to my tastes. But then I also don't like the 80-90mm stems you ride.
    Work expands to fit the time allotted...

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bubba13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Check out Zen Bikes website. They have the 27.5+ EXP frame. There is also fully decked out show bike (in medium size) they have for sale at $3500 with full custom bags. If it was a large it would already be in my garage.
    Portland Off Road Navagators

  29. #29
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by bubba13 View Post
    Check out Zen Bikes website. They have the 27.5+ EXP frame. There is also fully decked out show bike (in medium size) they have for sale at $3500 with full custom bags. If it was a large it would already be in my garage.
    Heres a link for the Zen Bikes show bike...ready for exploration! Check out the sweet camo frame/ rims, although it is tight in the rear with the Traxx B+

    Zen EXP NAHBS Show bike ? ZenBikeCo
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto Night Train
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 Cannondale Rush
    99 GT XCR
    93 Raleigh MT 200

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: montana miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2
    I'm 5' 8", and I've been on my Krampus for more than two years. First on tight rocky stuff in Western PA and West Virginia, now mostly on fast rocky stuff in Western Colorado and Moab, so pretty close to what you're describing. My previous ride was a Kona Honzo.

    29+ is awesome in rocks. And for riding rigid and single speeding, I don't know why you'd consider anything else. Carries a ton of momentum, doesn't get knocked off line, and if you build it light (without 50mm rims) it's still easy to throw around. The giant diameter wheels are a feature, not a limitation.

    I have my bike setup with a 35mm stem, single speed, and 35mm rims (saw absolutely no benefit to wider stuff). I'm on chronicles now, which are close to a workable trail tire. Can't wait for the Dirt Wizards though. I rode Minions all last season because the knards were so scary. Great cornering, but I really missed the higher volume tires.

    My fiance is 5'2", and also on a 29+, although for totally different reasons. She's a timid rider, and the bigger wheels have made her much, much more comfortable in the gnar. So I don't really understand why people insist that 29+ wheels are just for big people.

    Anyway, I've been on a lot of bikes, and I have no interest in smaller diameter wheels for chunky trail riding on a hardtail. You should probably try it.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,299
    consider 29+ front and 27.5+ rear. ive been messing around with this on a jones and like it a lot. the 29+ rolls over stuff better, the 27.5+ is a bit more flickable - which id imagine useful in east coast type terrain...the mix isnt half bad!

    fwiw i am 5'11" and have been on 29+ for a while as well as all sorts of weird combos.

  32. #32
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by RPK3 View Post
    Handle better?!? I'd say that's subjective.

    It will definitely give it a steeper HA and less trail, therefore quicker steering. But better? Not to my tastes. But then I also don't like the 80-90mm stems you ride.
    Subjective? Absolutely! I think that goes without saying though.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    consider 29+ front and 27.5+ rear. ive been messing around with this on a jones and like it a lot. the 29+ rolls over stuff better, the 27.5+ is a bit more flickable - which id imagine useful in east coast type terrain...the mix isnt half bad!

    fwiw i am 5'11" and have been on 29+ for a while as well as all sorts of weird combos.
    Hmmm - something like the GhostCat - GhostCat ? Matter Cycles - but with an 83mm BB and 157mm dropouts - like the Zen EXP - Zen Fabrication introduces new line of mountain, road and cyclocross bikes .

    A short flickable true 27.5x3.25 rear designed for a 29x3 front. Do you think the standard Jones gets you there?

  34. #34
    Black and Sticky
    Reputation: Bituman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Just keep your powder dry, then. You don't *need* to buy a new bike *right now*. There will probably be some great options in a year.

    -Walt
    I'm considering a VerHauen 29+ right now but with top of the line components. My thinking is that if something comes along in a year that I like better, I can just swap over the components. Or if 29+ turns out to be a boondoggle for me, I can swap to a different platform.

    I agree with you that there is likely some good 29+ stuff on the horizon. It's being mentioned in all the trade magazines, and is gaining considerable momentum.

    Or at least that's the load of crap I'm rationalizing to buy a nice new ride!

    Bob
    "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission." - Neil Kendall

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,299
    @TooSteep the 29+ front being a bit > 29" 'standard' and the 27.5+ being a bit under makes it kick back a little. it probably isnt ideal for general riding, but i use the bike primarily for steepish, shortish climbs, techy rocky rooty riding and for that it is fantastic. i flipped the ebb to compensate for the vey slight drop in bb height with the wheel change. if i had a suspension fork on that type of bike i reckon the 27.5x3.25 ish would be great on the front too - the fork would offset the slight decrease in rollover.

    do i prefer it to 29+ f+r not really!...its different. the 29+ f+r rolls over rough trail really well. i use it for bikepacking, but also for general trail riding. it is also rigid specific. as a mile muncher on rough ground it is ne plus ultra.

    i have a hankering to have a frame made similar to how you suggest. in fact, i think i will. i like Naked's recent 29+ rear ended bike - press fit 83, with a 170 rear. short as possible. the set up is similar to how my fat bike is arranged. 29+ front. 'slackish' geo. the chain line here would be fantastic. 157 would do also though...boost is half steppin' in my eyes. with 157 yo might get a better choice of hubs, but that would be one of only a few reasons not to go 170/177. geo wise a bit like the ghost cat, yes, it looks nice. for me, just like my Vertigo(s).

    i reckon this 'platform' is a fantastic bike to ride slow speed tech on. obviously for hammering big mountains full sus has to be on the radar, but i like slower, pickier riding. (not trials, but not 40mph either!) i like the east coast usa a lot...i could imagine a bike like this ruling state college/shenadoah type terrain, for me at least.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,456
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    @TooSteep the 29+ front being a bit > 29" 'standard' and the 27.5+ being a bit under makes it kick back a little. it probably isnt ideal for general riding, but i use the bike primarily for steepish, shortish climbs, techy rocky rooty riding and for that it is fantastic. i flipped the ebb to compensate for the vey slight drop in bb height with the wheel change. if i had a suspension fork on that type of bike i reckon the 27.5x3.25 ish would be great on the front too - the fork would offset the slight decrease in rollover.

    do i prefer it to 29+ f+r not really!...its different. the 29+ f+r rolls over rough trail really well. i use it for bikepacking, but also for general trail riding. it is also rigid specific. as a mile muncher on rough ground it is ne plus ultra.

    i have a hankering to have a frame made similar to how you suggest. in fact, i think i will. i like Naked's recent 29+ rear ended bike - press fit 83, with a 170 rear. short as possible. the set up is similar to how my fat bike is arranged. 29+ front. 'slackish' geo. the chain line here would be fantastic. 157 would do also though...boost is half steppin' in my eyes. with 157 yo might get a better choice of hubs, but that would be one of only a few reasons not to go 170/177. geo wise a bit like the ghost cat, yes, it looks nice. for me, just like my Vertigo(s).

    i reckon this 'platform' is a fantastic bike to ride slow speed tech on. obviously for hammering big mountains full sus has to be on the radar, but i like slower, pickier riding. (not trials, but not 40mph either!) i like the east coast usa a lot...i could imagine a bike like this ruling state college/shenadoah type terrain, for me at least.
    Interesting discussion, and that Naked bike looks nice! I am in the Que for Walt to build me something similar, but with some tweaks. It's going to be designed mainly for 29+ with an 83mm BB but 135mm rear end for a Rohloff, and rigid specific for a Jones fork that's hanging on my wall. Bikepacking will be the main use, but it will see a bit of everything. It will also hopefully fit 26x4 and 27.5+ as well. Hopefully an EBB if I can figure that out with an 83mm BB. I've been steadily moving up the list, so hopefully in the next month or so we get moving on it. Walt, stop posting and here and keep building!

    Mark

  37. #37
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    I should add that I also have a 29+ Innova Vidar on the front of my FS bike (2013 XL Scott Genius) and it has a slacker HA angle than my Krampus, but this bike has the capacity to go much faster than the Krampus in certain situations and needs to be slacker because of that. The 29+ front Genius handles great and I consider this bike to be the best all around I have ever ridden.
    Point being that I'm not all about steep HAs but that each bike has a specific range of suitable HAs (again, very subjective) that give it the handling traits that the bike was designed for. For me, the Krampus is not the bike I would pick to bomb down rocky terrain on but my Genius....hell yea!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Well, I found a short-term solution to my problem, I bought a used Krampus last night, should be here next week. I'll play with it for a few months and see how I feel about 29+, if it isn't for me, I can resell it for a little less than what I paid for it, and consider it a several month rental. I'll be sure to post here on my impressions on 29+.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    839
    Sorry!!! Wrong thread!!!

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    543
    Deleted
    Last edited by man.cave; 04-14-2015 at 06:50 PM.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,456
    Quote Originally Posted by man.cave View Post
    Im 5'9" and love the 29er, Not saying it is better, just that it works for me. I have not had problems on tight trails and I ride 4 different mtn platforms. (fs, ht, rigid ss, rigid Fat). but I have always had good control on my bike. When folks want to get into mtn biking I always start them out on my driveway, riding figures 8's as small as they can and small tight circles. Then practice balancing the bike at a dead stop. If you can handle the bike like that on my drive way you will be a step ahead on the trail. Can I make a tighter circle on my old 26 yes but it is stupid tight and never needed for trail riding. I haven't rode a switchback up or down that I couldn't ride with my 29er. If need be I could stop and bounce around it, but never had to do that either. Besides if they are that tight you aren't going around them fast anyways.
    You do realize we are talking about 29+ tires, not regular 29er tires, right? 29+ tires measure out around 31" in diameter, quite a bit bigger.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You do realize we are talking about 29+ tires, not regular 29er tires, right? 29+ tires measure out around 31" in diameter, quite a bit bigger.
    Nope. I didn't even pay attention to the + and I have no frame of reference for that. My bad. I know what they are just didn't pay attention.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    437
    Has anyone suggested a Bucksaw?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bubba13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Coloradoxj13 View Post
    Well, I found a short-term solution to my problem, I bought a used Krampus last night, should be here next week. I'll play with it for a few months and see how I feel about 29+, if it isn't for me, I can resell it for a little less than what I paid for it, and consider it a several month rental. I'll be sure to post here on my impressions on 29+.
    How are you liking the Krampus and 29+?

    I recently sold my ECR and built a front suspended Krampus. Every time I ride this bike on an appropriate trail the grins get bigger. Old school PNW single track is where the Krampus and 29+ is in it's element.
    Portland Off Road Navagators

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by bubba13 View Post
    How are you liking the Krampus and 29+?

    I recently sold my ECR and built a front suspended Krampus. Every time I ride this bike on an appropriate trail the grins get bigger. Old school PNW single track is where the Krampus and 29+ is in it's element.
    Pic, just because:
    27.5+ vs 29+-11069685_10101153328816806_2651825808120922883_n.jpg

    I am really enjoying the Krampus, I've only been out on it twice since getting it, been putting in a lot of road miles to train for a 100K gravel grinder in a couple weeks. I don't think I have any problem with the 29+ platform for my local trails, still playing with tire pressure, down to about 12psi and I can definitely go lower (tubeless Chronicles on Dually's). The Krampus feels really long to me, the wheelbase is way longer than I am used to, but I haven't had any trouble getting it around tight turns. The bike feels super stable, and I don't notice it is all that much harder to get the wheels spinning. What is fun is that once they get spinning, they are super stable, even going down loose rocky fire roads the bike feels solid, much more so than any other bike I have ridden. Oh, and traction for days, I haven't even come close to breaking the tires free, I need to re-examine my cornering technique and lean a lot more.

    I'll probably keep riding this for the rest of the summer, and see what is available in the fall/winter to build up for next season. I just don't see myself getting in a ton of mountain riding this season due to a lot of factors, and seeing as how there are so many more options for + sizes now, and likely more to come in the coming months, I'll wait and see.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Coloradoxj13 View Post
    Pic, just because:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	11069685_10101153328816806_2651825808120922883_n.jpg 
Views:	1762 
Size:	83.2 KB 
ID:	989827

    I am really enjoying the Krampus,
    Glad you are enjoying the bike. I love my Krampus.

    From your photo it seems getting a 29+ wheel into a frame that fits you is not a problem.

    I like how the taller wheel on the 29+. They roll through chunky/rooty terrain so well.

    Do you have the rear wheel all the way forward in the horizontal dropouts as you can? My Krampus has a shorter wheelbase than the other mountain bikes I have. I run the wheel tucked in behind me as I can and get proper chain tension.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Glad you are enjoying the bike. I love my Krampus.

    From your photo it seems getting a 29+ wheel into a frame that fits you is not a problem.

    I like how the taller wheel on the 29+. They roll through chunky/rooty terrain so well.

    Do you have the rear wheel all the way forward in the horizontal dropouts as you can? My Krampus has a shorter wheelbase than the other mountain bikes I have. I run the wheel tucked in behind me as I can and get proper chain tension.
    The pic actually is the one the guy I bought it from sent to me, I don't have a pic of the way I have it set up, but I think the saddle height is about the same, I flipped the stem and handlebar (Niner) so it is more positive rise, but yes, the frame fits well.

    I don't have the rear wheel slammed yet, I didn't want to muck with removing links when I first build the bike, it can certainly come in a bit, its on my list of things to do. I'll have to measure the wheelbase and compare to my other bikes, maybe it just looks long due to the wheel/tire size.

Members who have read this thread: 42

Posting Permissions

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