Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1034
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I like the black and orange too, if I could have that color scheme with the 7 build kit I would have been all over it. That said the purple is damn nice in person.

    Yes it does, I've seen them both. I saw one this weekend set up tubeless and it felt pretty light.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    121

    First impressions of 27.5 Hodags.

    I got a set of the 27.5x3.8 Hodag tires yesterday at my local Trek dealer. I set them up tubeless on a pair of 50mm LB carbon rims. The tires weighed 1262 and 1269 grams. On the 50 mm rims at 20 lbs of pressure, I measured the width at 3 3/8 inches between the knobs and 3 5/8 inches at the widest knobs. The bead to bead measurement was about 21 cm.

    The size of these tires seems like a perfect summer/packed snow tire. The profile on the 50mm rim seems really nice also. I haven't had a chance to ride them yet since it rained all day in Denver.

    They seem extremely heavy though with a very solid sidewall. I am replacing some 3.5" Fat b Nimble tires. The FBN seem like a paper thin sidewall compared to these tires. I used the FBN all summer with no issues, maybe I have just been lucky. Maybe the Hodag is a bit of overkill? The FBN were 741 gms vs the 1260 gms for the Hodags. That is pretty significant. I liked how fast and light the FBN felt, but wanted a bit more volume. I an curious to see how these new tires feel, if the additional weight is a big factor.27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-dads-phone-10-21-15-046.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-dads-phone-10-21-15-057.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-dads-phone-10-21-15-050.jpg

  3. #103
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,591
    Me likey.
    I like turtles

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    574
    New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.

    Currently riding a Trek 8.4 DS and looking for a winter bike.

    I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it.

    Nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair store that the 4.8" tires are going to be too big for my purpose.

    Can a narrower tire (4"?) be mounted on the 80 mm rim?

    Going to test ride it tomorrow so that should help.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.

    I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it.

    Nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair store that the 4.8" tires are going to be too big for my purpose.

    Can a narrower tire (4"?) be mounted on the 80 mm rim?

    Going to test ride it tomorrow so that should help.
    you can mount a 4 inch tire on an 80mm rim without issues.

    i wouldn't think a 4.8 on a 5 mile ride would be to much. i rode a bud and lou on paved, gravel and trail with no issues.

    one more thing i forgot the 7 comes with 26 inch wheels not 27.5 just thought i would add that.

  6. #106
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,591
    I ride my 4.8" tire bike on a paved path to the beach and back when I don't have time to do a proper trail ride. It's approx 5 miles each direction and it isn't the slightest bit difficult.
    I like turtles

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    I concur regarding the pavement riding.

    Edit - and wow Trek - nice heavy tire on your supposed "light wheel" setup.
    I was thinking of going Hodags on 50mm with my second wheel set on the F7, but I think I'll stick to the 29+ plan and Chupies.

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    The drag effect of 4.8's is greatly overstated. I've done my commute (29mi one way) on my Fatboy and even though it wasn't my fastest average (13.8mph) it wasn't horrible by any means. I've been using my Fatboy to pull my son in the bike trailer as well on family rides and have no issue keeping up with my wife and daughter. If you are going to be riding solely pavement higher pressures of 10+psi help, but I wouldn't hesitate to ride it on the road.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Oh and JT, thank you for posting those pics! I was curious about the profile on 50mm rims and you've answered that question beautifully.

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I concur regarding the pavement riding.

    Edit - and wow Trek - nice heavy tire on your supposed "light wheel" setup.
    I was thinking of going Hodags on 50mm with my second wheel set on the F7, but I think I'll stick to the 29+ plan and Chupies.
    Definitely- Trek's lightweight carbon wheelset weighs more than many lightweight aluminum 26" setups and the tires are comparable to most 26"x4 tires and a few hundred grams heavier a 4.0 Jumbo Jim. Looks like not only is 27.5" fat heavier than a 26" fat at this point, but moves the weight further out on the wheel.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Looks like I'll be ordering the 29+ Mulefuts today.
    Maybe I'll get a set of JJ's for the 80mm Mulefuts as my 3/4 fat setup.

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_T View Post
    I got a set of the 27.5x3.8 Hodag tires yesterday at my local Trek dealer. I set them up tubeless on a pair of 50mm LB carbon rims. The tires weighed 1262 and 1269 grams. On the 50 mm rims at 20 lbs of pressure, I measured the width at 3 3/8 inches between the knobs and 3 5/8 inches at the widest knobs. The bead to bead measurement was about 21 cm.

    The size of these tires seems like a perfect summer/packed snow tire. The profile on the 50mm rim seems really nice also. I haven't had a chance to ride them yet since it rained all day in Denver.

    They seem extremely heavy though with a very solid sidewall. I am replacing some 3.5" Fat b Nimble tires. The FBN seem like a paper thin sidewall compared to these tires. I used the FBN all summer with no issues, maybe I have just been lucky. Maybe the Hodag is a bit of overkill? The FBN were 741 gms vs the 1260 gms for the Hodags. That is pretty significant. I liked how fast and light the FBN felt, but wanted a bit more volume. I an curious to see how these new tires feel, if the additional weight is a big factor.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dads phone 10-21-15 046.jpg 
Views:	698 
Size:	111.0 KB 
ID:	1023643Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dads phone 10-21-15 057.jpg 
Views:	546 
Size:	132.7 KB 
ID:	1023642Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dads phone 10-21-15 050.jpg 
Views:	353 
Size:	108.1 KB 
ID:	1023645
    Is that an Ican SN01 frame they are on? Did they fit OK? Thinking about going the same route on my sn01 frame.

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

  13. #113
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    When the rest of the weight weenie 257x4 tires roll in we'll be all set, give it some time

    does anyone have a weight on just the jackalope 275 rim?

    Since I only intend to ride my farley 9 as a summer bike I'm thinking about going to a 50-60 mm rim from the 80's, for a more rounded profile and some weight loss

    I see that the hugo 275 is already more than 100g lighter than the jackalope 26 rim, I'm thinking it's almost a pound lost by swapping rims, then when some lighter tires come...
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.

    Currently riding a Trek 8.4 DS and looking for a winter bike.

    I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it.

    Nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair store that the 4.8" tires are going to be too big for my purpose.

    Can a narrower tire (4"?) be mounted on the 80 mm rim?

    Going to test ride it tomorrow so that should help.
    I'm from MN too. Since they plow all the bike paths and roads, you are not ever going to need the float from the 5", the rest will be car or snowmobile packed. If you have a 4" tire you should be just fine. Too, the 27.5"x4 is going to have a larger footprint than a 26x4 so you could look at that too. While you would be fine with the 5" you'd be finer with the 4", I would think. You will, however, likely want to stud the tires - you know how long the ice sticks around and what snow that has been polished by lots of car tires packing it down acts like.

    I'm getting a 9.8 and I rode the 27.5x4's over sand and thought they worked pretty well. That's going to be like you riding through deep snow not packed snow. So I think if the answer is that you will be riding mostly packed snow, then it's 4". Hard to believe it would be anything else for commuting, especially since we don't really get that much snow, but mostly cold so that snow never leaves.

    J.

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Get the 7 - more versatile.
    You can always put 4" tires on a 7, but you can't
    put 4.8" tires on the 9 without new wheels.
    The difference in footprint between 27.5 x4 and
    26x4 is tiny, and not a factor.

    You were on the right track - 7 is the sweet spot.

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Get the 7 - more versatile.
    You can always put 4" tires on a 7, but you can't
    put 4.8" tires on the 9 without new wheels.
    The difference in footprint between 27.5 x4 and
    26x4 is tiny, and not a factor.

    You were on the right track - 7 is the sweet spot.
    Test ride of both will answer the question on this. When I test rode both in the same sand conditions, I found that the difference in float on the 27.5x4 vs the 26x5 was a lot smaller than I had thought it would be. The test ride made the decision pretty easy. Everyone's experience will vary depending on where they ride and how they ride. The only way to find out is to try it.

    J.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    The difference in float between 27.5x4 and 26x4 is even smaller.
    The point is that with the 7 all doors are open to you.
    Of course test rides are always best.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,364
    I recently cancelled my Farley 9 order for a 2016 Specialized Fuse Comp I found used for a screaming deal after I discovered 27.5 Plus size. I was smitten at first by the 27.5 Farley and its geometry because it would be mostly used for trail with occasional East Coast Pa snow. I rode my Pivot mach 6 with 2.4 tires on groomed and compacted trails last year and previous year after significant snow falls and accumulation. Sure, a wider tire would have been better to a degree for handling and floatation but really did not suffer overall.I believe a three inch is all I'll realistically need for snow but really shines on trail riding I've done so far. Many choices to make to fit your needs for the best possible equipment,but choices do abound and that is a good thing!!!

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    574
    Thanks for the input everyone. Test ride is pushed to Monday. If I can ride at a decent clip with the 4.8" tires then I'll likely get the 7 knowing I can get a spare set of 4" tires for the summer.

    If I hate riding the 4.8" on pavement I just won't buy it and explore different options. Can't justify spending more than $2,400 on a bike and/or spare rims at this juncture. Some think I'm insane already!

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    I'd be interested in a 27.5 x 3.8 to gain back that inch of BB height I loose going form a 26 x 4.8 to a 26 x 3.8, just for consistency of feel. Although its all moot until I see a 27.5 x 3.8 Nate, and knowing Surly I'd have a better chance getting on to the International Space Station.

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    I'm from MN too. Since they plow all the bike paths and roads, you are not ever going to need the float from the 5", the rest will be car or snowmobile packed. If you have a 4" tire you should be just fine. Too, the 27.5"x4 is going to have a larger footprint than a 26x4 so you could look at that too. While you would be fine with the 5" you'd be finer with the 4", I would think. You will, however, likely want to stud the tires - you know how long the ice sticks around and what snow that has been polished by lots of car tires packing it down acts like.

    I'm getting a 9.8 and I rode the 27.5x4's over sand and thought they worked pretty well. That's going to be like you riding through deep snow not packed snow. So I think if the answer is that you will be riding mostly packed snow, then it's 4". Hard to believe it would be anything else for commuting, especially since we don't really get that much snow, but mostly cold so that snow never leaves.

    J.
    I'm guessing you live in the metro and just ride the groomed trails. I'm out west of the metro and spend a good amount of time breaking trails, riding on lakes, islands, river trails, fields, parks, and everywhere else I can explore. Most see little or no fatbike traffic and I can reach them without having to truck my bike anywhere. A 4" tire won't cut it and if I could go bigger than 4.8" I would- there is no replacement for displacement when you are cutting trails especially when it drifts.

    For me the best part of a Fatbike is going spots I normally wouldn't ride and the challenge of riding stuff that is tough in the summer. If I was going to ride plowed roads and groomed "trails", I'd probably just have a studded mountain bike or buy one of those silly trainer things.

    The slight advantage your 27.5" tire is going to buy you over a 26x4" is negated by the shorter sidewall of your 27.5 that will restrict you from running lower PSI's or you'll risk trashing a rim. That is the beauty of a 4.8" tire, you can run lower pressures 3-5 psi and have a tank tread pattern and still have some sidewall left to prevent bottoming. Too much grip, just add a little air, not enough let some out.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by l3eaudacious View Post
    I'd be interested in a 27.5 x 3.8 to gain back that inch of BB height I loose going form a 26 x 4.8 to a 26 x 3.8, just for consistency of feel. Although its all moot until I see a 27.5 x 3.8 Nate, and knowing Surly I'd have a better chance getting on to the International Space Station.
    If you compare a 26" Nate to the 27.5" Hodag you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height not 1". I seriously doubt you could tell the difference.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    The problem as I see it, is that Trek is the only company that has gone forward with 27.5" fat. This doesn't bode well for an influx of 27.5 fat tires. This means any company even thinking of making a 3.8" fat tire would be doing so knowing that it's for an extremely limited market. That's not to say it won't happen at all, but it presents a big unknown and it's not a certainty by any means. Some people here thought we'd see a few examples at Interbike - Pfffttt...nothing.

    Likely if we see another one any time soon, it will be just one, and it will be from Bontrager.

    If I knew a 27.5x3.8" Chuppacabra was on the way, then I may well have gone ahead and ordered a 27.5" set of rims today instead of 29+ . As it stands I'm not willing to wait and see at this point.

    If the 3.8" Chupie becomes a reality at some point, then maybe I'll re-lace the DT hubs to 27.5 Mulefuts.

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I'm guessing you live in the metro and just ride the groomed trails. I'm out west of the metro and spend a good amount of time breaking trails, riding on lakes, islands, river trails, fields, parks, and everywhere else I can explore. Most see little or no fatbike traffic and I can reach them without having to truck my bike anywhere. A 4" tire won't cut it and if I could go bigger than 4.8" I would- there is no replacement for displacement when you are cutting trails especially when it drifts.

    For me the best part of a Fatbike is going spots I normally wouldn't ride and the challenge of riding stuff that is tough in the summer. If I was going to ride plowed roads and groomed "trails", I'd probably just have a studded mountain bike or buy one of those silly trainer things.

    The slight advantage your 27.5" tire is going to buy you over a 26x4" is negated by the shorter sidewall of your 27.5 that will restrict you from running lower PSI's or you'll risk trashing a rim. That is the beauty of a 4.8" tire, you can run lower pressures 3-5 psi and have a tank tread pattern and still have some sidewall left to prevent bottoming. Too much grip, just add a little air, not enough let some out.
    I was responding to Jeff_G's post. What he described was more urban. I live in a rural area, on the St. Croix and will be riding it on the beach along the St. Croix. Works fine.

    J.

  25. #125
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If you compare a 26" Nate to the 27.5" Hodag you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height not 1". I seriously doubt you could tell the difference.
    I read this type of stuff a lot on here and no one takes into account the amount that fat tires flex under load at low pressure, the bottom bracket will drop more than you think when you sit on it
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    I read this type of stuff a lot on here and no one takes into account the amount that fat tires flex under load at low pressure, the bottom bracket will drop more than you think when you sit on it
    True, but both tires will flex by a similar amount so the measurement difference is very meaningful.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Bought a set of Jackalope's with Hodag's (27.5" version) from a local dealer who swapped them off of another customer's bike (long story). I got 'em for cheap, but have to replace the hubs to fit them to my Pugz. Kinda excited as the tubeless setup is the easiest that I've seen or tried. Not getting my hopes up since I'm used to 5"x65mm setups (super absorbant and corners like a dream...not to mention all that float!). Will post back when I have some ride time (could be a while).

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    what you doing with the hubs? Selling them by chance?

  29. #129
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,994
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Bought a set of Jackalope's with Hodag's (27.5" version) from a local dealer who swapped them off of another customer's bike (long story). I got 'em for cheap, but have to replace the hubs to fit them to my Pugz. Kinda excited as the tubeless setup is the easiest that I've seen or tried. Not getting my hopes up since I'm used to 5"x65mm setups (super absorbant and corners like a dream...not to mention all that float!). Will post back when I have some ride time (could be a while).
    good luck fitting them on a Pug- iirc, a pugsley needs a 17.5mm offset lacing and the hodags are setup for more or less centered lacing. let us know how it works for you.

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    what you doing with the hubs? Selling them by chance?
    They're yours if you want them!

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    good luck fitting them on a Pug- iirc, a pugsley needs a 17.5mm offset lacing and the hodags are setup for more or less centered lacing. let us know how it works for you.
    Already did the spoke calculations. Not my first wheel build. 272mm are gonna work all the way around with my chosen hubs and offsets, perfect for back-country riding as only have to carry one size :-)

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    Really tempted by the Velocity Dually build kit being offered at bikehubstore.com.

    135/170mm BHS hubs, Dually rims in 27.5 or 29 with spokes and nips...

    Velocity Dually/Fatbike Hubs Wheel Kit - 36/36 - $359.95

    Seems like a really good deal... Thoughts?

  33. #133
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,591
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    Really tempted by the Velocity Dually build kit being offered at bikehubstore.com.

    135/170mm BHS hubs, Dually rims in 27.5 or 29 with spokes and nips...

    Velocity Dually/Fatbike Hubs Wheel Kit - 36/36 - $359.95

    Seems like a really good deal... Thoughts?
    It's a great deal. I'm picking one up as soon as I can. I'll post pics when it's built.
    I like turtles

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    It's a great deal. I'm picking one up as soon as I can. I'll post pics when it's built.
    As I read that link, it looks like there is only one set available.

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    As I read that link, it looks like there is only one set available.
    I asked. Seems they have several kits available.

  36. #136
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,591
    There's 29 and 27.5.
    I like turtles

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    I asked. Seems they have several kits available.
    Screaming deal then. Wonder who ordered 36H in bulk? Seems kinda strange, especially if a bike company had planned to use them.

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    I am crossing my fingers that some one with a 9.6 wants to sell their 27.5 Jackelopes for some Whampa's or carbon wheels and I can buy them used!

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    They're yours if you want them!
    If FT251 doesn't want them can I get next in line?
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    They will not fit my F5 build. They're yours.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    If FT251 doesn't want them can I get next in line?
    Just so everybody's aware, these were hub swapped for the customer whose bike they came from. The hubs I have are 135QR/177TA. End caps are replaceable, they are for sale, and they are REALLY nice hubs. PM me with an offer if you want. No need ask about them here :-)

    Edited to include that they are Bontrager Jackalope hubs

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    259
    Sorry I was thinking they were 150 and 177. One usable hub isn't going to do me much good. On to the Next!
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Just so everybody's aware, these were hub swapped for the customer whose bike they came from. The hubs I have are 135QR/177TA. End caps are replaceable, they are for sale, and they are REALLY nice hubs. PM me with an offer if you want. No need ask about them here :-)

    Edited to include that they are Bontrager Jackalope hubs
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    165
    I was just comparing my 26" 4.7s with some 26" MTB wheels, a 650b wheel I am building and a 700c.

    The 26" fat is considerably larger in diameter than all of them. I don't like this because it looks like the industry is cracking the door to obsoleting all of our 26" bikes, but we already have the largest diameter wheels in bicycles, I don't see the burning need for more.

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    So whats the consensus on the new Jackelope 27.5 wheels with tubeless Hodags? How you guys liking them? how do they feel? Looks like i found me a set of takes offs for my F5 build. I've been real happy with the 26 inch Jackelopes currently on my F6 set up tubeless with hodags. Will be converting those to fatter tires for winter and use the 27.5 x 3.8's for summer along with a bluto fork. I was going to just use a faster 26 inch tire but feel the 27.5 wheels may be a bit nicer with the newer frame. Thanks for the feedback!

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    So whats the consensus on the new Jackelope 27.5 wheels with tubeless Hodags? How you guys liking them? how do they feel? Looks like i found me a set of takes offs for my F5 build. I've been real happy with the 26 inch Jackelopes currently on my F6 set up tubeless with hodags. Will be converting those to fatter tires for winter and use the 27.5 x 3.8's for summer along with a bluto fork. I was going to just use a faster 26 inch tire but feel the 27.5 wheels may be a bit nicer with the newer frame. Thanks for the feedback!
    Well I'm still loving 27.5 jackalopes/hodags. Since my last comments I've used them on sand dunes and snow. On the dunes I got the feeling I was doing better than guys with 26x4 but not quite as well as the 26x5 guys. The snow ride was less definitive, as it was new snow and aggressive knobs were more important than diameter. As pointed out by many on this thread, it's not a world of difference from 26".

    It's nice to have the same diameter as my winter wheelset, which is clownshoes/5" tires.

    The hodags are super nice--lots of traction they roll well.

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Thanks!

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    Sorry I was thinking they were 150 and 177. One usable hub isn't going to do me much good. On to the Next!
    End caps are swappable to make the front 150TA... I just don't have those, your Trek dealer should be able to get them, no problem.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Laced my 27.5's up last night, and, as Teton29er says, they don't feel much different than a 26x3.8" setup. As a matter of fact, tubed (I haven't recieved my Stan's tape for tubeless, yet), they feel identical to Vanhelga's tubed (another tire in the same casing width category!). I suspect, they'll feel really similar to the Vanhelga's tubeless as well, but that will have to wait a few days. Bottom bracket height change between 26x5 and 27.5x4 seems to be minimal. These Hodags are only 8mm shorter in overall height that my Buds on Marge Lites.

    Will keep everyone up to date as I continue to ride these up til the snow flies :-)

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Thanks, good to know. I will have the 27.5 jackelope as my "Summer Wheel" set up with the Hodags tubeless. For winter I have the 26" jackelopes with the bigger Barbagazi tires set up tubeless. Thought that would keep the BB about the same and the geo similar. i was worried that the larger wheels may have a effect or different feel being it's larger diameter. Maybe the sidewall of the hodag makes up for it.

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    The sidewall of the Hodag isn't making up for anything.

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,053
    Lots of good info here around 11:40. 27.5x4 not as great volume/ floatation in super soft conditions as 26x5" but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.

    Fat Camp Podcast #7 ? Ken and Andy Talk Tech With Trek Engineers | FAT-BIKE.COM
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.
    Verified. 27.5 Hodags roll better than the double Buds I had before, but the Buds rolled significantly worse than the Ground Controls before that. Ground Controls are the best rolling 5" tire I've had so far (out of many), but the 27.5" Hodags MIGHT give them a run for their money. My main worry is how the Hodags will handle on MTB trail. I've gotten used to the forgiveness of 5" traction and squooosh.

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,627
    You're saying a low knob 4" tire rolls better than a big knob 5" tire?
    Amazing!


    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Verified. 27.5 Hodags roll better than the double Buds I had before, but the Buds rolled significantly worse than the Ground Controls before that. Ground Controls are the best rolling 5" tire I've had so far (out of many), but the 27.5" Hodags MIGHT give them a run for their money. My main worry is how the Hodags will handle on MTB trail. I've gotten used to the forgiveness of 5" traction and squooosh.

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Yeah, pretty much my response as well.

  55. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    ATTENTION ATTENTION!

    NEWS ALERT: 700X23C tires roll better than 26X5" tires

    WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,954
    Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?

  57. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    For me and my Pugz, getting the bigger diameter (and all the "features" or "quirks" that come with it) is a big plus, but I don't like having to trim side knobs off of my rear tire. The 27.5's get me even closer to what I want, in that regard, because they're narrower on a taller rim.

    For the record, rolling resistance is not a large concern of mine. I was attempting to move the thread along, but since you all got hung up on it: Try riding a 3.8 27tpi Knard back-to-back with a Ground Control (a much bigger, knobbier tire) and try telling me the (clearly) more aggressive tire doesn't roll far better. And that's just one example I can give. Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    For me and my Pugz, getting the bigger diameter (and all the "features" or "quirks" that come with it) is a big plus, but I don't like having to trim side knobs off of my rear tire. The 27.5's get me even closer to what I want, in that regard, because they're narrower on a taller rim.

    For the record, rolling resistance is not a large concern of mine. I was attempting to move the thread along, but since you all got hung up on it: Try riding a 3.8 27tpi Knard back-to-back with a Ground Control (a much bigger, knobbier tire) and try telling me the (clearly) more aggressive tire doesn't roll far better. And that's just one example I can give. Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!
    Yep. I got what you were saying. On many rides I do, the wider, big knob tires roll faster and better than anything smaller and it's a tough call whether big knob 26x5 or medium knob 27.4 or small knob 26x4 are best. The guys sitting at computers saying skinnier tires always roll better don't ride where I ride thats for sure.

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?
    No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.

  61. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.
    Having just ridden some soft early season snow with 27.5 x 4 with 80mm and super low pressure, I can assure you that the rim width was not unnecessary.

  62. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    For most conditions 65mm rims would stand you in good stead,
    and provide other advantages to boot. There are conditions where
    a 100mm rim and a 5" tire provides an advantage.

    On the 27.5 Farleys, and for their intended purpose, a 65mm rim
    would be better/wiser choice.

  63. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.
    Another data point for illustration:

    A 26x4.8 Knard, on an 82mm Rolling Darryl Rim, with tube and at 7psi riding pressure, measures 756mm. Incidentally, this happens to be exactly the same diameter as a Fat B Nimble 29x3, on a 39mm Dually rim, which is the smallest of the "plus" size 29 tires. In both cases, they're about the biggest I can fit on my bike:

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-knardbfl.jpg

    This is also the reason I'm following the 27x3.8 development with so much interest. Putting the FBN on the back was a phenomenal improvement I would never reverse, but the +/- 1" diameter difference from a 3.8" front tire altered the geometry and steering too much. Even a "4.7" Big Fat Larry was about 3/4" too short and a noticeable difference.

    The 4.8 Knard fixed the geometry, but it's just slightly too much tire. I'm not talking about rolling resistance and I'm about as non-weight-weenie as they come... it's just a bit hard to keep on line on smooth surfaces and hard, concave trails. So I think the 27x3.8 might just be perfection.

    I know that the "fat-front" thing is a bit of a minority concern, but it illustrates EXACTLY why this and all other new tire sizes/formats are a good thing for us consumers and riders! We get to pick the volume and width we want, while maintaining the diameter and geometry we need!
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  64. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I have a Farley 9.6 with the 27.5 wheels and 3.8 Hodag's. During the fall, it seemed great, but as the snow is building, I am getting closer and closer to getting a set of 26 x 5's. I am trying to decide between DT Swiss 2250, which is out of stock at the cheap places, Chinese Carbon or going nuts and getting HEDs. For tires, maybe Dinninger 5 studded, although I know this is not as wide as some. Where I am struggling with the 27.5's on on unpacked single track with some ski tracks or a little foot traffic, and sometimes only my previous tracks. The issues has been mainly with the front end on downhills wanting to wash out when there is a bit of a sidehill. I started at 6 lbs in the front and 7 in the back, and ended dropping the front down to about 4 lbs which improved things, although I am fearful of frozen stumps. Things seems really good an stable while climbing; the problems seems to come on the downhills with more weight forward.



    That is the trail I am riding in front of my front tire. Ignore the snow buildup on the tire, that has been really minimal. I had just gone through a muddy creek before this picture.

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    ...especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.
    Must not be considering all things, then? It makes all the sense in the world that Trek would just re-roll the awesome 26" rim (that was already bought and paid for) to a bigger diameter when they took a gamble on this whole 27.5-Fat thing...

    Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to have seen a 60mm wide version for the 27.5's but I'm not complaining 'til I give 'em a fair shake-down. They seam to have given the 27.5" Hodag a lot of thought to tire profile, as they have about the same crown as my Buds on Marge Lite (which is about perfect for my style of riding).

    What DOESN'T make sense is that they're still spec'ing their bikes with MuleFuts when they have a better rim in the same size category...

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Yeah don't get me wrong, I don't think 80mm is
    a horrible idea. I just don't think they took
    their own 'faste' logic far enough. 65mm would be
    lighter and yield a better tire profile.
    80mm isn't fully comitting to what they say that
    they're going for with those bikes, and its leaving
    some performance unutilized/sitting on the table
    for no apparent reason, which doesn't make
    much sense from where I sit.

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    For me and my Pugz, getting the bigger diameter (and all the "features" or "quirks" that come with it) is a big plus, but I don't like having to trim side knobs off of my rear tire. The 27.5's get me even closer to what I want, in that regard, because they're narrower on a taller rim.

    For the record, rolling resistance is not a large concern of mine. I was attempting to move the thread along, but since you all got hung up on it: Try riding a 3.8 27tpi Knard back-to-back with a Ground Control (a much bigger, knobbier tire) and try telling me the (clearly) more aggressive tire doesn't roll far better. And that's just one example I can give. Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!
    Ok, diameter seems clearer, but to the point, width is the most important factor needed for float in soft sand or snow, correct? As well as psi.

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Ok, diameter seems clearer, but to the point, width is the most important factor needed for float in soft sand or snow, correct?
    Not necessarily.
    Listen to the "fat camp" podcast with the Trek engineers and the old agriculture/tractor
    research they utilized with regard to tires.

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,954
    So, still murky here. Longer foot print ala 26er vs 29er debate? I need science dammit, not some engineer/ marketing double speak. And now my Farley 6 I have to put out on trash day

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Both diameter and width play a role.
    A happy combination of both parameters
    is the name of the game.

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    407
    Flotation comes down to the ratio between over all diameter and width. it does not mater what size rim is in there. Except that with more sidewall (ie smaller rim for the same overall diameter) you will get more squish. More squish means wider tire on the ground. So if your goal is to have the most foot print you would want to go even smaller then 26" rim while keeping the same overall diameter.

    Now if one tire is a 4 and the other a 5 then all bets are off. Also i think there are multiple goal here. some people want more float and others want better handling. those two are opposing characteristics of the tire. a bigger rim with less sidewall will handle turning better but will ride much more harsh. look at monster truck tires vs Ferrari tires. those are the extremes but it illustrates the capabilities and characteristics of the tire sizes.

    I still think the fat 650b is still away to separate a man from his money. I think 26 is better suited for the really fat tires and 650b for the plus. But even for plus tires i would go 29+ for better rollover characteristics.

    just my $.02

  72. #172
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584

    I agree with Trek

    My own (non scientific) testing seems to back up what Travis and co are claiming.

    Full disclosure, though, I got some free product/tires from them during the testing phase.

    -Walt

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    The sidewall of the Hodag isn't making up for anything.
    What i meant is that the 27.5 Hodag is a bit lower profile than a 26 x 3.8 Hodag, so shorter sidewalls, and may be a bit firmer, maybe, IDK.

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Oh, yes definitely.
    If they are actually lower profile anyway.
    I've seen mixed messages on that point.

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Did some measuring today at the LBS:
    26 X 3.8 is 29.0 in diameter
    26 x 4.7 is 29.25 in diameter
    27.5 X 3.8 is 29.3 in diameter
    29.0 x 3.0 is 30.25 in diameter.

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
    and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
    I knew they were all close - but damn.

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
    and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
    I knew they were all close - but damn.
    Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    I will say thought that I've seen measurements that put the 29x3 Chupie on the 50mm, and the 4.7 Barbegazi in the 80mm much closer together - within a few mm.
    768mm, and 765+- respectively.

    I think a 1/2" bottom bracket drop should be expected if going to 26x3.8" - which is no big deal.

  79. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134

    We the people ...

    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!
    FYI: The surly Knard is one of the smallest diameter 26X3.8" tires out there at 726mm per Surly specs.

    If you compare the Bonti 27.5" to the Surly Nate, another common 26"X3.8" tire at 749mm you are talking a 14mm difference. Take half that for the radius and you have a 7mm (.275") difference in ride height.

    Compare the Bonti 27.5" to the fast rolling Vanhelga- 21mm overall difference, 10.5mm (.41") in ride height.

    Neither of the measurements in these comparisons are very significant and I doubt most riders will be able to tell the difference.

    That is my problem with this whole 27.5" thing, it is a marketing scam. Trek is trying to capitalize on the "hot" 27.5" MTB's to sell fatbikes that offer a very small diameter increase over a 26X4" tire.

    Not only that but it also has following downsides:

    No tire selection- Heck you can you even get replacement tires? Granted the market may come out with more brands of 27.5" tires, but the only ones at the latest bike shows have been 3.5" or smaller. As of right now you have only one place to buy 27.5" fat tires- Trek.

    No studded tires, no traction tires, no wider tires- If you want bigger or better tires- buy another wheelset in 26".

    Shorter sidewalls than 26"X5" and even many 26X4" tires. More likely that you will ruin a rim at lower pressures as have happened to several already. Worse yet you can't even readily get a replacement rim in a timely manner.

    Heavy wheels- The lightest 27.5" Wheelset is 2550gr with carbon rims negating any potential weight savings of the tires.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Yep - it's all pretty transparent when you top to look at it.

  81. #181
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    i've been involved peripherally in the testing/design process of the Bontrager/Trek tires and discussed a lot of this with all the folks involved. I am sure they want to sell bikes and wheels and tires, and their marketing people are of course pushing their stuff. But they also do the most thorough job you can imagine testing stuff (including competitor's products). I would be very surprised if they were doing 27.5x4 as a gimmick. Travis likes to go fast too much to sell stuff that sucks.

    -Walt

  82. #182
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,924
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.

  83. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    I wouldn't say the concept by itself sucks- if it was the only fatbike tire size available I'd be ridding the $h!t out of it and be happy. My complaint is that this product under certain conditions gives a very limited diameter/performance advantage over 26" setups that have an abundance of options that therefore give a much wider range of performance. The irony is that these so called 27.5" fat tires are bigger than the 29er wagon wheels that many say are too big for the trail, which is why 27.5" MTB tires were developed in the first place.

    To me it is like an automaker developing a car that runs on kerosene that gets 1% better MPG than comparable gasoline models. Would you buy it knowing that you are very limited on where you can buy kerosene and if it wasn't working for you- you'd need to pay a bunch of money to switch it to a gasoline powered motor?
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.
    Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.
    I already own the Makwa, I've had it almost a year and it was on my Farley 6.

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140

    Just an update from my perspective:

    After only 6 years, it's hard for me believe that I used to ride tires this narrow (much crappier back then, too). I remember when the Endo was the only tire to be had and it rode like a dumptruck front and rear!

    These 27.5 Bonti's on the other hand... So sweet! What I lost in ride comfort (from the double Buds) I gained in a more direct steering feel. No surprise, there, since the tire has less rubber to flex with!

    The fact that that's the most significant finding, for me, speaks as loudly as any. Traction and rolling (on hardpack and loose, wet leaves) felt like they were right off of some Ground Controls.

    So, yeah. Combine the minor compensation of me floating on the bike (read "not being a lazy rider") with majors of traction and predictability (plus the raised BB, something I like), and Bontrager's awesomely easy tubeless setup. This set is a winner if you can get a discount!

    I'm also worried (like others are) that this "standard" might fizzle and die (hence the comment about buying on discount), but Trek seems to be selling a fair few bikes set up this way... I could only hope that they come out with a tire in the 220-230mm Bead2Bead category (You listening Trek!?!?). That would be perfect IMO.

  87. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    While people were taking time to write long essays about how bad this new rim choice is, I went on a ride in 3" new snow and had a great time!

    Again, I detected a slightly better traction and trail braking capability from the 26x4's I have used for years. (my measurements show closer to an inch compared to hodags on 26). Call it my imagination if you like, but I can't imagine any reason a 26x4 would have been better yesterday.

    Now we have a little more snow, I'll put on the 26x100mmx5". Oh yeah, winter is here!

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.
    Hey!!! You get back down in that hole!!

    Sheezus, we're gonna need to set some traps round here.

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.
    Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".

  90. #190
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,924
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".
    No it pretty much only comes out in the winter when all the uncool kids are hiding in the house.

    Still wouldn't buy a wheelset that had one tire available. Them days are long gone no need to limit oneself.

    edit: Now I remember who beat me up.

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    That is my problem with this whole 27.5" thing, it is a marketing scam. Trek is trying to capitalize on the "hot" 27.5" MTB's to sell fatbikes that offer a very small diameter increase over a 26X4" tire.
    I don't know. I'm the world's biggest hater of big, corporate bike companies - especially for their marketing hype around useless trends, use of components with built-in obsolescence, their tendency to hold up racing as the end-all archetype and - in Trek's case in particular - their propensity for swallowing up good, small companies. But, having just listened to that podcast (while I should have been working), I think I've changed my mind about Trek quite a bit! I have to say those guys actually "get it," in many ways where others don't.

    Yea, like all the big guys, they were way late to the party in terms of fat and 650b and plus, and they are benefitting from the risks taken by Surly, Fatback, Wildfire, Waltworks, etc. But unlike almost ALL the other big companies, they are looking at it fresh, with a critical eye, and are actually taking chances of their own, rather than just hopping on a bandwagon.

    The big takeaways from listening to those guys, is seeing how they recognize that:

    1. Plus-size volume tires are the future, for everything that doesn't require full-fat floatation. Just like most of us on this forum, they probably look at a 2 1/2" wide tire as almost comical in it's skinniness. Incidentally though, they DO directly acknowledge that there are times when the floatation of a 26 x 4.8 tire is warranted and superior to the 27.5x3.8.

    2. Diameter is where it's at - in terms of efficiency, speed, comfort, traction, float! They clearly are NOT pushing this 27.5x3.8 thing because of the 650b trend. Quite the opposite, they're pushing it because they realize that 29+, with it's bigger diameter, is far superior to 650b+, and they want to build bikes around that geometry - which is what this tire does.

    3. It's perfectly ok to question even the most accepted-as-gospel tenets of contemporary bike design - things like "chainstays should be as short as possible" - in search of a geometry that best leverages a specific wheel diameter. For most of us non-perfectionist hacks, there's absolutely nothing wrong with messing up your bottom bracket height or trail figure, by squeezing in a tire that a bike wasn't designed around. But that's much harder for a designer to be comfortable with, since they've intended everything to work as a precise package. Trek wants a constant wheel diameter, regardless of rim format.


    Now... none of this new-found Trek appreciation changes the fact that the whole Boost thing is a total cluster f___iasco - and that there are (were already) way better ways of achieving everything it managed to achieve. But I now believe that they came up with it in part just because they were honestly trying to see things from a fresh perspective - not entirely for the sake of marketing a new standard. It's just too bad there are so many roadies in their boardroom, telling them that a narrow q-factor was actually an important design criteria. Sigh...
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  92. #192
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    2. Diameter is where it's at - in terms of efficiency, speed, comfort, traction, float! They clearly are NOT pushing this 27.5x3.8 thing because of the 650b trend. Quite the opposite, they're pushing it because they realize that 29+, with it's bigger diameter, is far superior to 650b+, and they want to build bikes around that geometry - which is what this tire does.
    This.... and I'll be happily riding the piss out of my farley 9, I went from 26x4 to 26x5 for snow reasons (clydesdale) then went back to smaller tires for summer, then up to 4.8 knards for summer because I liked the larger diameter more, then trek went larger diameter with a 3.8, I'm sold, I rode last year's farley 8 after my salsa with 4.8 tires, I won't go back to that diameter, the 27.5x3.8 is a happy medium when I don't need the float

    if you're a skinny guy that doesn't need the larger diameter or 5" tires to get more float or don't like the taller wheel geometry, more power to you, you get the run lighter wheels and tires, but I'm not going backwards now, more tires will come

    B+ is cool because it fits my existing MTBs that could use a little more float or cush for certain rides but it's diameter now feels lacking to me

    find what you like and rock it, I'm thrilled with all the options we have today
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  93. #193
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,924
    I sure do like the new Farley's, one of the coolest bikes out at the moment. Trek is actually an awesome company who help out a lot with the local MTB scene around WI and MI. If I needed another fatty I would be checking out the 7 fur sure.

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Still wouldn't buy a wheelset that had one tire available. Them days are long gone no need to limit oneself.
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by jr z View Post
    i'm guessing you didn't buy an original pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-p
    bam!!!

  96. #196
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,924
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P
    Im guessing either your reading comprehension is off or you didn't read the whole post. Bam!!

    And no I waited till the Larry came out.

  97. #197
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,924
    It amazes me how people can get their panties all up in a bundle over someone not agreeing with them on a silly wheelsize. Do we all have to agree in order to get along? There is not a right or wrong just different opinions.

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P
    So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.

    That sound you just heard... Hundreds of Pugslies rolling over in their shallow graves.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.

    That sound you just heard... Hundreds of Pugslies rolling over in their shallow graves.
    Fat biking is far from a revolution. It's just an interesting evolution of rigid mtb that originally fitted a niche market of snow riding. Now that we are further improving that branch of the market, new wheel and type size are certainly options that need to be tested.

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    Fat biking is far from a revolution. It's just an interesting evolution of rigid mtb that originally fitted a niche market of snow riding. Now that we are further improving that branch of the market, new wheel and type size are certainly options that need to be tested.
    Maybe not in France, but here in the northern US, it definitely is....
    https://www.google.com/search?sclien...74.qUbvmlRVMSA
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I was so excited.
    By modifier in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-22-2013, 12:19 PM
  2. Excited about ss
    By jrogs in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-24-2012, 03:14 PM
  3. Really Excited
    By The Hookler in forum Turner
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 04:21 AM
  4. excited!
    By nephets0 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 03:27 PM
  5. Excited !!!!
    By stb3222 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 10:49 AM

Members who have read this thread: 378

Posting Permissions

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