Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1034
  1. #201
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Maybe not in France, but here in the northern US, it definitely is....
    https://www.google.com/search?sclien...74.qUbvmlRVMSA
    Seeing every single major manufacturer is jumping in, I agree.

  2. #202
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,994
    so many sandy vajay-jays...

  3. #203
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so many sandy vajay-jays...
    Not to be confused with sandy vaginas
    Urban Dictionary: Sandy Vagina

    Or maybe.?.?.?.?.?.?

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    985
    Curious to know more. What conditions did you test under? How much time did you spend on the 27 tires?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    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
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Rode, again, this weekend on wet, leafy, frozen trails. Found that the Hodags didn't really like the drop in pressure associated with the drop in ambient temperature (last ride report was in the ~70*F range, yesterday was ~35*F). Pumped 'em up and they managed to get some of their cornering traction back. I was, initially, a little surprised to run into this, as I'm used to getting more traction with a lower pressure, but with more squirm. The Hodags were the opposite (which shouldn't have surprised me since I normally wouldn't run this small of tire on an 80mm rim). Overall, the Hodags really lost a lot with the temp change. I'm still liking these better for warm weather riding (something I didn't, really, ever expect to think/write/say), and will likely continue using them next warm season.

    Overall, I'm glad Trek brought this size out. I really, truely do like it better than 26x4", but it seems to be a toss-up between 26x5" and 27.5" standards depending on conditions. Honestly, I kinda like that I'm torn between the two. It helps reaffirm to me that more options are never a bad thing...

  6. #206
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Curious to know more. What conditions did you test under? How much time did you spend on the 27 tires?
    I was only involved with the 29 and 29+ stuff. I rode all kinds of XC to easy FR stuff around Park City. I was just giving impressions, not doing any "serious" testing, though. Trek gave a couple of us ex-pro racer/framebuilder folks some tires early on to play with. Whit at Meriwether has a lot of time on them and some good info at his site as well.

    I did do some super-ghetto testing on the 29+ vs 29, you can read about it here. Long story short: I'm faster everywhere on 29+ than 29. I don't doubt the same would be true for 27.5x4 vs 26x4.5 or whatever but I haven't tried it.

    -Walt

  7. #207
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,994
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Not to be confused with sandy vaginas
    Urban Dictionary: Sandy Vagina

    Or maybe.?.?.?.?.?.?
    yes. totes.

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,996
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    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...
    Q factor is very important to me, but I'm pretty short. Keeping a relatively narrow Q didn't really hinder tall riders but helps shorter ones. Or at least that's probably their reasoning.
    Just a little perspective from way down here!

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I was only involved with the 29 and 29+ stuff. I rode all kinds of XC to easy FR stuff around Park City. I was just giving impressions, not doing any "serious" testing, though. Trek gave a couple of us ex-pro racer/framebuilder folks some tires early on to play with. Whit at Meriwether has a lot of time on them and some good info at his site as well.

    I did do some super-ghetto testing on the 29+ vs 29, you can read about it here. Long story short: I'm faster everywhere on 29+ than 29. I don't doubt the same would be true for 27.5x4 vs 26x4.5 or whatever but I haven't tried it.

    -Walt

    since you wrote "everywhere". are you saying that 27x4 is better than 26x4.5 on snow?



    btw I was faster on my 29er than 29+. I have the power to move the 29+ as fast as the 29er uphill, but the tiny knobs on the 29+ was not confident building. the same for 27+ and fat 26". too small of knobs on plus tires so far.

  10. #210
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    I would guess that in most snow conditions, yes, 27.5x4 will be a little better than 26x4.5 or 26.5. If it gets soft enough the 26x5 probably wins, though. As I said, I have not even ridden the 27.5x4, I'm just extrapolating (perhaps erroneously) from the 29+ experience I have and Trek's own claims that wheel diameter is a better way to increase volume than width for traction/rolling resistance purposes.

    Did you listen to the Trek guys interview podcast? Good info in there. Obviously they are biased but they do at least explain their own logic.

    For my testing, I compared 2.2" XR2s to Chupacabras, because of the almost identical tread patterns and casings/shapes. If you are comparing very large knob 29er tires to small knob 29+, that's obviously not super useful. You might like the Dirt Wizards?

    It will also depend on riding style, I suppose. I was expecting a sort of bouncy fun machine that was generally slow. Turns out I was faster on every type of terrain, up or down. Pretty surprising to me, but makes sense based on Trek's stated logic/testing.

    -Walt

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    I am very exited about the new 27.5 Hodag.
    Let me explain.
    I am a southern rider, my bike will most likely never see snow.
    However I have many opportunities to ride through trails that pre-fatbike
    were nearly unrideable.
    I am wanting to build a new bike for myself on a fatbike frame for reasons of building
    a "summer wheelset" to ultra wide hubs, which will give me a crazy strong wheel build.
    However I do not want to build on an 80mm rim, most likely will be using wtb scrapers.
    I have spent time on 26 x 4 and It is too slow for me.
    The 27.5 Hodag will allow me to run a suspension fork up front and build on a 150mm hub, resulting in a strong wheel build and still give me clearance under the arch.
    It will be a smidge slower than 29+ but will give me more bluto arch clearance "real world mud clearance"
    This tire size will actually be better for "owning" endless rock gardens.
    I feel that it will maximize the potential for a wheelset for a southern fatbike.
    I feel that the 27.5 hodags competetion for performance in summer conditions will be from sizes 3.8-3.0
    I plan on seeing for myself what this tire size will do for me.
    I ride rediculously rocky terrain and loose river bed stuff. I just don't want to run 26 x 4.7-5.0,
    Currently being a krampus rider I was excited to see a jones bike displayed with 29 x3.2 duro crux tires....
    Could u imagine a 29 x 3.5? or 3.8? for that matter? It wouldn't fit inside a manitou magnum fork,,, That size would most likely be rediculously cumbersome also, so much weight and mass.... It would accentuate on 29+ only weakness in my mind.
    I plan on building a bike around the Hodag tires without even riding them. I know
    deep down what this tire size will do for me personally.
    On another note:
    Did Trek/Bontrager really beat Surly to the punch on something fatbike oriented?
    Way to go Trek for stepping out and "growing some" and having some fun.
    Seriously Way to friggin' go! American ingenuity right there.
    Thank you Trek/Bontrager!
    Last edited by mikeetheviking; 11-23-2015 at 08:52 AM.
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    What is the down side of the 80mm wheel other than a bit of weight/rolling mass?

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    I don't see 80 mm rims for 27.5 x 3.8 as a downside....
    I just see myself using tires from sizes 27.5 x 3.8 - 3.0 that are already in existence.
    So using a narrower rim is going to benefit me
    I also happen to like the tire profile using a narrower rim
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    What is the down side of the 80mm wheel other than a bit of weight/rolling mass?
    For mikeetheviking's described riding, I'd have to agree with his choice for narrower rims. I'd do the same if I hadn't already purchased the Bonti's (at discount). I don't like having that small of tire (the Hodag 3.8) on that wide of rim, just for the sake of reducing rim strikes. Otherwise, Bontrager's profile design of the 27.5" Hodag seems like it was made for 80's.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,188
    This podcast from fat-bike.com is pretty interesting. It's a long interview with the trek farley team (engineer, product manager, and Travis Brown) on the Farley, their outcome of their research on the 27.5x4 and why they are all in on that format. Really an interesting discussion and well worth the listen.

    Here's the podcast: Fat Camp Podcast #7 – Ken and Andy Talk Tech With Trek Engineers | FAT-BIKE.COM

    The upshot of this is that their research shows the 27.5x4 is a lot better than other formats in all but the deepest loose snow. What they described was consistent with my test riding over sand with the 9.8 Farley (27.4) and the Pivot Les Fat set up with 26x5's on the same sand beach (relatively firm sand that would break free into loose sand if you didn't have a light touch on the pedals).

    I'm thinking that the 27.5x4 fits into a continuum between the 26x4 and the 26x5 where it is considerably closer to the 26x5 in terms of terrain compatibility than it is to the 26x4. It's hard to quantify since the science behind this is pretty complex and there are a lot of variables that have a pretty big impact. According to the engineering guy on this, a lot of the research on tires in loose terrain comes from the Ag world where research was done on low flotation tires for tractors with respect to fuel efficiencies etc.. I thought that was interesting especially given the large diameter of tractors with respect to other vehicles.

    J.

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Well I am cool with it either way as I have 2 wheel sets for my Farley Build, 26x5 winter and 27.5x3.8 summer. I also have 2 forks, carbon for winter and bluto for summer. I think in my case the 29+ would be just too tall for me at 5'4" shortness. LOL I am counting on Trek expanding the 27.5 tire choices such as a Rogarou. Those look really sweet.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,188
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Well I am cool with it either way as I have 2 wheel sets for my Farley Build, 26x5 winter and 27.5x3.8 summer. I also have 2 forks, carbon for winter and bluto for summer. I think in my case the 29+ would be just too tall for me at 5'4" shortness. LOL I am counting on Trek expanding the 27.5 tire choices such as a Rogarou. Those look really sweet.
    Your plan sound similar to mine but closer to completion. I'll add the 26x5's only if I run into issues with the 27.5x4 this winter.

    I'm interested to see how the 27.5x4 does on the terrain I have to ride on this winter. One of the attractions for me was the ability to support 26x5 all the way up through 29+. I, too, plan to add a Bluto fork this coming summer but I wanted a good carbon fork for the winter.

    In that podcast, Trek had a discussion about what they were planning for tires. They talked about it in generalities, but that was because they have multiple tires apparently forthcoming and didn't want to spill the beans until they were available (reading a bit between the lines).

    Have you had a chance to compare the 26x5 to the 27.5x4 in some softer terrain yet?

    J.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Smartest money for many would be going with the F7 and holding out for a more sensible/logical 65mm 27.5 rim.
    You're just not gaining much (except weight) with the 80mm rims shipping with the F9's currently.

  19. #219
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,311
    Jackalope 27.5 x 80mm rims came into stock today.

  20. #220
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,591
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Jackalope 27.5 x 80mm rims came into stock today.
    I like turtles

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Smartest money for many would be going with the F7 and holding out for a more sensible/logical 65mm 27.5 rim.
    You're just not gaining much (except weight) with the 80mm rims shipping with the F9's currently.
    Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion (and it makes sense to have a 50MM 27.5 wheel for weight savings) but I had a blast on my 26X3.8 Jackelope/Hodags all last year, so I expect these will suit me fine, especially for what i paid for them including the tires. They are well built wheels. And I will have the Bluto this time around tooi instead of a fully rigid bike,.

  22. #222
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,875
    I read through this thread and maybe I missed it, but has anyone run the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag tires on 50mm rims yet? I have a 50mm 27.5 carbon wheelset and wondered how fatter tires would feel after running both 3.5 Fat B Nimble and 3.0 Ground Controls for a couple of months.
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | ssoft | flickr

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    Mikesee has built both 26 and 27.5 HODAG tires onto 52 mm HUGO rims.

    you can see a photo of a 26 in hodag here on a 52mm rim, to give you and idea of tire
    profile for both 26 and 27.5

    Big Wheel Deals

    when you think about it.....It's not hella bigger than 3.0....
    were just adding .4 to each side, less than half an inch.
    Just wide enough to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    The next thing I am curious about.... Is will the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag fit front or back on any 27.5+ bikes in existence?

    Or is this literally a "fatbike" only tire?
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  25. #225
    Ride da mOOn Moderator
    Reputation: NEPMTBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,292
    You guys keep spending my money...
    ...I need more tires!

  26. #226
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeetheviking View Post
    The next thing I am curious about.... Is will the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag fit front or back on any 27.5+ bikes in existence?

    Or is this literally a "fatbike" only tire?
    On a 50mm rim, the Hodag 26" tire is about 90mm wide. I'd assume the 27.5 is the same bead to bead/shape/etc, just bigger diameter. So probably a no-go on basically all 27.5+ bikes? You'd have to measure each frame but I doubt you're going to find a lot with 100mm of space.

    -Walt

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    Kind what I was thinking, Thanks Walt!
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    912
    Yeah I think it is going to be a fat bike only thing. I asked the mechanic at one of the bike shops here in mn. about the 27.5 x 4 fitting in the Trek 29er + bike (I forgot what it's called) he said it was one of his first thoughts, but its a no go. I live up in northern Minnesota and when the trails get packed down I'm thinking the 27.5 x 3.8 would be a good fit for me. Between Susie and I we have the three different wheel sizes her 27.5 + is on a narrower rim and I'm going to have it redone to a Hugo 27.5 and then get the 27.5 x 3.8 tires and give it a go on my Mukluk 2 I'm just having surgery on my neck on Wednesday so I'm going to be off my bike till the end of February.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    Oh shizzle..... Hope your operation goes well!
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  30. #230
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    So, if I'm understanding this, a fat bike capable of taking 26 x 5" tires will also fit 29+, 27.5+ and 27.5 x 4" tires? And 27.5+ would offer the same bb height and fork geometry as 26 x 4" while 29+, 27.5 x 4" and 26 x 5" would all offer similar bb height/fork geometry?

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    Exactamundo
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  32. #232
    Living the thug life.
    Reputation: Logantri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    795
    27.5" Hodag on a 50mm rim is 86mm wide, 72mm high, very rounded. The 27.5" tire has less girth to it than the 26" tires. Very evident when you hold a rolled up 27.5" tire.
    I proudly ride for these guys.

    My blog.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    912
    I am trying to talk my wife into moving to the Hayward WI. area.. if I was getting a new fat bike it would probably be a Farley and have three wheelsets for it.

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    So, if I'm understanding this, a fat bike capable of taking 26 x 5" tires will also fit 29+, 27.5+ and 27.5 x 4" tires? And 27.5+ would offer the same bb height and fork geometry as 26 x 4" while 29+, 27.5 x 4" and 26 x 5" would all offer similar bb height/fork geometry?
    More or less, depending on the rim/tire combos in question.

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    Ok, which brings me to my next question, considering if this is a "fatbike" tire, Will it fit inside of early 26x4 "pugsley" esque fatbike frames?

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeetheviking View Post
    Ok, which brings me to my next question, considering if this is a "fatbike" tire, Will it fit inside of early 26x4 "pugsley" esque fatbike frames?
    Yep! I was running exactly this setup (on a battleship grey Pug) with fenders for last month. A friend of mine (Sven7) was commenting this weekend how forward thinking Surly was with the first-gen. frames. 29"+, B-Fat, 26"-Fat, and 26"x5"x80mm all on one (albeit single speed) frame... Love!

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    JR Z,

    How did you like the 27.5 Hodags? how much clearance did you have in that pugs frame?
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  38. #238
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,407
    This is how excited I am.

    Do it however you want to do it. You don't owe anyone an explanation.

  39. #239
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,311
    Now that I've built a few sets of these I 'get it' a lot more. 27.5 x 4 is not the best for deep/soft snow in my backyard, but for people that ride groomed hardpack, they are definitely faster with more float than 26 x 4, and probably at least as fast but lighter and with less rolling resistance than 26 x 5.

    If groomed trails are your thing 27.5 x 4 makes the most sense.

  40. #240
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    It (27.5 Hodag) also fits in the Fox Boost 27.5+ fork, fyi. Which is pretty awesome.

    -Walt

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    Hey Walt, Do you have pics of the 27.5 Hodag in the Fox 27+ fork?
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  42. #242
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    No, I'm extrapolating from the 26" Hodag dimensions. I will have tires and wheels here to mount up very soon but it's VERY generous clearance all around unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.

    -Walt

  43. #243
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.
    They are the same.

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    275
    I have almost 800 miles on my 27.5 Hodags mostly trail and gravel they are great. We got 12 inches of snow the other weekend the first day was a little challenging but on day two and three when i had a good path they worked great. I think it really depends on the intended use but i think for the most part they work great. I just received a set of Minion FBF/FBR that i will be mounting to my second wheelset i am getting to see how those work on fresh snow and gravel.

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    No, I'm extrapolating from the 26" Hodag dimensions. I will have tires and wheels here to mount up very soon but it's VERY generous clearance all around unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.

    -Walt
    I would be very interested in your findings. Pictures would be awesome.

  46. #246
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I would be very interested in your findings. Pictures would be awesome.
    I will take some when I have all the parts here. I mean, it will fit with lots of room, there's really not a question about that. Hell, you can fit Vanhelgas on 70mm rims in there (pics here: http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-29/2016-...l#post12343829) and those are considerably wider than Hodags.

    It's pretty great - those boost 34 forks will fit:
    -27.5+
    -29+
    -26x4 or so
    -27.5x3.8
    -Normal 29er/27.5/26 if for some reason you wanted to use one of those.

    Pretty great flexibility there.

    Edit: Here's a 29+ Chupacabra mounted up (this one has ~1000 miles on it, so it's nice and stretched out):
    https://www.instagram.com/p/_BSI_pry...n-by=waltworks

    -Walt

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    102
    Very good to know, Thanks Walt! #herostatus
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Here's a good reference image I just made from the posted photo. (which is perfect, thank you)
    I'm not buying the "it makes a huge difference" thing.
    I'm going to say zero to just perceptible, depending on circumstances.
    The tiny difference in contact patch, and it's increased length based on these 2 tires sizes is laughable.

    I may end up building a set on 50mm rims (because then it actually makes sense) but not for contact patch reasons. Just to be faster in the summer vs 26x4.6 stock on the 7.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-circumference-comparison.jpg  


  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeetheviking View Post
    How did you like the 27.5 Hodags? how much clearance did you have in that pugs frame?
    They'll be my go-to summer tire from now on, if that tells ya anything... Clearance; a little taller and narrow (talking millimeters) than a BFL on 65's. In other words, plenty!

  50. #250
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,584
    I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!

    -Walt

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,322
    i think its probably a bit tricky to compare from that photo, isn't it? for example, if the angle the picture is taken at is not exactly at 90 degrees to the wheel, you are going to get some distortion of the visualised diameter from actual. then the lens has to be non distorting (is it a camera phone?) it is hard enough using a tape measure right next to the tyre from the ground and eyeballing the 'top'. i'm not saying it is a big difference, just that i think it is hard to judge from this picture and superimposing 2 circles like this.

    in saying that, i think you are probably right gambit21 and it's not a *huge* difference. the question is if it is a worthwhile difference i suppose....

  52. #252
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Here's a good reference image I just made from the posted photo. (which is perfect, thank you)
    I'm not buying the "it makes a huge difference" thing.
    I'm going to say zero to just perceptible, depending on circumstances.
    The tiny difference in contact patch, and it's increased length based on these 2 tires sizes is laughable...
    And you're basing this conclusion on merely drawing some lines on a photograph? Now THAT is laughable.

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    And you're basing this conclusion on merely drawing some lines on a photograph? Now THAT is laughable.
    I simply illustrated graphically the obviously, and seemingly telling small difference.
    I'm coming to an opinion based on the tiny difference I see - if I come to a different conclusion later I'll post as much. As it stands, the small difference is the small difference - that's all. Unbunch your panties. Also feel free to explain why you think the tiny difference yields a significant difference in ride (other than I paid for it, so it's awesome)

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    i think its probably a bit tricky to compare from that photo, isn't it? for example, if the angle the picture is taken at is not exactly at 90 degrees to the wheel, you are going to get some distortion of the visualised diameter from actual. then the lens has to be non distorting (is it a camera phone?) it is hard enough using a tape measure right next to the tyre from the ground and eyeballing the 'top'. i'm not saying it is a big difference, just that i think it is hard to judge from this picture and superimposing 2 circles like this.

    in saying that, i think you are probably right gambit21 and it's not a *huge* difference. the question is if it is a worthwhile difference i suppose....
    The photo is remarkably dead on, (I check these things) and the difference illustrated holds up with the actual real world measurements. Anway, it was for visual reference as to the relative difference, not a "to the millimeter" comparison.

  55. #255
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I simply illustrated graphically the obviously, and seemingly telling small difference.
    I'm coming to an opinion based on the tiny difference I see - if I come to a different conclusion later I'll post as much. As it stands, the small difference is the small difference - that's all. Unbunch your panties. Also feel free to explain why you think the tiny difference yields a significant difference in ride (other than I paid for it, so it's awesome)
    You're being the classic desk jockey expert. You see an unidentifiable "seemingly telling small difference" based on a few lines drawn on a photo, tell me to "unbunch your panties", and then tell me what i think when i never expressed an opinion at all - other than your method is laughable. I didn't pay for it so that argument is out too. I would base my opinion based on true experience, not a guess based on what i perceived a photo showed me.

    Move your seat position 1/2" in any direction and tell me it's a small difference, maybe even "zero to just perceptible". Yet this would show up in your photoshop job as barely visible.

  56. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,061
    I no longer wanna see what you're showing me. It doesn't mean a thing at all, doesn't change the way I feel.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!

    -Walt
    Exactly, changing tire width without significantly changing BB height.

    Edit: So, I initially read this thread because I thought might be something of value within, then you two start a pissing match. Please, don't mess up this thread with garbage. Delete your comments and stop making new comments. Let the thread be valuable.
    Last edited by Nurse Ben; 12-08-2015 at 03:57 PM. Reason: Cuz Gambit and Raidair are being jackassess

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716

    Idea!

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    You're being the classic desk jockey expert.
    Yeah, because getting a visual on something can't possibly yield any information whatsoever, or be the basis of an initial opinion, especially in conjunction with years of off road experience. Nah, that's totally off the deep end.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    You see an unidentifiable "seemingly telling small difference" based on a few lines drawn on a photo,
    Uh huh, which coincide pretty much exactly with what's already been ascertained based on measurements. The photo is a great visual illustration of the sizes difference. THE END. How much of a feel it translates into is the only part up for debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    tell me to "unbunch your panties",
    You don't have to - just a friendly suggestion. With respect - they're your panties.


    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post

    and then tell me what i think
    Oops, when you said using the visual reference as a basis for an opinion was 'laughable' I concluded that you disagreed with said opinion - that was silly of me.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    other than your method is laughable.
    There's the panty bunching I was referencing. I was talking about tires, you were referencing my post - see the difference? That said it was mostly tongue-in-cheek.


    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    I didn't pay for it so that argument is out too.
    I was referencing the oft typed "I own it, so I love it no matter what" we see so often around here. I wasn't suggesting you bought one.
    Further, I'm happy for anyone who did purchase one and is happy with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    I would base my opinion based on true experience, not a guess based on what i perceived a photo showed me.
    Oh...yeah. So if I showed you a circle and a hexagon, you'd be unable to ascertain which one would roll better down a hill and would need to ride it first. Further anyone presenting an opinion based on the illustration that the circle shape would likely be better would be full of it. Got it - we've established that visual reference is useless even when combined with common sense and previous world experience. I've been so informed.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    Move your seat position 1/2" in any direction and tell me it's a small difference, maybe even "zero to just perceptible". Yet this would show up in your photoshop job as barely visible.
    This is a complete disconnect with the purpose of the illustration and my post, and tells me we're really just talking past each other here. You have the freedom to move your post back and forth. Get those wheels and you're stuck with that tire size.
    Look, no hard feelings. I've seen enough of you around here that I know you're not a dolt. Let's not fall too far down the rabbit hole of written communication. I'm simply skeptical based on what I can see, as clearly as comparing a circle to a hex as mentioned above. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that at a certain point the difference in size is too small to matter, and at a certain point the difference would be large enough to matter. Based on measurements (forgetting the pic) it seems to me sizes fit into the former category. The pic was to drive that home - that's all. The difference here is clearly small - and I'm dubious as is Walt. I've simply stating my educated opinion, not trying to be a desktop expert.
    Peace
    Last edited by Gambit21; 12-08-2015 at 05:18 PM.

  59. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!

    -Walt
    Yep, the conclusion I've come to as well, and why I'm considering it (50mm rim) as well as 29+ to compliment the 80mm/ Barbegazzi setup that comes with the bike. Those 29+ chuppies are pretty damn fat which I like - building up a new set, that probably makes the most sense all things considered.

    The large tire selection, including the 3.8 is what was attracting me to the 27.5 idea. I'm just not sure I want to take the tiny chance of being unhappy with the BB height afterword when running 3" tires - which frankly I think would be just fine. With a better 3.8 tire selection and 60-65mm rims to boot, I'm all over those 27.5's.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    I am not that convinced by the picture of the wheels side by side. If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''

    I am convinced that depending on rider's size, weight and playground there is a matching wheel and tyre size that will bring joy to the rider. This is why ride reports are so subjective.

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I am not that convinced by the picture of the wheels side by side. If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''
    That's neither here nor there, and not indicative of how it all went down with regard to 27.5 coming about.

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''

    Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails.

    Give it a few years and the bike industry will be selling us a "better handling" 24in fattire that has the same true outside diameter as a 27.5" mountain bike tire to go with our 1X13 drivetrain and stiffer external axle hubs all of which will cost more and be fractionally better than what we have now.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  63. #263
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    The one thing that has really surprised me with this new tire size though is the lack of support from not just the outside market, but from Trek as well. Trek just released two new 26" fatbike tires Gnarwhal and Rougaru, but nothing in the 27.5" size. If they really want it to succeed, they need to have at least a few options compared to the many designs currently available for 26".
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    They probably had the process started long ago for the 26 inch tires so they were released.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    They probably had the process started long ago for the 26 inch tires so they were released.
    True- but they also also knew long ago that they would be releasing bikes with 27.5" fat tires. The announcements for the Gnarwhal were long after the 27.5" fat info came out.

    Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5? With the amount they have invested in the future of fat 27.5, tires seems like a odd area to become conservative with, especially since they are the only producer at this point.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5?
    Yep, which (aside from the rim width that I've harped on enough times now), is the real disconnect. I know some thought (and I certainly hoped) that we'd see more support for this size, including a 65mm rim at this past Interbike but it didn't pan out that way.

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    True- but they also also knew long ago that they would be releasing bikes with 27.5" fat tires. The announcements for the Gnarwhal were long after the 27.5" fat info came out.

    Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5?
    i asked than that very same question at the Ice Man, and added the fact that their "racing Bike" features 27.5 wheel (9.8) but their "racing Tire" the Rogaurau wouldn't fit. They had not answer but that they were not aware of anything in the works. So I wrote Trek and and asked them again and all is quiet. So wait and see I guess.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    985
    Funny you mention the Rogaurau. Switching to that tire from a 26" Hodag will drop your BB at least 15mm's. Crazy stuff going on these days.


    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    i asked than that very same question at the Ice Man, and added the fact that their "racing Bike" features 27.5 wheel (9.8) but their "racing Tire" the Rogaurau wouldn't fit. They had not answer but that they were not aware of anything in the works. So I wrote Trek and and asked them again and all is quiet. So wait and see I guess.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  69. #269
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails....
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Funny you mention the Rogaurau. Switching to that tire from a 26" Hodag will drop your BB at least 15mm's. Crazy stuff going on these days.
    Indeed. And a lot of time spent focusing on minute differences that could be spent riding.
    Do it however you want to do it. You don't owe anyone an explanation.

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    259
    With a 24" rim you could go wider and still keep the diameter of the 26x4....
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    Indeed. And a lot of time spent focusing on minute differences that could be spent riding.
    Yup- if only it would stop raining and/or the ground would freeze
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  72. #272
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Yup- if only it would stop raining and/or the ground would freeze
    No kidding. After a weekend of great conditions, it's been in the 40's and raining here the last couple days. **** El Nino.
    Do it however you want to do it. You don't owe anyone an explanation.

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails.

    Give it a few years and the bike industry will be selling us a "better handling" 24in fattire that has the same true outside diameter as a 27.5" mountain bike tire to go with our 1X13 drivetrain and stiffer external axle hubs all of which will cost more and be fractionally better than what we have now.
    I sense a bit of bitterness toward the mtb industry

    I was referring to skinny wheels because unlike fatbikes they are not completely out of whack with their actual size/outer diameter.

    People seem to feel the difference between 26 and 27.5 skinny wheels. A bit more rollover, a bit more inertia. They like it so why not.

    27.5x4 is intended to be a more rolling/less resistance version of a fatbike.
    I agree that its placement between 26x4 and 27.5/29+ may be very confusing.
    27.5x4 large outer diameter makes it better for large bike sizes.

    29+ isn't really in a better position. Its size makes it valuable for L/XL bike sizes. I am guessing that lower bike sizes tests bring the same reaction than 29er brought.

    Overall, just as we have different wheel sizes for kids (basically changing wheel size every 10-15cm in size of the rider), the same would be applicable for adults.

    If you trace a line of wheel size according to rider size, you can clearly see that 26 was way too small for L/XL size riders and that 29 is too large for S/M size riders.

    Something along the lines of :
    Trek Smart Wheel Size | VeloSport, Cleethorpes, UK - Specialized, Trek, Focus & Genesis Bikes & Cycle Accessories

    Edit: made graph:
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-0egbwz4.png

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    It occurred to me, on my ride home, last night that we've (yes, me included) have been coming at this the wrong way. 26x4 and 27.5x4 comparisons have not been apples to apples, thus far, because we're comparing outside diameter of the tires! I don't have a set of Hodags on 26"x80mm rims to take a direct measurement, but Mikesee has confirmed that Bontrager's Hodags are basically the same tire with a different over-all diameter... So let's look at the bead seat diameter:

    26" ISO standard is 559mm BSD
    27.5" (or 650B) ISO standard is 584mm BSD

    All things equal, 27.5" will be a full 25mm taller than 26x4. Not a huge difference, but still significant. Just look at how much hubbub is going on in the skinny-bike world over this 25mm.

    My stance hasn't changed. If you like 26x5 in the winter but want something a little more nimble for summer without comprimising BB height, AND you can get 27.5-Fat at a severe discount, (from my experience) it's worth it. Until it becomes more "standard" (assuming that happens with more tires), ride whatcha got and be happy!

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I sense a bit of bitterness toward the mtb industry

    I was referring to skinny wheels because unlike fatbikes they are not completely out of whack with their actual size/outer diameter.

    People seem to feel the difference between 26 and 27.5 skinny wheels. A bit more rollover, a bit more inertia. They like it so why not.

    27.5x4 is intended to be a more rolling/less resistance version of a fatbike.
    I agree that its placement between 26x4 and 27.5/29+ may be very confusing.
    27.5x4 large outer diameter makes it better for large bike sizes.

    29+ isn't really in a better position. Its size makes it valuable for L/XL bike sizes. I am guessing that lower bike sizes tests bring the same reaction than 29er brought.

    Overall, just as we have different wheel sizes for kids (basically changing wheel size every 10-15cm in size of the rider), the same would be applicable for adults.

    If you trace a line of wheel size according to rider size, you can clearly see that 26 was way too small for L/XL size riders and that 29 is too large for S/M size riders.

    Something along the lines of :
    Trek Smart Wheel Size | VeloSport, Cleethorpes, UK - Specialized, Trek, Focus & Genesis Bikes & Cycle Accessories

    Edit: made graph:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0egBWz4.png 
Views:	121 
Size:	24.3 KB 
ID:	1034566
    I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.
    If you look at the chart, he should definetly get a 29er... err wait a fatbike 27.5x4!

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.
    I think we're all disappointed in how poorly you have been treated by some shops and the marketing force driving them to not lose a big name backer that could make or break their shop. I can't say that, from my experience, that's the norm, though, and shouldn't be treated like it is, IMO.

    And, in this case, listening to what the muckitymucks at Trek/Bontrager have to say about this standard and jumping on the 29+ bandwagon (while fully knowing that other companies were steering another direction) lends a bit of credibility to their claims. Whether there's an appreciable benefit to the bigger standard? All you have to go on is Trek/Bontrager's word, the word of people here who have tried it, and a little bit science that's peeked through the haze. It tooks some guts to stick to this and the beta behind it says there's a reason other than marketing... IMHO.

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    It occurred to me, on my ride home, last night that we've (yes, me included) have been coming at this the wrong way. 26x4 and 27.5x4 comparisons have not been apples to apples, thus far, because we're comparing outside diameter of the tires! I don't have a set of Hodags on 26"x80mm rims to take a direct measurement, but Mikesee has confirmed that Bontrager's Hodags are basically the same tire with a different over-all diameter... So let's look at the bead seat diameter:

    26" ISO standard is 559mm BSD
    27.5" (or 650B) ISO standard is 584mm BSD

    All things equal, 27.5" will be a full 25mm taller than 26x4. Not a huge difference, but still significant. Just look at how much hubbub is going on in the skinny-bike world over this 25mm.

    My stance hasn't changed. If you like 26x5 in the winter but want something a little more nimble for summer without comprimising BB height, AND you can get 27.5-Fat at a severe discount, (from my experience) it's worth it. Until it becomes more "standard" (assuming that happens with more tires), ride whatcha got and be happy!
    So a 12.5mm difference in BB height then.... IMHO I wouldn't buy a bike that only has one tire available, especially one costing $3k+ just to gain less than 1/2" in ride height. Lower rolling resistance tires like the Juggernauts or Jumbo Jims would give you similar results for summer, but right now 26" wheels have a lot more options for the slick stuff, the smooth stuff and everywhere in between. Five years from now it may be different, but right now I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to jump to 27.5.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  79. #279
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    So a 12.5mm difference in BB height then.... IMHO I wouldn't buy a bike that only has one tire available, especially one costing $3k+ just to gain less than 1/2" in ride height. Lower rolling resistance tires like the Juggernauts or Jumbo Jims would give you similar results for summer, but right now 26" wheels have a lot more options for the slick stuff, the smooth stuff and everywhere in between. Five years from now it may be different, but right now I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to jump to 27.5.
    It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.
    If you buy the wheels $$$$, but that wasn't his point.

  81. #281
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    If you buy the wheels $$$$, but that wasn't his point.
    I understood his point, and I expanded it. It is not a rare thing for people to own 2, 3, even 4 high end bikes. Or 2 bikes with 2 (or 3) wheelsets for each. Getting more common as options increase that offer a different experience but keep geometry similar or identical.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I understood his point, and I expanded it. It is not a rare thing for people to own 2, 3, even 4 high end bikes. Or 2 bikes with 2 (or 3) wheelsets for each. Getting more common as options increase that offer a different experience but keep geometry similar or identical.
    Right, but you could type the same thing about the 5 and 7 and the guy achieves similar with fewer wheel sets. Thus why bother with the 9 at this point.
    One extra wheel set on a 5 or 7 and you're versatility/tire choice is greater.

  83. #283
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Right, but you could type the same thing about the 5 and 7
    I'm not that well versed in the models/options to know that.

    But I didn't need to be -- you just typed it for me...

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.
    True, but so can my Fatboy and am guessing most of the 5" fatbikes out there. If 27.5" fat is the same diameter as 26x4.8" many bikes can run it. The upside in buying a bike with 26" wheels is you have a multitude of options right out of the gate without having to drop another grand out on wheels and tires.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    True, but so can my Fatboy and am guessing most of the 5" fatbikes out there. If 27.5" fat is the same diameter as 26x4.8" many bikes can run it. The upside in buying a bike with 26" wheels is you have a multitude of options right out of the gate without having to drop another grand out on wheels and tires.
    Coming from a situation on skinnies where if I wanted to change wheels size, I had to buy a completely new bike, that isn't so bad

  86. #286
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,591
    I saw these wheels on a Farley in a shop near my house. I can't wait to put a pair on my 907. Riding year round on 4.8's and 100mm rims is fun but I'm ready to go faster in warm weather.
    I like turtles

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    No connection to the sale, but for all of you wanting to go 27.5 fat here is a potential cheap way to add a set of wheels/tires....

    Bontrager Jackalope 27 5" Fat Bike Wheelset Hodag Tires Tubeless Disc 150 197 | eBay
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,493
    Nobody is forcing these 27.5 fat wheels on people. If you don't want them, don't buy them. Buy one of the versions that has 26" wheels instead.

    I do agree that Trek/Bontrager should get a couple of more tires out ASAP.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    They'll be my go-to summer tire from now on, if that tells ya anything... Clearance; a little taller and narrow (talking millimeters) than a BFL on 65's. In other words, plenty!
    Wait... am I reading this correctly?! ^^^^

    Are you saying that the Hodaq on the 80mm Bontrager rim is narrower than a BFL on a 65mm rim? If so, that might make me re-think my insistence on holding out for a 650b x 65mm rim. I was completely satisfied with the steering characteristics of a BFL, even on a wider 82mm rim. It just wasn't tall enough.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Nobody is forcing these 27.5 fat wheels on people.
    I think everyone here realizes that.

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    63
    I am looking at 27.5X4 what is the lowest tire pressure you have run on Trek 9 series tubeless. I like a bit of squish

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I have run them down to 4lbs or so, but I don't really see much advantage and an mostly running them at 6 in the front, 8 in the rear. Maybe they don't give as much squish as 26's do, but it seems like they slow down a lot and I don't really get that much more traction. Since the sidewall is shorter, it seems like things would get dangerous quicker than on a 26. I have a 9.6 Farley.

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    63
    Great thanks, how do you like it in snow ?

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I think I agree with what I have heard from others. On firmer snow it is great, with great traction and I like it a lot. On deeper, fresh show, say more than 3 or 4 inches, it has a tendency to wash out , especially the front tire on any sidehill. It seems to me that wider and lower pressure would be better. I am still looking for a good set of 26 rims around 80mm, and then this may be my deep snow setup with something like D5's and studs, but it is not an immediate need. The LBS said that Bontrager was doing a studded 27.5 next winter, but I think it is the same 3.8 width, so that will be another option if I don't find what I am looking for in 26".

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    43
    I`m excited...
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-small_1218.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-pieni_1214.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-pieni_1215.jpg

    Hodag 27,5 x 3,8" is 93 mm wide on a 50 mm rim. Height is pretty much same as Dunderbeist on a 65 mm rim.. So a bit less than Bud 4,8 height.

    Easily fits to Beargrease2 rear.. etc.. Just to test these, as I will be using these in a fs.
    Last edited by Jukahia; 12-24-2015 at 12:20 PM.

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    789
    ^ Man, the tires actually look small in this application! Funny how your perspective changes after you get used to fatter and fatter proportions, and they become the norm.

    Still, I think these do look a lot better on the 50mm rims. To my eye, the 80s make the profile too boxy for all-round use, and the rim doesn't look like it would have enough protection from rocks. I still think that 65mm is going to be the sweet spot, but this is looking pretty promising. Thanks for sharing the pics!
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fatboy43's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    146
    Don't think it has been posted here yet but Nextie is making a 27.5 x 65 rim. Could be perfect....

    http://www.nextie.net/fatbike-black-...65mm-NXT27BE65

    Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Carbon - meh

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    26
    Well that answers my ? regarding fitting in a Krampus frame for curiositys sake. Regardless of the diameter inflated, I'm measuring 93mm up and down on my frame.

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by fatboy43 View Post
    I've got a set of these, sadly they haven't been built up yet, anyone want to take them off my hands?

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •