Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1376
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigwheel View Post
    There is already a 2.9 tire full 29" diameter on the way.
    Care to elaborate?

  2. #102
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,067
    Quote Originally Posted by jnroyal View Post
    Mike - do you have any idea when the Chronicle will be available for sale?
    Sorry, no idea.

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    While that may work, this very idea is what drives the so called "B+" idea. Bigger volume, 2.8"-ish width, just slightly less diameter than a 2.3" 29"er tire, and the ability to fit a plethora of 29"er frames, (theoretically).
    If by "just slightly less" you mean only half way to 29er. It's 20mm less, or nearly an inch. The 27.5 format itself is only 38mm less without a +-sized format tire at all! You don't seem to realize that 20mm isn't just a little bit, it's half the shortfall.

    Most of the width is coming from the wide rim, the tire itself is only modestly larger. That's why it's not big enough in diameter. As vikb was saying, it would make sense to have a size more compatible with existing frames. Otherwise the tire should actually be close to 29", not just half way. You can get nearly the same by sticking existing tires on 50mm rims.

    Frankly, if it weren't for the assumption that the tire was mounted on a 50mm, the tire would be more accurately labeled a 2.5", not 2.8.

  4. #104
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    If by "just slightly less" you mean only half way to 29er. It's 20mm less, or nearly an inch. The 27.5 format itself is only 38mm less without a +-sized format tire at all! You don't seem to realize that 20mm isn't just a little bit, it's half the shortfall.

    Most of the width is coming from the wide rim, the tire itself is only modestly larger. That's why it's not big enough in diameter. As vikb was saying, it would make sense to have a size more compatible with existing frames. Otherwise the tire should actually be close to 29", not just half way. You can get nearly the same by sticking existing tires on 50mm rims.

    Frankly, if it weren't for the assumption that the tire was mounted on a 50mm, the tire would be more accurately labeled a 2.5", not 2.8.
    Note: I used the word "theoretically". That's because I didn't have an actual example in hand. Do you?

    You may be right.

    And now I do have an actual sample in hand......
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Note: I used the word "theoretically". That's because I didn't have an actual example in hand. Do you?

    You may be right.

    And now I do have an actual sample in hand......
    GT, I'm betting that craigsj is referencing reporting on your website, and I'm also pretty sure he'll be on shortly to yell at you about it.

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Note: I used the word "theoretically". That's because I didn't have an actual example in hand. Do you?

    You may be right.

    And now I do have an actual sample in hand......
    Well, "theoretically", a tire that can fit a "plethora" of 29er frames using a 650B rim size cannot only be "slightly less" in diameter, so the "very idea" is wrong from the start. This has been known since before 650B was adopted and I would think a founder of a site predicated on the value of wheel size would understand that 20mm isn't just in the margin of error. It's full 1/3 of the original difference that justified your site's existence and half the difference between 29 and 650B.

    My guess is that a few days ago when you posted that comment you did have an actual example in hand. Otherwise how did you publish an initial review on it? You have samples that no one else has and they are given to you for free. Perhaps that's why you might be driven to overlook that they aren't what they manufacturer claims them to be and why you'd offer posts here that tout the same flawed claims. I guess the value of 29" wheels isn't what it used to be; the ad dollars are elsewhere?

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    GT, I'm betting that craigsj is referencing reporting on your website, and I'm also pretty sure he'll be on shortly to yell at you about it.
    You're like Claire-voant or something. Spooky! ;-)

  8. #108
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    If by "just slightly less" you mean only half way to 29er. It's 20mm less, or nearly an inch. The 27.5 format itself is only 38mm less without a +-sized format tire at all! You don't seem to realize that 20mm isn't just a little bit, it's half the shortfall.
    Hmmm, winging it without the tires in hand..

    29" - ISO 622 = 311mm bead seat radius + 59mm big 29er tire = 370mm radius

    B+ - ISO 584 = 292mm bead seat radius + 70mm B+ tire = 362mm radius

    How do you get 20mm difference?

  9. #109
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: 2melow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    While that may work, this very idea is what drives the so called "B+" idea. Bigger volume, 2.8"-ish width, just slightly less diameter than a 2.3" 29"er tire, and the ability to fit a plethora of 29"er frames, (theoretically).
    The WTB Trailblazer 650B+ is in.

    920 grams.

    28.34 inches or 72cm on a 24.6mm wide rim.


    By comparison, a Geax Goma 29" 2.4 measures 29.72 inches or 75.5cm on same 24.6mm wide rim.

    So the WTB Trailblazer 650B+ is 1.37 inches or 3.5cm shorter than a Geax Goma 2.4" tire on the same 24.6mm rim.
    Front Range Forum Moderator

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,470
    Quote Originally Posted by 2melow View Post
    So the WTB Trailblazer 650B+ is 1.37 inches or 3.5cm shorter than a Geax Goma 2.4" tire on the same 24.6mm rim.
    Good info, but kind of a bummer.

  11. #111
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Wish I Were Riding View Post
    Good info, but kind of a bummer.
    That is on a narrow rim.

    It's also worth considering that this is analog to the first 29" Nanoraptor and it's going to err on the side of fitting more things that were never designed to fit it. If the idea takes off and frame designers put more clearance in the right spot on their 29/B+ combi bikes, then we'll probably see the volume creep up.

  12. #112
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Well, "theoretically", a tire that can fit a "plethora" of 29er frames using a 650B rim size cannot only be "slightly less" in diameter, so the "very idea" is wrong from the start. This has been known since before 650B was adopted and I would think a founder of a site predicated on the value of wheel size would understand that 20mm isn't just in the margin of error. It's full 1/3 of the original difference that justified your site's existence and half the difference between 29 and 650B.

    My guess is that a few days ago when you posted that comment you did have an actual example in hand. Otherwise how did you publish an initial review on it? You have samples that no one else has and they are given to you for free. Perhaps that's why you might be driven to overlook that they aren't what they manufacturer claims them to be and why you'd offer posts here that tout the same flawed claims. I guess the value of 29" wheels isn't what it used to be; the ad dollars are elsewhere?
    So...the answer to my question is....?

    Nice personal attacks and assumptions, by the way. Thanks.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,470
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.welby View Post
    That is on a narrow rim.

    It's also worth considering that this is analog to the first 29" Nanoraptor and it's going to err on the side of fitting more things that were never designed to fit it. If the idea takes off and frame designers put more clearance in the right spot on their 29/B+ combi bikes, then we'll probably see the volume creep up.
    Agreed. I'm hoping to hear more about total wheels weights and ride characteristics. I care more about those things than total size (height). If these kinds of setups can give me a ride similar to my 29er, but add some fat wheel traction, without too much of a weight penalty, then this could end up as a custom HT for me. I would then probably never need to be lured to FS (which I really don't need).

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fixgeardan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,148
    Any feedback on the vee trax fatty?

  15. #115
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    If anyone is at Interbike - can you get info on when the Maxxis Chronicle will be available?

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sasquatch rides a SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,559
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    If anyone is at Interbike - can you get info on when the Maxxis Chronicle will be available?
    +1!

  17. #117
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,242
    Finally, actual pics of the Dirt Wizard 29x3.0"! Second from the right
    29+ tire choices-dw-29x3.jpg
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    501

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    If anyone is at Interbike - can you get info on when the Maxxis Chronicle will be available?
    they said around December


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #119
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,270
    Panaracer FatBNimble 27.5/29x3.0 $60




    29+ tire choices-p5pb11403888.jpg
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    Panaracer FatBNimble 27.5/29x3.0 $60
    Whoah. That one's new to me.

    So this is at least the 3rd 27.5+ tire I've seen, yet there really is no true 27.5+ bike to run them on. Do the tire makers assume that all the fat bikers are going to buy 27.5 wheels to run these on? Or is this the rare example of the tire makers being ahead of the coming trend?

  21. #121
    Big wheels keep on rollin
    Reputation: senor_mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    313
    This is getting pretty exciting. The 275+ Panaracer will probably fit my custom 29er hard tail even if it's a real 3.0".

    I'm sure some existing production bikes will fit both the WTB and this Panaracer tire. I'm pretty sure the Singular Swift will as it almost clears a 29+ Knard and normally there is more room as you go further back.

    And there are a lot of lesser know custom builders out there who can build a compatible frame for less than $1500. And made in the good old USA too.
    Last edited by senor_mikey; 09-11-2014 at 11:41 PM.

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kyttyra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    187
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o
    Just pick up some worn Knards for free to low cost and keep riding them. They'll get slicker by the mile.

    They roll fine on pavement when new so you won't hate life as you "break them in" to slickness.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    Panaracer FatBNimble 27.5/29x3.0 $60
    That's great news, 29+ and 27.5+ versions! And a good price too!

    Any idea when they will be available?

  25. #125
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Whoah. That one's new to me.

    So this is at least the 3rd 27.5+ tire I've seen, yet there really is no true 27.5+ bike to run them on. Do the tire makers assume that all the fat bikers are going to buy 27.5 wheels to run these on? Or is this the rare example of the tire makers being ahead of the coming trend?
    B+, or 27.5+, will likely fit into most current 29"er hard tails and some FS 29"ers. That is the entire point behind it. Use "plus" sized 27.5" rubber, a new wheelset, and use your current 29"er.

    That said, I don't doubt some frame builders will be doing "specific" B+ frames and forks, but that wasn't the point behind the idea at all. (And yes- I have that from the source.)
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Whoah. That one's new to me.

    So this is at least the 3rd 27.5+ tire I've seen, yet there really is no true 27.5+ bike to run them on. Do the tire makers assume that all the fat bikers are going to buy 27.5 wheels to run these on? Or is this the rare example of the tire makers being ahead of the coming trend?
    Rocky Mountain confirmed that a version of the Sherpa will see production in 2015

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: funnyjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    612

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    B+, or 27.5+, will likely fit into most current 29"er hard tails and some FS 29"ers. That is the entire point behind it. Use "plus" sized 27.5" rubber, a new wheelset, and use your current 29"er.

    That said, I don't doubt some frame builders will be doing "specific" B+ frames and forks, but that wasn't the point behind the idea at all. (And yes- I have that from the source.)
    Id like to think this but most crop of HT or FS 29er frames will likely not clear 3.0 tire size as they have difficulty even with 2.4 at times. I'm sure though there's the odd frame that will allow for 3.0 clearance.

  28. #128
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by funnyjr View Post
    Id like to think this but most crop of HT or FS 29er frames will likely not clear 3.0 tire size as they have difficulty even with 2.4 at times. I'm sure though there's the odd frame that will allow for 3.0 clearance.
    It has fit into all the frames I've tried it in so far, (only four, but still...), and it will fit all current sus forks for 29"ers. Keeping in mind that the overall diameter is less than a full on 29"er, (28 9/16ths on a Blunt 35 rim), and that the actual width of the Trailblazer on a Blunt 35 is slightly over 2.6" I think that indeed it will work on may more frames than you might think.

    If any other manufacturers do a tire over 2.7-2.8" in the 584ISO bead diameter, then I think you have a very valid point.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    501
    Ted,
    What frames have you put the TrailBlazer in?
    I've just gotten a set and will be trying it in a Niner Air 9 as soon as I get the axles and rotors swapped out.
    My 27.5 wheels use the Derby rims with an inside width of 35mm

    WTB Trailblazer 2.8

    I was kinda hoping to get a list going for frames that this tire fits with the rim used

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    B+, or 27.5+, will likely fit into most current 29"er hard tails and some FS 29"ers. That is the entire point behind it. Use "plus" sized 27.5" rubber, a new wheelset, and use your current 29"er.

    That said, I don't doubt some frame builders will be doing "specific" B+ frames and forks, but that wasn't the point behind the idea at all. (And yes- I have that from the source.)
    Right, but you're referring to the Trailblazer, a claimed 2.8 tire that measures out much narrower. If the FatBnimble and the Vee Trax 3.0 tires fit into most 29ers, I'll be shocked. I think you are letting one tire speak for the entire B+ concept. It's not like WTB is way out front of Vee Trax or Panaracer. I understand WTB's intentions. We'll have to see how many frames their Scrapper wheel set and Trailblazer tire fit into. Part of what people think about when they hear + sized bikes is fattish rims. Sounds like riders will have to drop to a 35mm rim, and lower, to fit the Trailblazer into "most" 29er frames. And a true 3.0 tire not at all. What I would consider a true 27.5 plus bike doesn't exist yet. Yet the tires are being announced. Obviously these are all labels, and whatever floats a rider's boat, and it would sure be great if I could fit a true 3.0 tire on a 40-50mm 650b rim in my already owned 29er, but that ain't happening. I'd even take a true 2.8.

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    As much BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by the companies that try to profit and the bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it, it still remains that the tire/rim does not come close to an actual 29er in rolling diameter, nor does it make a compelling argument against a tire of identical width mounted on a 29er rim of 35-40mm width (or even 50mm width). This fraudulent "B+" format is in no way a substitute or replacement for a 29er wheel nor does it offer anything that isn't done better with a 29er rim and the same dimension tire. You'd think people who understood the value of large wheels would know better.

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,137
    I'm with stupid^

    The whole point of the krampus was 29" wheels with oversized rubber, but not too big. Everybody declares how much traction there is and how well it rolls. So the counterpoint is to...go smaller? It's great that it fits in so many 29er frames, but just like 650b is a compromise between 26 and 29, what's the point of half fat on a half size wheel?

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    48
    Well, one can have too much traction (self-steer).

    Also, a wheel this tall might cause problems with FS rigs, and you might run into toe overlap on smaller sizes.
    And wheelbase will be understandably 'train-like'.

    But I think you have a point. After all, there 140mm travel niners. If you reduce travel by 20mm and increase max tyre size to 3"... that might be perfect AM machine.
    Gobs of traction everywhere except loose sand, no self-steer, tyres will gobble small stuff and suspension will deal with big hits. And due to relatively short travel it would still be quite pedalable... but 'you must be THIS-> tall to ride this bike'

    Fortunately I am ~6ft.
    Lesser people will likely have to deal with B+ wheels.

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    One issue with traction and tire size that folks overlook is that with a wide tire your run low pressures which pushes each knob into the ground with less force relative to the same knob pattern on a skinny 2.4" tire.

    So some surfaces you get more traction from a 3" tire and some you get less. Just depends on the situation and how important it is for the knobs to dig into the ground.

    Also consider that if you go to a very aggressively knobbed wide tire to get more traction with less ground pressure you now end up with a very heavy tire to roll.

    I love my 29+ rig, but it's a mistake to assume wide tire = more traction all the time.

    There are pros and cons to each option.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    As much BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by the companies that try to profit and the bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it, it still remains that the tire/rim does not come close to an actual 29er in rolling diameter, nor does it make a compelling argument against a tire of identical width mounted on a 29er rim of 35-40mm width (or even 50mm width). This fraudulent "B+" format is in no way a substitute or replacement for a 29er wheel nor does it offer anything that isn't done better with a 29er rim and the same dimension tire. You'd think people who understood the value of large wheels would know better.
    I'm not sure why you are so anti B+. I'm not seeing all the 'BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by companies that try to profit and bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it'. WTB has barely even mentioned this tire, It just recently go put on their website, and it'e not even on their special 'New 2015 Tires' page. Pretty much the only place to find information on this stuff is right here, on MTBR.

    Believe it or not, 29+ does have limitations. A true 27.5+ tire will have some advantages over a 29+ tire in same situations. Just like a 29+ tire will have some advantages over a 27.5+ tire in some situations. To state that a 29+ tire does everything better is just false. If larger wheels are always better, why are you not riding 36" wheels?

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    I'm with stupid^

    The whole point of the krampus was 29" wheels with oversized rubber, but not too big. Everybody declares how much traction there is and how well it rolls. So the counterpoint is to...go smaller? It's great that it fits in so many 29er frames, but just like 650b is a compromise between 26 and 29, what's the point of half fat on a half size wheel?
    The problem with your statement is that not everyone declares 29+ as perfect. Yes, it has awesome traction, yes it holds momentum great, but it's not perfect, it's also a compromise. They are heavy, they take more effort to accelerate, etc.

    The point of 27.5+is to get the rollover of a 29er with the traction and bump eating properties of 29+, but in a lighter more maneuverable package.

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    I'm not sure why you are so anti B+. I'm not seeing all the 'BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by companies that try to profit and bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it'. WTB has barely even mentioned this tire, It just recently go put on their website, and it'e not even on their special 'New 2015 Tires' page. Pretty much the only place to find information on this stuff is right here, on MTBR.
    I'm anti-dishonesty, not anti-B+. B+, though, is a slightly bigger tire on a massively larger rim, not a new format. Also, there's this pretense that it works out to be close to a 29er when it does not. The shortfall is nearly the same as the difference between 26 and 650B itself which, in another context, is considered massive. Very selective double standards here.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Believe it or not, 29+ does have limitations. A true 27.5+ tire will have some advantages over a 29+ tire in same situations. Just like a 29+ tire will have some advantages over a 27.5+ tire in some situations. To state that a 29+ tire does everything better is just false. If larger wheels are always better, why are you not riding 36" wheels?
    It would be interesting to enumerate those differences rather than to just suggest that they matter.

    Having not ridden a 36" wheeled bike there could be a lot of reasons, but I don't have interest because there is no infrastructure to support that wheel size. I have stated previously that I would have preferred the industry invest in a larger than 29er wheel size rather than on the 650B fool's gold that it has. I suspect 36" is too big but you are thinking right.

    Let's approach this another way. How many riders do you think will consider a "performance upgrade" for their new 650B bikes by swapping their wheels out for 26ers? NONE. Why, then, will B+ appeal to 29er riders as a "performance upgrade"? Same downgrade in wheel size, same adverse consequences on BB height. Funny how one would matter so greatly while the other one not at all. It's just about the buzz.

    Frankly, if you wanted a + format swap out for existing frames, you should make a 26+ format that fits into 650B frames. Makes more sense and the diameter *would* match them. Big wheel suck anyway, right?

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    The point of 27.5+is to get the rollover of a 29er with the traction and bump eating properties of 29+, but in a lighter more maneuverable package.
    This is complete nonsense that reads like the marketing BS of 650B itself.

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This is complete nonsense that reads like the marketing BS of 650B itself.
    Please explain why this is nonsense. I really wish you would actually explain some of your ideas instead of just insulting people, maybe someone would actually learn something!

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I'm anti-dishonesty, not anti-B+. B+, though, is a slightly bigger tire on a massively larger rim, not a new format. Also, there's this pretense that it works out to be close to a 29er when it does not. The shortfall is nearly the same as the difference between 26 and 650B itself which, in another context, is considered massive. Very selective double standards here.


    It would be interesting to enumerate those differences rather than to just suggest that they matter.

    Having not ridden a 36" wheeled bike there could be a lot of reasons, but I don't have interest because there is no infrastructure to support that wheel size. I have stated previously that I would have preferred the industry invest in a larger than 29er wheel size rather than on the 650B fool's gold that it has. I suspect 36" is too big but you are thinking right.

    Let's approach this another way. How many riders do you think will consider a "performance upgrade" for their new 650B bikes by swapping their wheels out for 26ers? NONE. Why, then, will B+ appeal to 29er riders as a "performance upgrade"? Same downgrade in wheel size, same adverse consequences on BB height. Funny how one would matter so greatly while the other one not at all. It's just about the buzz.

    Frankly, if you wanted a + format swap out for existing frames, you should make a 26+ format that fits into 650B frames. Makes more sense and the diameter *would* match them. Big wheel suck anyway, right?
    Have you even ridden 29+ tires? Have you even considered that some trails might be better suited to different tire sizes? Oh wait, you just bought the most expensive 50mm wide 29er rims to try out, but you think they are clownishly big and offer no performance advantages.

    I have ridden 29ers extensively over the last 10 years, and 29+ over the past 2 years. The extra diameter and weight of the 29+ works great in some situations, but not all. On tight twisty technical singletrack with constant direction changes and accelerations, they are just too big. Too much effort is required get them back up to speed every time.

    And your 27.5 to 26+ argument actually makes sense. If I was ridding 27.5 and liked the ride but wanted more comfort and traction, 26+ would be a great option. In fact, 26+ actually exists, again thanks to Surly.

    And why are you inferring that I think big wheels suck? I have never said anything even remotely close to that.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Please explain why this is nonsense. I really wish you would actually explain some of your ideas instead of just insulting people, maybe someone would actually learn something!
    The point of 27.5+is to get the rollover of a 29er with the traction and bump eating properties of 29+, but in a lighter more maneuverable package.
    1. How do you know what the point of 27.5+ is?
    2. 27.5+ does not get the rollover of 29 since it is an inch smaller in diameter.
    3. The difference in weight between 27.5+ and 29+ is the same as between 27.5 and 29, a few percent.
    4. 27.5+ will almost certainly be heavier and more sluggish than conventional 29ers.
    5. 27.5+ does not inherently offer a "more maneuverable package". Bicycles are maneuverable, wheels are parts.

    Not only did you claim to know what you can't, everything you said is classic 650B propaganda. Take away the "+" and we've heard it before.

    27.5+ is 29+ only 38mm smaller in diameter. That's it, no magic, just like 650B generally.

    The point of B+ is that it's 650B and that means it must be better in some people's minds. 650B is too small to be a drop in on 29er frames. We all knew that going in but now we're supposed to pretend otherwise.

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Have you even ridden 29+ tires? Have you even considered that some trails might be better suited to different tire sizes? Oh wait, you just bought the most expensive 50mm wide 29er rims to try out, but you think they are clownishly big and offer no performance advantages.
    Are you choking on the fact that I bought the "most expensive" 50mm rims? Does it make you angry? I'll be sure to post pics for you.

    Of course, everything else you said is dishonest and intentionally misleading. What a surprise.

    What I said was that "better" was an unjustified value judgement, that B+ would be a better size match if it chose a smaller rim and larger casing, that's it's not at all clear that a 50mm is a compelling advantage for a 65mm tire, and that there's no reason a 35mm rim would not work just fine in that application. I did say they are clownishly big but that's my favorite part.

    Regarding my purchase, I intend to do my testing, not just run my mouth like so many here do. I am convinced that 50mm won't suck or I wouldn't have invested. Furthermore, I have tested a cheaper 50mm rim already with 29+ but it blows. I would have preferred a somewhat smaller rim and said so. Frankly, if I had it to do again I wouldn't, I would simply wait for the Ibis rims to come available. Ultimately I believe I will view the big rims as nothing more than a liability at the tire sizes I'm interested in. They will look good, though.

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    1. How do you know what the point of 27.5+ is?
    2. 27.5+ does not get the rollover of 29 since it is an inch smaller in diameter.
    3. The difference in weight between 27.5+ and 29+ is the same as between 27.5 and 29, a few percent.
    4. 27.5+ will almost certainly be heavier and more sluggish than conventional 29ers.
    5. 27.5+ does not inherently offer a "more maneuverable package". Bicycles are maneuverable, wheels are parts.

    Not only did you claim to know what you can't, everything you said is classic 650B propaganda. Take away the "+" and we've heard it before.

    27.5+ is 29+ only 38mm smaller in diameter. That's it, no magic, just like 650B generally.

    The point of B+ is that it's 650B and that means it must be better in some people's minds. 650B is too small to be a drop in on 29er frames. We all knew that going in but now we're supposed to pretend otherwise.
    1. I know the point of 27.5+ because I actually read and comprehend stuff. Written by the people who had a hand in creating it.
    2. 27.5+ will have the same rollover as a smaller 29er tire, as the diameter is the same.
    3. The difference in weight will depend on a lot of factors, stating it will be a few percent is false. In general, tire weights between the same model in the 2 sizes are 50 to 100g for non '+' tires. The weight difference between '+' models will be even more. Not too many rims to compare, but looking at the Hugo and Blunt 35, about 40g per rim. Shorter spokes will cut some weight as well. So you are looking at at least 150g per wheel, more than a few percent.
    4. Why will 27.5+ be heavier than conventional 29er? Even if it is, there will be performance advantages that will be worth the extra weight FOR SOME RIDERS.
    5. 27.5+ will most certainly be more maneuverable than 29+ all else being equal.

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Are you choking on the fact that I bought the "most expensive" 50mm rims? Does it make you angry? I'll be sure to post pics for you.

    Of course, everything else you said is dishonest and intentionally misleading. What a surprise.

    What I said was that "better" was an unjustified value judgement, that B+ would be a better size match if it chose a smaller rim and larger casing, that's it's not at all clear that a 50mm is a compelling advantage for a 65mm tire, and that there's no reason a 35mm rim would not work just fine in that application. I did say they are clownishly big but that's my favorite part.

    Regarding my purchase, I intend to do my testing, not just run my mouth like so many here do. I am convinced that 50mm won't suck or I wouldn't have invested. Furthermore, I have tested a cheaper 50mm rim already with 29+ but it blows. I would have preferred a somewhat smaller rim and said so. Frankly, if I had it to do again I wouldn't, I would simply wait for the Ibis rims to come available. Ultimately I believe I will view the big rims as nothing more than a liability at the tire sizes I'm interested in. They will look good, though.
    Why would I care about what rims you bought, except to point out that you think they offer no advantage yet spent big money on them. I just bought virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost, I'll be sure to post pics for you.

    Please explain what was dishonest and intentionally misleading about what I said.

  45. #145
    Big wheels keep on rollin
    Reputation: senor_mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This is complete nonsense that reads like the marketing BS of 650B itself.
    these WTB 2.8" tires certainly makes sense to me and most others I have talked to about it. They offer a clear advantage for loose sandy condition like we have in the So Cal area. I certainly am going to get a set myself.

    Perhaps your opinion is best kept to yourself if you don't have anything positive to contribute?

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    1. Sure thing, I believe you.
    2. For some 29er tire that you get to pick. 29er tires that are 28", a CX tire.
    3. The difference in size between 650B and 29 is 5-6%. That will be the weight difference as well. Again, you cherry pick data to suit you.
    4. Because + tires are heavier than 29er tires, especially when you are picking sub-2" 29er tires for the rollover comparison!
    5. No they won't. Wheels aren't maneuverable, bicycles are. Maneuverability is a function of wheelbase mostly. Prove that B+ results in a shorter wheelbase, especially when you claim the diameter is the same.

    Like typical MTBR posters, you make up data to suit your opinions and you don't understand the issues as well as you think.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    Why would I care about what rims you bought, except to point out that you think they offer no advantage yet spent big money on them. I just bought virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost, I'll be sure to post pics for you.
    Indeed, why should you? And why would you comment on the cost? And why do you think they represent "big money" to me?

    I'm sure, though, you got virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost. You are better than me in every way, right? I bet you talked personally with the people who made my rims, too, and they assured you that the comments you are making about my purchase are accurate and not misleading in any way!

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    Please explain what was dishonest and intentionally misleading about what I said.
    I've done that already, you're just in denial.

    Here's another way to look at the questionable value of 50mm rims. A wider rim produces a wider casing but that alone means nothing other than more clearance is required. On smaller tires the extra wide rim results in little or no performance benefit, a tire must be large enough before the benefit is there. Problem is that clearance becomes an issue before that pays off (on conventional trail bikes). All the wide rim does is cause clearance issues before it becomes a win.

    Of course, this is subjective but based on commonly accepted rim widths today it is absolutely the case. B+ tire widths could be implemented with a larger casing on a 40mm rim and still have a wide rim by today's standards. They would be a better size match, have better rollover, and support lower pressures. Wouldn't look as cool, though. Sorry, but this has not been thought through by competent engineers.

    On a bike designed for clearance this is not an issue, but that's not the case for me and my specific purchase NOR is it the case for a format that is specifically intended as a retrofit for existing frames. I'm not saying 50mm is universally a bad size, just that it isn't the smart choice for the intended application.

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    1. Sure thing, I believe you.
    2. For some 29er tire that you get to pick. 29er tires that are 28", a CX tire.
    3. The difference in size between 650B and 29 is 5-6%. That will be the weight difference as well. Again, you cherry pick data to suit you.
    4. Because + tires are heavier than 29er tires, especially when you are picking sub-2" 29er tires for the rollover comparison!
    5. No they won't. Wheels aren't maneuverable, bicycles are. Maneuverability is a function of wheelbase mostly. Prove that B+ results in a shorter wheelbase, especially when you claim the diameter is the same.

    Like typical MTBR posters, you make up data to suit your opinions and you don't understand the issues as well as you think.


    Indeed, why should you? And why would you comment on the cost? And why do you think they represent "big money" to me?

    I'm sure, though, you got virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost. You are better than me in every way, right? I bet you talked personally with the people who made my rims, too, and they assured you that the comments you are making about my purchase are accurate and not misleading in any way!


    I've done that already, you're just in denial.

    Here's another way to look at the questionable value of 50mm rims. A wider rim produces a wider casing but that alone means nothing other than more clearance is required. On smaller tires the extra wide rim results in little or no performance benefit, a tire must be large enough before the benefit is there. Problem is that clearance becomes an issue before that pays off (on conventional trail bikes). All the wide rim does is cause clearance issues before it becomes a win.

    Of course, this is subjective but based on commonly accepted rim widths today it is absolutely the case. B+ tire widths could be implemented with a larger casing on a 40mm rim and still have a wide rim by today's standards. They would be a better size match, have better rollover, and support lower pressures. Wouldn't look as cool, though. Sorry, but this has not been thought through by competent engineers.

    On a bike designed for clearance this is not an issue, but that's not the case for me and my specific purchase NOR is it the case for a format that is specifically intended as a retrofit for existing frames. I'm not saying 50mm is universally a bad size, just that it isn't the smart choice for the intended application.
    You seem to have reading comprehension problems, so I am going to try to explain this stuff really clearly.

    The diameter difference that you are so concerned about all depends on what you are comparing it to. Nobody ever said this WTB 27.5x2.8 tire would be the same diameter as the fattest 29er tires out there. Not everyone rides 29x2.4 tires on 35mm rims. Most people ride 2.1 to 2.2 tires on smaller rims. The WTB tire is the same diameter as a small/medium size 29er tire on what you call a 'commonly accepted rim width'. I know that because I have measured them myself.

    The weight difference between 29+ and 27+ will not be your theoretical 5-6%. There is not much out to compare right now, but I will take the only current published information that is available to compare 29+ to 27.5+. The only tire that is available in both formats is the Vee Trax Fatty(the 27.5 version is actually wider as well). The lightest 29+ version weighs 920g, the lightest 27.5 version weighs 800g. The only plus size rim with information available in both sizes is the Hugo. The 29er version weighs 622g, the 27.5 version weighs 585g. So if we use real math to add rim + tire weight, we get a 29+ weight of 1542, and a 27.5+ weight of 1385g. Then we use more math to figure out that the 29+ is 11.3% heavier than 27.5+. Obviously, all setups will not have the same weight difference, but that's all we have right now.

    You are mixing up your 29er and 29+ arguments on number 5. I said 27.5+ will be more maneuverable than 29+. The handling and maneuverability of a bike does not depend mostly on wheelbase, that is a false and misleading statement. There are tons of variables that go into that equation. Wheelbase is certainly one of them, but so are wheel weight, wheel diameter, head tube angle, seat tube angle, etc.

    You are the only one here making up data. Not once have you supported anything you have said with personal experience or actual data.

    The rest of your argument makes no sense and contains a whole bunch or theories and arguments based on nothing.

    You seem to be under the impression that B+ was created to fit into existing frames. The WTB Trailblazer was designed to fit into existing frames, that is correct. The whole format was not. That's why the other tires will be bigger, and there will be new frames designed to fit them.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    The diameter difference that you are so concerned about all depends on what you are comparing it to. Nobody ever said this WTB 27.5x2.8 tire would be the same diameter as the fattest 29er tires out there. Not everyone rides 29x2.4 tires on 35mm rims. Most people ride 2.1 to 2.2 tires on smaller rims. The WTB tire is the same diameter as a small/medium size 29er tire on what you call a 'commonly accepted rim width'. I know that because I have measured them myself.
    Why would anyone consider upgrading to B+ if they are satisfied with small/medium size 29er tires? Why wouldn't they try the "fattest 29er tires out there" first? It makes utterly no sense to compare B+ to narrower 29er tires except that it supports your narrative.

    2.1-2.2 29er tires are larger than the WTB anyway. You have to go sub-2.0" to match and those are hard to find. The WTB tire is barely larger than the largest 650B tires to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    The weight difference between 29+ and 27+ will not be your theoretical 5-6%.
    It will and it does for conventional sizes. You can make up whatever non-verifiable numbers you want, but there's no reason for a weight difference beyond the size difference itself.

    BTW, say a wheel set weighs about 3500g. That wouldn't be outside of normal. 5-6% of that is about 100g per wheel and that's what it should be roughly speaking. Furthermore, that will become 2% of the entire bike and 0.3% of the bike+rider. BFD. No one would care about this if it weren't so important to tell us how great 650B is.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You are mixing up your 29er and 29+ arguments on number 5. I said 27.5+ will be more maneuverable than 29+. The handling and maneuverability of a bike does not depend mostly on wheelbase, that is a false and misleading statement. There are tons of variables that go into that equation. Wheelbase is certainly one of them, but so are wheel weight, wheel diameter, head tube angle, seat tube angle, etc.
    Ignoring the absurdity of suggesting that seat tube angle affects maneuverability, you clearly are a shallow thinker in this area. Wheel weight and diameter don't, in fact, affect this despite common belief and head tube angle isn't dictated by wheel format. By far, the greatest dimension that wheel size impacts is wheelbase (then CS length). You must prove that B+ will result in meaningful reductions here or your assertion is worthless. Maneuverability is just another wardrum that the small-wheeled crowd beats.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Not once have you supported anything you have said with personal experience or actual data.
    What actual data would you like me to make up? I don't brag about my personal conquests, they are meaningless to the forums. I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You seem to be under the impression that B+ was created to fit into existing frames. The WTB Trailblazer was designed to fit into existing frames, that is correct. The whole format was not. That's why the other tires will be bigger, and there will be new frames designed to fit them.
    I thought you talked to the guys who created B+? Who were they exactly and can we get a notarized statement?

    Why bother comparing B+ to 29 at all if the format isn't retrofit? Frankly, we all know the retrofit concept is flawed because the rim is too small.

    Incidently, I'm not opposed to B+, I'm opposed to calling the WTB a new format simply because it's mount on an enormous rim. It's barely bigger than an Ardent 2.4. True 3.0 or 3.25" fine, but those aren't fitting into 29er frames so comparing them to 29ers is meaningless.

    Still, you have to try abnormally hard to justify B+ over 29+, the most compelling argument traditionally being long travel suspensions which aren't applicable (at this time). Bigger wheels work better.

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.
    Funny stuff! You have provided exactly zero verifiable data. Myself and others have actually provided verifiable data, but you claim we are lying.

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Why would anyone consider upgrading to B+ if they are satisfied with small/medium size 29er tires? Why wouldn't they try the "fattest 29er tires out there" first? It makes utterly no sense to compare B+ to narrower 29er tires except that it supports your narrative.

    2.1-2.2 29er tires are larger than the WTB anyway. You have to go sub-2.0" to match and those are hard to find. The WTB tire is barely larger than the largest 650B tires to begin with.


    It will and it does for conventional sizes. You can make up whatever non-verifiable numbers you want, but there's no reason for a weight difference beyond the size difference itself.

    BTW, say a wheel set weighs about 3500g. That wouldn't be outside of normal. 5-6% of that is about 100g per wheel and that's what it should be roughly speaking. Furthermore, that will become 2% of the entire bike and 0.3% of the bike+rider. BFD. No one would care about this if it weren't so important to tell us how great 650B is.


    Ignoring the absurdity of suggesting that seat tube angle affects maneuverability, you clearly are a shallow thinker in this area. Wheel weight and diameter don't, in fact, affect this despite common belief and head tube angle isn't dictated by wheel format. By far, the greatest dimension that wheel size impacts is wheelbase (then CS length). You must prove that B+ will result in meaningful reductions here or your assertion is worthless. Maneuverability is just another wardrum that the small-wheeled crowd beats.


    What actual data would you like me to make up? I don't brag about my personal conquests, they are meaningless to the forums. I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.


    I thought you talked to the guys who created B+? Who were they exactly and can we get a notarized statement?

    Why bother comparing B+ to 29 at all if the format isn't retrofit? Frankly, we all know the retrofit concept is flawed because the rim is too small.

    Incidently, I'm not opposed to B+, I'm opposed to calling the WTB a new format simply because it's mount on an enormous rim. It's barely bigger than an Ardent 2.4. True 3.0 or 3.25" fine, but those aren't fitting into 29er frames so comparing them to 29ers is meaningless.

    Still, you have to try abnormally hard to justify B+ over 29+, the most compelling argument traditionally being long travel suspensions which aren't applicable (at this time). Bigger wheels work better.
    You, sir, have elevated the art of spewing sh!t to a whole new level of awesomeness. I bow at your sh!t spewing feet. You should be crowned the King of MTBR sh!t spewing. There are plenty of people on MTBR who spew sh!t, but their sh!t spewing pales in comparison to the mighty craigsj. Your 2282 posts should be required reading for all MTBR wanna-be sh!t spewers. That last post of yours has so much sh!t spewing it's impossible to even begin a rebuttal. That post should go into the sh!t spewing hall of fame for all to read and admire. I'm not sure how you refined your sh!t spewing to the level you are currently spewing sh!t, but you should really consider holding a sh!t spewing seminar so others can learn how to spew sh!t as well as you. Or maybe the world is not ready for that level of sh!t spewing from multiple sh!t spewers, the interwebs may just implode if confronted with that quantity and quality of spewed sh!t.

    Thanks for the entertainment

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    501

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Why would anyone consider upgrading to B+ if they are satisfied with small/medium size 29er tires? Why wouldn't they try the "fattest 29er tires out there" first? It makes utterly no sense to compare B+ to narrower 29er tires except that it supports your narrative.

    2.1-2.2 29er tires are larger than the WTB anyway. You have to go sub-2.0" to match and those are hard to find. The WTB tire is barely larger than the largest 650B tires to begin with.


    It will and it does for conventional sizes. You can make up whatever non-verifiable numbers you want, but there's no reason for a weight difference beyond the size difference itself.

    BTW, say a wheel set weighs about 3500g. That wouldn't be outside of normal. 5-6% of that is about 100g per wheel and that's what it should be roughly speaking. Furthermore, that will become 2% of the entire bike and 0.3% of the bike+rider. BFD. No one would care about this if it weren't so important to tell us how great 650B is.


    Ignoring the absurdity of suggesting that seat tube angle affects maneuverability, you clearly are a shallow thinker in this area. Wheel weight and diameter don't, in fact, affect this despite common belief and head tube angle isn't dictated by wheel format. By far, the greatest dimension that wheel size impacts is wheelbase (then CS length). You must prove that B+ will result in meaningful reductions here or your assertion is worthless. Maneuverability is just another wardrum that the small-wheeled crowd beats.


    What actual data would you like me to make up? I don't brag about my personal conquests, they are meaningless to the forums. I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.


    I thought you talked to the guys who created B+? Who were they exactly and can we get a notarized statement?

    Why bother comparing B+ to 29 at all if the format isn't retrofit? Frankly, we all know the retrofit concept is flawed because the rim is too small.

    Incidently, I'm not opposed to B+, I'm opposed to calling the WTB a new format simply because it's mount on an enormous rim. It's barely bigger than an Ardent 2.4. True 3.0 or 3.25" fine, but those aren't fitting into 29er frames so comparing them to 29ers is meaningless.

    Still, you have to try abnormally hard to justify B+ over 29+, the most compelling argument traditionally being long travel suspensions which aren't applicable (at this time). Bigger wheels work better.
    ....
    You, sir, have elevated the art of spewing sh!t to a whole new level of awesomeness. I bow at your sh!t spewing feet. You should be crowned the King of MTBR sh!t spewing. There are plenty of people on MTBR who spew sh!t, but their sh!t spewing pales in comparison to the mighty craigsj. Your 2282 posts should be required reading for all MTBR wanna-be sh!t spewers. That last post of yours has so much sh!t spewing it's impossible to even begin a rebuttal. That post should go into the sh!t spewing hall of fame for all to read and admire. I'm not sure how you refined your sh!t spewing to the level you are currently spewing sh!t, but you should really consider holding a sh!t spewing seminar so others can learn how to spew sh!t as well as you. Or maybe the world is not ready for that level of sh!t spewing from multiple sh!t spewers, the interwebs may just implode if confronted with that quantity and quality of spewed sh!t.

    Thanks for the entertainment
    Awesome !!
    Two Thumbs Up

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post

    "A wider rim produces a wider casing but that alone means nothing other than more clearance is required.
    On smaller tires the extra wide rim results in little or no performance benefit, a tire must be large enough before the benefit is there. "
    Out of the many very entertaining statements you have made over the last couple of days.. This one is a true gem Thank You

    You do have plenty of enthusiasm. Gotta give you that.
    Yes craig... Yes !!! ..a smaller tire on a wider rim can have desirable effects for some situations..
    depending on the carcass construction it can better support and stiffen the sidewall,
    it can change the profile of the tread, it can change the angles of deflection, it can change the shape/size/depth of the contact patch, etc...
    and, there will always be compromises too.

    The point is for gearheads like us there are ways we can "tune" a tire for a desired effect just like a motorbuilder tunes an engine with cam timing, or fuel mapping, or whatever....
    tire choice, rim choice, and pressure are the tools. There isn't a single formula that will always work every time because there is such a large amount of variables to deal with.
    no two tires measure the same way. even within the same brand and model the variations are pretty wide.
    MFG's, mechanic's, engineer's, etc.. are not liars because their measurements come out different then yours. It just would'nt be worth the expense to reduce that variation to thousands of an inch

    Maybe, it would be nice if a tire size was only referred to by the ERD, profile height, and width.
    Honestly, I don't really care if two tires are both "labled" the same 29" diameter and neither really are 29"... I do care that they are different from each other.
    Thats a good thing it gives me more choices. I still need to have it my hands to see if it might work for what I want.
    In in any kind of tuning/racing/tweekin' there have never been shortcuts to that.

  53. #153
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    From DirtRag Interbike roundup:

    Surly finally has samples of the awaited 29x3.0 Dirt Wizard tire. The tread pattern is changed from the 26x2.75 that comes stock on the Instigator, beefing up the cornering knobs, and almost eliminating the small intermediate knobs. Prices and TPI counts will be similar to the Knard, but there was talk about offering a TPI count between the current heavy and sturdy 27TPI wire bead and the light and fragile 120TPI model with the folding bead. We are still going to have to wait until spring at the earliest for these tires, but we should have the 29+ offerings from Maxxis and Vee Tire in-house soon to play with in the meantime.

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Funny stuff! You have provided exactly zero verifiable data. Myself and others have actually provided verifiable data, but you claim we are lying.
    I would rather provide no data than made up data. What verifiable data have you provided?

    I do know from the recent WTB "review" that the WTB tire has a casing size of 165mm. I also know from that review that the rolling diameter is 20mm less than an Ikon 2.35 on a 35mm 29er rim. I know the Ikon dimensions because I've measured them and they're verifiable. The Ikon has a 150mm casing size. I measured that as well.

    I also know the casing size of the Knard is 185mm. I know that because I measured it and it's verifiable. It has a casing 20mm larger than the WTB.

    You know what else I know? The Geax Goma has a casing size of 160mm. Although it's a 29er, it's the same weight as the WTB and measures 64mm wide unstretched on a Dually rim. You can add 2mm or so to match the WTB rim. The Goma has a 63mm tread width vs. 60mm for the WTB and is a full inch larger in diameter. All that is verifiable as well since you can buy those readily.

    So you see, bikeny, I do measure things and I know how to run a calculator. I don't fall for the nonsense that 650B wheels as just as big as 29ers and are a lot lighter. I'm onto the game.

    It is interesting that the Goma is very close to the same size tire as the WTB despite being labeled a 2.4. On a 50mm rim it will measure 2.6 unstretched and perhaps 2.7 after use. It also has a more proportional tread. The WTB listed as a B+ 2.8 tire is a fraud.

  55. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You, sir, have elevated the art of spewing sh!t to a whole new level of awesomeness. ...
    This is what I expect from posters like you. Temper tantrums.

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The WTB listed as a B+ 2.8 tire is a fraud.
    Why are you so angry?
    And, who other then you gives a rats a zzzz...


    And by the way, it's not a game or conspiracy.

  57. #157
    Calgon, take me away!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,631
    Small point here regarding BB height when running 27.5+ on a 29er: If you run the 3" tire the way it's generally intended to be used, you'll be running lower pressure. So there will be more "tire sag" when the rider is on the bike. And the fat tires actually lend themselves to riding slower stuff where a higher bottom bracket is usually more desirable.

    Not an absolute deal killer, but I do believe the BB is going to end up .5 to .6 lower with the lower pressures and rider weight on the bike.

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post

    You know what else I know? The Geax Goma has a casing size of 160mm. Although it's a 29er, it's the same weight as the WTB and measures 64mm wide unstretched on a Dually rim. You can add 2mm or so to match the WTB rim. The Goma has a 63mm tread width vs. 60mm for the WTB and is a full inch larger in diameter. All that is verifiable as well since you can buy those readily.

    So you see, bikeny, I do measure things and I know how to run a calculator. I don't fall for the nonsense that 650B wheels as just as big as 29ers and are a lot lighter. I'm onto the game.

    Maybe' just maybe...
    WTB has designed and produced a tire that enhances different characteristics then what the Goma does
    They were not trying to design or market a tire to compete with the Goma.
    Much less design a tire that fits on a 650B rim and is the same size as -whatever- tire you want to measure
    it is a mute point.... with no practical or useful knowledge
    They designed a tire to fit on a 29er bike and have specific characteristics
    It has nothing to do with what a traditional 29er tire measures out to or how any other 29er tire performs

    others have provided measurements of the Trailblazer on a specific rim.. not you.
    You measure another tire that has nothing to with ++ tires or their intended function

    Arguing that there is some kind of conspiracy because the Trailblazer is less then 2.8" wide or less then 29" tall is ridiculous. it has nothing to do with the intended use of the tire or with the subject of this thread.

    if you want to express these kind of conspiracy theories... Please, please, start your own thread
    that would be the appropriate way to further your opinion.

  59. #159
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by flyinmike View Post
    Please, please, start your own thread .
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.
    +1 - take the B+ stuff to another thread.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  61. #161
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,242
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.
    +2!!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  62. #162
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    From DirtRag Interbike roundup:

    Surly finally has samples of the awaited 29x3.0 Dirt Wizard tire. The tread pattern is changed from the 26x2.75 that comes stock on the Instigator, beefing up the cornering knobs, and almost eliminating the small intermediate knobs. Prices and TPI counts will be similar to the Knard, but there was talk about offering a TPI count between the current heavy and sturdy 27TPI wire bead and the light and fragile 120TPI model with the folding bead. We are still going to have to wait until spring at the earliest for these tires, but we should have the 29+ offerings from Maxxis and Vee Tire in-house soon to play with in the meantime.
    Reposting some 29+ news since it seems to have been lost in the argument.

    Sounds like the mythical Dirt Wizard 29+ is still a ways off.

  63. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Also, if the video from Panaracer at Interbike is to be believed, the Fat B Nimble 29x3 tire will be available this fall. The announced pricing is also great, $60 for the folding version, less for the wire bead.

  64. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411

    Move to Fat Bike forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.
    You are absolutely correct, this discussion should be elsewhere. The question is where? There is a thread in the 29er components forum that discusses some of this stuff too. Unless a new 'Plus size tire' forum gets created, I propose moving it too the 'Fat Bike' forum. There is actually already a thread there about the WTB Trailblazer. Maybe craigsj won't be able to find it

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You are absolutely correct, this discussion should be elsewhere. The question is where?
    650B forum. They need some new stuff to talk about now that 650B is old hat and accepted widely across the bike industry.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    Sounds like the mythical Dirt Wizard 29+ is still a ways off.
    Tragic. Dirt Wizard 29+ you are dead to me.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Maybe craigsj won't be able to find it
    STFU applies to you too, bikeny, not just me. You want to keep taking shots at me, you will continue to get them back.

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Tragic. Dirt Wizard 29+ you are dead to me.
    No kidding, this tire was announced over a year ago and still nothing. Major bummer. Spring? There will be at least 5-6 29+ tires by then it seems like.

  69. #169
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    No kidding, this tire was announced over a year ago and still nothing. Major bummer. Spring? There will be at least 5-6 29+ tires by then it seems like.
    Agreed, I'm about ready to go back to fat. At least in that world they have real tire choices that can actually be PURCHASED!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    There will be at least 5-6 29+ tires by then it seems like.
    There should be, but I have learned not to assume anything when it comes to 29+ rubber. Companies like to talk about it, but there are clearly some challenges to actually producing the tires.

    Knards work well enough for me that I can wait and I'll buy another 120tpi set of Knards if I have to since they will get used even if I have a more aggressive knobby set of tires.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    I've started a B+ thread. So please take all the B+ OT posts there where the interested parties can enjoy them and let's leave this thread on topic about 29+.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-650b/650b-tires-931412.html
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  72. #172
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I've started a B+ thread. So please take all the B+ OT posts there where the interested parties can enjoy them and let's leave this thread on topic about 29+.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-650b/650b-tires-931412.html
    Thanks for that, vikb!

  73. #173
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    Was googling for info on the Chronicle and found this in a Pinkbike article from back in March (Taipei show report):

    The other option is the Chronicle (above left), a 29'' x 3'' tire that fits into the small but growing 29er+ category that isn't quite full-on fat bike in size. It will be available in two versions: a dual compound, 120 TPI model that features Maxxis' mid-weight EXO casing; and a 60 TPI version that eschews the EXO casing but still gets the dual compound rubber treatment. Word is that both the Mammoth and the Chronicle will be available to the public this coming September.
    Would be nice if these actually show up this month, but given the dearth of info from IB I seriously doubt they will.

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,180
    I'm really looking forward to the Maxxis release. Hope more will follow suit. I've given up hope on the DW, like I gave up on RH rims earlier this year. Gotta get a new Flow EX front wheel built, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I've started a B+ thread. So please take all the B+ OT posts there where the interested parties can enjoy them and let's leave this thread on topic about 29+.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-650b/650b-tires-931412.html
    Seems their lover's quarrel is more appropriate for PM's, or IRL meet up.

  75. #175
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/09/17/...ike-tire-more/

    3 new 29x3.0 tires offered from Vee? Had not heard about these until now.

  76. #176
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    EB14: Vee Tire Co Takes the Crown w/ New MTB Line, Updates Mission Fat Bike Tire, More

    3 new 29x3.0 tires offered from Vee? Had not heard about these until now.
    According to the comments, that might be a typo since the tires in the photo show 29 x 2.3 sizing

  77. #177
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    Ah - didn't see the comments. I thought it was too good to be true since the rest of the article was talking about enduro racing & such.

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    Was googling for info on the Chronicle and found this in a Pinkbike article from back in March (Taipei show report):



    Would be nice if these actually show up this month, but given the dearth of info from IB I seriously doubt they will.
    Post 118 of this thread. Someone asked Maxxis at Interbike, and they said December.

  79. #179
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,242
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Post 118 of this thread. Someone asked Maxxis at Interbike, and they said December.
    Post #53 Mike C said ETA on the Bonty would also be Dec. So with the exception of maybe the Panaracer, pretty much will be 2015 before anything else is available (except the Vee Trax).
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803
    I think we should all have a gentlemen's agreement that we don't post any ETAs. Just product info and when a tire is actually available for sale. The ETAs = "lies all lies!"
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  81. #181
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,242
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I think we should all have a gentlemen's agreement that we don't post any ETAs. Just product info and when a tire is actually available for sale. The ETAs = "lies all lies!"
    Sounds good to me.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  82. #182
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,891

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I think we should all have a gentlemen's agreement that we don't post any ETAs. Just product info and when a tire is actually available for sale. The ETAs = "lies all lies!"
    So true!

    I guess I will probably end up going Knard then. Don't think I want to wait until Dec (or beyond) for a Chronicle. The Krampus is all built up and I am just waiting for Krampus-worthy rubber (he looks kind of like a wet cat with the tiny 2.0 tires that are mounted as placeholders while I was working on the build).

  83. #183
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!
    Go and ask Schwalbe for it.
    They refused a blank check to start making the 29x2.35" ones when they had the tooling ready for it. After that it took them years to come up with the idea by themselves.
    Such 3.0 Supermoto's would be marvellous I'm sure though. Commuting, beach racing, and sandy trail riding. 2.35 does that well even in 26".
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    230
    We mounted some 2.35 Big Apples on Rabbit Holes at the shop and they measured 2.5 with the calipers. Mounted really easy and looked BA. Didn't get a chance to see how they ride though.

  85. #185
    ECR
    ECR is offline
    carfree
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!
    I'm in!

    Already have 2.35 Super Motos mounted on Derby Rims for my next 29+ build, but I'd prefer 3" tires.

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sasquatch rides a SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,559
    Those who have used any 29+ tire other than the Knard, how is tubeless setup? I'm hoping that the Chronicle, Bontrager, or Panaracer offerings are a bit more tubeless friendly than the Knards are.

  87. #187
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,577
    I'm running Maxxis tubeless ready on Stans Flow EX and I was amazed at how easy it is to set the bead. Just used a floor pump, I've mounted three tires so far. That's why I'm holding out for the Chronicles for my Krampus, it looks as if they'll work great on Rabbit Holes. If money wasn't a little tight I'd run some 2.5" Maxxis Minions on my Krampus but new tyres for this bike are perpetually 6 months away so I stay on the Knards.

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76
    Ive run knards and vee traxx fattys both on duallys. Tubless with the duallys is a PITA. The vee tire setup tubeless better on the dually then the knard. I now have a set of nextie jungle fox carbon wheels and am running a knard out front and the vee In the back. Both setup tubeless very easy on this wheelset. One strip of tape to cover the wholes and the rims did the rest. They both seated with a very solid pop over the bead locking hump. I did have to use a compressor as the rim bed has a 12mm deep channel and I couldnt get the tires startrd with my crappy floor pump.

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    I just setup a pair of 1 year old well used 120 Knards on Jungle Fox rims as well. Initial fit was really loose, so I installed them with a tube first to get the beads seated. Then unseated one bead, removed tube, and installed tubeless valve. I then had to pull the loose bead up onto the shelf all the way around, but once I did that, they aired right up with a floor pump. They even held air surprisingly well without sealant. I did, of course, add Stan's sealant through the valve before riding. Only one ride so far, but all good!

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,564
    I have some 29x2.3 Geax tattoos on my Karate Monkey commuter. Fit on Velocity P-35'S the seem to work well for the pave and some dirt on the way home. Similar to the tread design as a hookworm.

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Trail_Blazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,162
    Maxxis Ardent 2.4 / 2.2

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!
    The Super Moto isn't 'slick'

    Kojaks are the best combination of fast & fun & comfortable street/city/urban trail tire I have ever used. A 29+ Kojak could be really fast, and really cush.

  93. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    230
    What kind of puncture protection are we talking about? If we're talking city riding we're talking staples, glass, and other trash. I'm happy with my 2.0 Big Bens on my Cross Check. No flats in 2000 miles.

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    239
    The Kojak has a puncture protection belt. I've had one pinch flat and one ripped sidewall in 15 months - both on rocky singletrack, not exactly the intended use. No street punctures.

    The Kojak is an incredible tire for hybrid multi-use bikes. It would be a blast in bigger and wider sizes, but I think the market is way too small - because everyone who looks at them says: " those look dangerous without treads".

    Using google, you can find posts by recumbent riders who have 3000+ punctureless miles on their Kojaks. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular on bikes that people have re-purposed for the street. The thought of a 29+ Kojak makes me smile. Silky fast with no road chatter.
    Last edited by TooSteep; 09-30-2014 at 08:06 PM.

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    234

    29+ tire choices

    So has anyone tried a 2.5 inch minion or 2.4 inch ardent an a rabbit hole and rode it in the wet? Looking for options for oregon this winter


    "The trick, and oh, what a trick it is, is to remain consciously blind to the danger that surrounds you, and simultaneously hyper-aware of every hard bit of pavement or sharp bit of metal that enters your air space. This is the Zen koan of riding your bicycle on the road." Robot, Red Kite Prayer - rkp.com - October 20, 2011

  96. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by TooSteep View Post
    The Kojak has a puncture protection belt. I've had one pinch flat and one ripped sidewall in 15 months - both on rocky singletrack, not exactly the intended use. No street punctures.

    The Kojak is an incredible tire for hybrid multi-use bikes. It would be a blast in bigger and wider sizes, but I think the market is way too small - because everyone who looks at them says: " those look dangerous without treads".

    Using google, you can find posts by recumbent riders who have 3000+ punctureless miles on their Kojaks. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular on bikes that people have re-purposed for the street. The thought of a 29+ Kojak makes me smile. Silky fast with no road chatter.
    I am a big fan of the Kojak as well. I have the 700x35s on my road bike and love them, so comfy. I think the chances of seeing a 29+ version is beyond slim though, or any 29+ slick for that matter. Just get the Supermotos, 29er Hookworm or the above mentioned Geax Tatoo and mount them on 50mm rims, that should be pretty phat!

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by TooSteep View Post
    The Kojak is an incredible tire for hybrid multi-use bikes. It would be a blast in bigger and wider sizes...
    It's not clear how differentiated a Kojak in larger sizes would be from a Big Apple. Both have puncture protection that the Super Moto lacks. Not sure how important that is in large, low pressure situations. I think the Big Apple has heavier sidewalls but that's expected for the size.

    A Kojak is fast for a touring tire but not for a road tire and I don't see a 35mm smoothie as good for multi-surface use. I fail to see the purpose in a 3" wide smoothie other than style. Is the riding experience really going to be better than a Super Moto? It would look better for sure, but a Super Moto would look pretty big on 50mm rims.

    For hard surfaces/road I'd prefer something faster. For looser surfaces I'd prefer something grippier and larger. The Kojak is good for covering distance on hard surfaces relatively problem-free and faster than any Marathon. I like the Kojak, too, but it has its place and that place isn't 29+.

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,564
    The geax tattoo comes in at 58mm wide x 52 mm high on the Velocity P-35 rims. It has a knurled casing with some inverse tread. Runs fast on the pave, does very well in the dirt except in the wet. It has a double ply casing and edge to edge tread. Beefy and great with lower pressure off road. I put it on my commutified Karate Monkey when I want to get 12 pave and 8 miles of dirt on the commute home.

  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    ... The Kojak is good for covering distance on hard surfaces relatively problem-free and faster than any Marathon. ....
    Fast, problem-free and comfortable. Covering smooth roads, chip-seal, crushed gravel and hard dry dirt. Some combination of lighter, faster, more comfortable and more durable than the other options. Hmmm ... sounds to me like the realm of 29+

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,803


    Surly DW 29+ tire update - sort of.

    Dirt Wizard 29+ and My Yearly Rant About How We Ain?t Perfect | Blog | Surly Bikes

    Mostly just an explanation why you won't see it for a good long time.

    FWIW - I feel for Surly and their odd ball projects. It ain't easy to do something new and wacky. So thanks for trying.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tire Choices for SHEN 100
    By Dadefatsax in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-13-2013, 08:59 PM
  2. The One rear tire choices
    By ikarus189 in forum Canfield
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-01-2013, 05:07 AM
  3. Tire choices
    By Saucyjack in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 09:39 AM
  4. Geezus there are a lot of tire choices now
    By cleon in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-29-2011, 10:47 PM
  5. Lost in XC tire choices!!!!!
    By Rhezuss in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 12:00 PM

Members who have read this thread: 603

Posting Permissions

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