Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 400 of 974
  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Is this a 29+ fork or a 27.5+? Every time you post it you are saying 29+, but I thought it was a 27+.

  2. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177

    Giving this a try.

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_0543.jpg

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_0544.jpg


    Supa Fat before the skinnie fat:
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_0535.jpg
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  3. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Allamuchy Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    480
    Supa Fat before the skinnie fat:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0535.jpg 
Views:	184 
Size:	363.4 KB 
ID:	1039166
    I know fat bikes have great traction, but that is one steep hill!
    2014 Giant Trance 27.5 1
    2015 Boris FS X9 Bluto Fatbike
    2016 Cannondale Bad Habit 2

  4. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Allamuchy Joe View Post
    I know fat bikes have great traction, but that is one steep hill!

    IDK why the damn pics are sideways, I wasn't drunk when I took them!
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  5. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Who makes that mud guard? My 7 might want one.

  6. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    T'aint Muddy Fenders off Amazon.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  7. #307
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,233
    I was at the bike shop yesterday and spotted a set of Jackalope rims with 27.5x4 tires waiting to be picked up. First time I've seem em off a bike. Makes me want em even more now.
    I like turtles

  8. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    Continuing to obssess about how to make these Hodag tires work... I think these Fatlab 55 rims might be the most promising so far, now that I look at them more closely. Does anybody have experience with them?:

    Fatlab 27,5x55 - FatLab bicyclesFatLab bicycles

    I can't find the inner rim width anywhere, but it seems like they might actually be a couple of millimeters wider than the Hugo (49.5 inner - at least before the re-design), which is in turn wider than the Mulfut. Also - similar the Rabbit hole but opposite of the Hugo design - the hollow section and extra material is added at the EDGE, rather than the center. For me who will run them on an unsuspended bike, this seems like a better, more durable design.

    Name:  70408.jpg
Views: 685
Size:  7.3 KB27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-american-classic-fatlab-fat-bike-wheels021-600x399.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-fatlab-27.5x55-angle-view-full-rim_resize-640x500.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-fatlab-felge-innen.jpg

    Some pics below, stollen from Bike Rumor and THIS THREAD, show them with Husker Du (4.0) and H Billie (4.25) tires, and the profiles actually look pretty darn good.

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-11nine-full-suspension-fat-bike-275-2.jpg

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-11nine-full-suspension-fat-bike-275-3.jpg

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-k2i6tc.jpg

    Lastly, does anybody know if the production Hodag turned out to be smaller than promised? I ask for two reasons: 1) In some of the pics above, on 80mm bontrager rims, the profile looks really squared off and narrow, relative to the rim; and 2) in THIS thread, Walt cites the diameter as being 750mm which, if measured accurately, is significantly shorter than the intended 768mm. If this is the case it makes an even better argument for 55mm rims but, on the other hand, may mean the tire is too short for what I want to accomplish.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  9. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post

    Lastly, does anybody know if the production Hodag turned out to be smaller than promised? I ask for two reasons: 1) In some of the pics above, on 80mm bontrager rims, the profile looks really squared off and narrow, relative to the rim; and 2) in THIS thread, Walt cites the diameter as being 750mm which, if measured accurately, is significantly shorter than the intended 768mm. If this is the case it makes an even better argument for 55mm rims but, on the other hand, may mean the tire is too short for what I want to accomplish.
    Since the big advantage of 27.5 is supposed to be 26x5 diameter in a 4" tire, I'd be surprised if it was that small (750mm) of a diameter. If so, it would hold zero advantage over 26X4, aside from the placebo effect.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  10. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mbeardsl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by aquamogal View Post
    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
    I've got a 9.6 and have run less than 3psi a couple times in really soft snow (once was in a snowcross race, needed more traction). I'm also 225+ gear so keep that in mind. I agree with what jrogersAK, except that my front doesn't tend to wash out as bad if I go lower pressure, and it doesn't seem to wash out any worse than the folks I ride with (everything in the gamut, but mostly 26x5 and some 26x4s). I can say for sure that they roll faster even at very low pressures. I am often braking a lot more in groups on descents (road and trail) and tend to get to the top of the hill quicker (tubed 26x5 vs tubeless hodags is very different animal going uphill).

    FWIW The local pro here races a 9.6 and only brings out the moonlander occasionally. We discussed at the last race and the consensus was that for an all-season bike they are better than the 26xwhatever due to the faster rolling/lighter weight/etc, and for all but the softest conditions they are better in winter too. So far for me (with exceptions that go both ways), if I'm walking with my bike so is everybody else regardless of wheels so I haven't felt limited.

  11. #311
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    On Hugos, at about 4psi (about where I run them for snow), the 27.5 Hodags are just a smidge under 750mm diameter. I can confirm that. That compares to about 725mm for the 26" version at the same pressure and mounted to the same rim. So the tire casing/bead to bead is the same, just ~1" bigger diameter, as you'd expect.

    With Bud/Lou in the 760mm range, I'd say that's close enough to use interchangeably if you wanted to.

    I would love to see some more 27.5 fatbike tires, we'll see if Trek sticks to their guns or not. If not, I guess 27.5 Hodags will be going cheap. I for one will stock up, they're great all-arounders (and I built a whole bike for myself around 'em).

    -Walt

  12. #312
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Here's how I see the industry going... in an ideal sense.... I'm sure it won't though

    26": 4" to 5"+ tires
    27.5": plus size... i.e. 2.8-3" tires
    29": 2.2-2.5"

    EVIL Following

    Surly Wednesday

  13. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by LCW View Post
    Here's how I see the industry going... in an ideal sense.... I'm sure it won't though

    26": 4" to 5"+ tires
    27.5": plus size... i.e. 2.8-3" tires
    29": 2.2-2.5"
    Neither the 27.5x3.8 nor 29+ do fit in your grand scheme.

    I'd like things to be simple but I believe that we need wheel sizes adapted to adult rider sizes. Just like we do have different wheel sizes for kids.
    Kulhavy who is 6'1 (1m87) does ride 29er.
    Schurter who is 5'6 (1m73) does ride 27.5.
    The size is adapted relatively to their size.

    This taken into account you do realize that wheel sizes (and tyre sizes for fatbikes) do have a huge impact on how bike feels for various people with varying sizes.

    Just like there are different frame sizes, we will have different wheel sizes for the same tyre width.

  14. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	k2i6tc.jpg 
Views:	150 
Size:	195.9 KB 
ID:	1042427
    Can somebody tell me what that fork is please?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  15. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    On Hugos, at about 4psi (about where I run them for snow), the 27.5 Hodags are just a smidge under 750mm diameter. I can confirm that. That compares to about 725mm for the 26" version at the same pressure and mounted to the same rim. So the tire casing/bead to bead is the same, just ~1" bigger diameter, as you'd expect.
    Wow, I'm struggling to see the benefit then at this point. Many of the 26"x4.0" tires have similar diameters- My Van Helgas are right about ~745mm, Nates are ~750mm.

    I realize that comparing Hodag to Hodag, the 27.5" has a 1" larger diameter, but comparing 27.5" to some of the other available 26" options it has minimal or no diameter advantage. If the diameter is the same doesn't the whole longer contact patch thing go out the window?
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Wow, I'm struggling to see the benefit then at this point. Many of the 26"x4.0" tires have similar diameters- My Van Helgas are right about ~745mm, Nates are ~750mm.

    I realize that comparing Hodag to Hodag, the 27.5" has a 1" larger diameter, but comparing 27.5" to some of the other available 26" options it has minimal or no diameter advantage. If the diameter is the same doesn't the whole longer contact patch thing go out the window?
    nate at 750? my 3 are about 730 iirc...

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    Trying to come up to speed on this thread, Trek spec is 764OD for hodag.

    Sorry real confused.

    I have the farley 5 and 9.6 in west MI, we just got a bunch of snow !!!

  18. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    Sorry correction 764 OD for hodag

  19. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    nate at 750? my 3 are about 730 iirc...
    The stockers (120tpi? setup tubeless) on my Bucksaw were a hair under 29.5" when we measured them at my LBS when I bought the bike. I was concerned I'd drop my BB too much switching to JJ's, but they were only about .5" less so I made the switch.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  20. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    The stockers (120tpi? setup tubeless) on my Bucksaw were a hair under 29.5" when we measured them at my LBS when I bought the bike. I was concerned I'd drop my BB too much switching to JJ's, but they were only about .5" less so I made the switch.
    hey! if they are and they fit id call it a bonus - wish mine were! im sure there is some variation...

    yeah mine are 120tpi 'light' versions x2 and one 27tpi boat anchor version. all the same size. mounted to various rims between 45 and 85mm wide...tubeless and tubed....

    cheers!
    Last edited by dRjOn; 01-14-2016 at 11:20 AM.

  21. #321
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,233
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Can somebody tell me what that fork is please?
    Trans-Fat Fork - Carver Bikes
    I like turtles

  22. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    hey! if they are and they fit id call it a bonus - wish mine were! im sure there is some variation...

    yeah mine are 120tpi 'light' versions x2 and one 27tpi bpat anchor version. all these e same size. mounted to various rims between 45 and 85mm wide...tubeless and tubed....

    cheers!
    Yeah, doesn't look like Surly is that consistent with their sizing...
    Bud and bluto
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  23. #323
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    Regardless, the diameter isn't much different than a slightly larger 26" tire, which should be obvious, I suppose. The Hodag is the smallest fatbike tire I know of (about 90mm width on the Hugos, spreads out to maybe 95mm on a 65 or 80mm rim) and I struggle with whether it's really a big plus tire or a small fatbike tire.

    I think that if Trek had really wanted to play the wheel-diameter-is-king card, they'd have been better off just going to full on 29x4 or something. 27.5 is really just not that much different than 26.

    For folks who want a smaller fatbike tire (like me) and the ability to swap to 29+ easily, they're great. And you can build yourself a fully geared 73mm shell frame with nice normal/low q-factor and still get the chain to clear, which is pretty cool. So I'm not saying the idea is dumb...but I'm also confused about Trek's thinking on this, given that they just released a bunch of new tires and didn't make any of them 27.5.

    -Walt

  24. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    i feel pretty much the same way - for me, it is a big '27.5 plus tyre' - and the tread looks great for my uses too...struggling to wait for these darn spokes to get it rolling!

    its odd in some ways particularly as the chupa is so light. i know the hodag has a lot more tread, but it is 1250g ish...400g more than the hodag. if it were 1050-1100 id be super stoked...though i guess compared to a lot of the 26x5" jobs thats lighter by a fair chunk...so maybe they were splitting the difference a little...diameter vs weight wise....

  25. #325
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    Quote Originally Posted by aquamogal View Post
    Sorry correction 764 OD for hodag
    That is incorrect. They are not even close to that diameter, regardless of what Trek says. I have both the 26 and 27.5 versions here - about 725/750mm, respectively.

    -Walt

  26. #326
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    That is incorrect. They are not even close to that diameter, regardless of what Trek says. I have both the 26 and 27.5 versions here - about 725/750mm, respectively.

    -Walt
    I've got a set of 27.5 Jacka's shod with 3.8" Hodag's. 754 and 756 respectively, at about 5psi.

  27. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    67
    Yep, I measured my set also, on a 50 Hugo @10psi only 750mm. These 27,5 hodags has now been set tubeless on wheels for + two weeks @10psi. Compared to Bud on a nextie 65 (it is 768mm) these are far away from big boys... But I still like these tyres.

  28. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    Thank you guys, for confirming measurements. I can't decide yet if I'm disappointed. Fully aware that mfgr. specs rarely match reality, I just measured some tires myself to see if my expectations were unrealistic... or even important.

    For reference:

    FBN 29x3 = 768 mm (This is the crucial one, that I was hoping to pair the Hodag with)

    Knard 4.8 = 770 mm (This is the tire I want to replace with the Hodag, because it's just too much volume. Measurement is from memory because it isn't mounted at the moment, but I recall it being ever-so-slightly larger than the FBN.)

    D5 = 746 mm

    BFL = 739 mm (My old front tire, paired well with Ardent rear, but detrimentally too short for pairing with FBN )

    Ardent 29x2.4 = 743 mm (My old rear tire, paired well with BFL & D5 front)

    So splitting the difference between Walt's and Mike's numbers (and considering I'd run a bit more than 4 psi in the summer) let's say the Hodag is 753 mm:

    - That equates to a 5/16" ride height (radius) difference between the FBN rear and the Hodag front. Certainly not world ending and I can compensate somewhat with headset shims, though the real difference will be a bit more noticeable due to tire squish.

    - As Walt says, the Hodag size is probably close enough for replacing 29+ tires or 26x5 tires on a bike with a geometry built accordingly, if you're swapping both wheels as a pair.

    - However, this is really truest only if you're comparing to the smaller 29+ tires, like the FBN and Dirt Wizzard. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really equate well to the larger 29+ tires, does it?

    - Likewise, as Jukahia says, the Hodag does NOT seem to be an equivalent to the larger 26" fat tires, like the Bud, Knard 4.8, Snowshoe XL either. Which is what Trek advertises. It is pretty equivalent to the "tweener" size fat tires, like the FBN, D5, Ground Control, etc.

    Like I said, not sure if I'm disappointed yet. Kind of just thinking out loud and sharing my thoughts. Good news is that this makes the 55mm rims seem all the more appropriate, if I go ahead with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    The Hodag is the smallest fatbike tire I know of (about 90mm width on the Hugos, spreads out to maybe 95mm on a 65 or 80mm rim) and I struggle with whether it's really a big plus tire or a small fatbike tire.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  29. #329
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    However, this is really truest only if you're comparing to the smaller 29+ tires, like the FBN and Dirt Wizzard. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really equate well to the larger 29+ tires, does it?
    Even DW is a solid ~12mm taller than Super B Hodag.

    That said? These just make sense to me, in the same way that 29" makes sense over 26".

    With no super fat rubber options they'll be limited to summer use, for me. For any kind of omniterrain traverse where massive float isn't needed, but some float coupled with efficiency is?

    Like, for example, this or this or this?

    I think 26 x 4" just died a quick death in my world.

  30. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    FWIW, I've measured my 27.5" Hodags at 763mm diameter on a fresh mount on Jackalope Rims... Don't know what's happening with the discrepancy everyone is having, but every tire I've measured on my own (I measure circumference at the center of the tread at Max. Press. then divide by Pi) has been +/-2mm of the manufacturer's numbers for VEE, Surly, 45nrth, and Bontrager... These are new tires, prior to stretch, too!

    Edited to include Specialized Tires, as well.

  31. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    FWIW, I've measured my 27.5" Hodags at 763mm diameter on a fresh mount on Jackalope Rims... Don't know what's happening with the discrepancy everyone is having, but every tire I've measured on my own (I measure circumference at the center of the tread at Max. Press. then divide by Pi) has been +/-2mm of the manufacturer's numbers for VEE, Surly, 45nrth, and Bontrager... These are new tires, prior to stretch, too!

    Edited to include Specialized Tires, as well.
    This brings up a good point, about standardizing how we're all coming up with these measurements. My method is to:

    1. Bring the bike inside, and roll it up until the tire just touches a vertical wall (obviously, floor is horizontal).

    2. Measure from face of wall, at height where tire hits, to center of axle.

    3. Multiply X 2

    With this method, you do have to be very careful that the wheel is plumb and perpendicular to the face of the wall, or the measurement changes significantly and quickly.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  32. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    Nonetheless, we have to assume that when someone like Walt says the Hodag does not even come close to the height of the bigger 26" fat tires or 29+ tires, that he is comparing apples-to-apples and using the same measurement method or both and/or comparing them side-by-side.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  33. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    This brings up a good point, about standardizing how we're all coming up with these measurements. My method is to:

    1. Bring the bike inside, and roll it up until the tire just touches a vertical wall (obviously, floor is horizontal).

    2. Measure from face of wall, at height where tire hits, to center of axle.

    3. Multiply X 2

    With this method, you do have to be very careful that the wheel is plumb and perpendicular to the face of the wall, or the measurement changes significantly and quickly.
    Why can't you hold the tire up, put a level on it and use a metric tape to measure from top of tire at the base of the level (centered on level) to the floor? Just making sure the tape dissects the wheel directly past the axel.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  34. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Why can't you hold the tire up, put a level on it and use a metric tape to measure from top of tire at the base of the level (centered on level) to the floor? Just making sure the tape dissects the wheel directly past the axel.
    I used to try it that way, but I could never duplicate a measurement, so I quit. Too hard to hold both the bike/wheel and the level plumb and horizontal, or something. Depending on how much air is in the tire, the weight of the bike could actually deform the tire, too - especially at these low pressures.

    I also use the same face-of-wall method as an easy way to accurately measure things like front-center and effective (horizontal) chainstay length and saddle setback, without relying on eyeball measurements and/or trigonometry , so it just became my de-facto method, I guess.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  35. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    I use 2 right angled steel rules bolted together so they can slide against each other but be cinched down this means the total diameter is the minimum the rules can be reduced and still allow the wheel to fit. It helped to get accurate numbers for a number of wheels to have some very close fitting frames made around particular wheel sizes.

  36. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,401
    And no 27.5 fatty studded? Farley 8 owner here, I'm not seeing a great advantage to the 27.5 rim size. Incrementally bigger? What am I missing?

  37. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    Some of you might be following a parallel conversation going on in the Plus forum but, just in case, here's a picture that craigsj just posted, of the Hodag and Chupacabra together. This might be the most informative way to look at this:

    Name:  IMG_0757.jpg
Views: 1028
Size:  54.5 KB
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  38. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    67


    Yep, You need to twist Your head, it's an I phone quality + me

    Here is now hodag 27,5x3,8" on 50mm wheel and on the bottom/left is barbegazi 26 x 4,7" on 65mm wheel.... And wait for it...

    Hodag is 5mm TALLER ! So by the method of bontrager 27,5x3,8" is a match for big tires One just needs to make them all small...

    Heights are, hodag 750mm and barbegazi 745mm, both 10psi, same method Bud is 768mm !! and yes, measured standing in front of wall with steel angle etc. I ewen tryed 20psi to barbegazi and had it 750mm.

  39. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Barb and 27.5 Hodag are roughly the same size - within 4-5mm.
    Old news.
    The bikes are designed with that in mind, and that's also how we knew 29+ would fit just as well since the Chupie is also within a few mm of the Barb.

  40. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    Ahhh.... that's what we thought was the whole point right ? But it seems that neither the barb or hodag really did turn out as tall as the chupa in reality, as we had expected - or as wide, for that matter. Thats really the only new revelation.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  41. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Hmmm...I have a 29+ wheel set here ready to be built up along with Chupas.
    I'll be interested to see in person just how much size discrepancy there is from the Barbis.

  42. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xctearor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    200
    I like the 27.5 x 4 idea, but is the ability to accommodate 26x4, 26x5, 27.5x4, 29+ specific to the Farley due to its geometry and sliding drop-out? Or would something like a Fat Caad 1 be able to run all wheel sizes as well?

  43. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by xctearor View Post
    I like the 27.5 x 4 idea, but is the ability to accommodate 26x4, 26x5, 27.5x4, 29+ specific to the Farley due to its geometry and sliding drop-out? Or would something like a Fat Caad 1 be able to run all wheel sizes as well?
    Typically if the bike can run 26x5" tires it should fit all of the others.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  44. #344
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,233
    Yep. Once I get some 27.5 stuff, I'll have all three for my 907.
    I like turtles

  45. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,593
    So what are we talking about as far as widths go on a 50mm rim?
    "Wait- I am confused" - SDMTB'er

  46. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm Jackelope@ 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  47. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm Jackelope@ 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.
    You felt a 1% increase in diameter? 9mm is only a 4.5mm (.177") increase in ride height.

    More likely you felt the difference of less compression due to 3 more psi in a smaller casing.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  48. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    You felt a 1% increase in diameter? 9mm is only a 4.5mm (.177") increase in ride height.

    More likely you felt the difference of less compression due to 3 more psi in a smaller casing.
    I think you are making assumptions based on things you don't know. I have a LOT of time on the Barbs at 14 PSI to 4. The first time I was on the 27.5's at probably 8-10 PSi it hit me immediately that it felt taller. But hey, you probably know more than me. I am 5'3" tall, I am sensitive to seat height. Probably just my imagination.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  49. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    If I gave you a Barb with a 757mm diameter and then swapped it with a slightly undersized one 9mm smaller with everything else being equal (bike, psi, rim size, etc) I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in ride height.

    You are changing tires, rims, psi, casing size, width, tread pattern, knob height,wheel weight, rolling resistance, rigidity and a host of other factors and you claim that you can isolate all of that to notice the minute .177" difference in ride height? .177" is the same size as a BB from an air rifle, i.e. Very small. Can tell if you have a BB under your fat tire?

    Your "experiment" has way too many variables for you to say that the diameter/ride height is the difference. You are the one assuming that all of these factors (different tires, rims, psi, casing size, tread pattern, knob height, casing rigidity, tire construction, tpi, etc.) have no bearing on your perception of ride height.

    I'm not saying you can't tell a difference between the two wheel sets, they should be very different, but there is a lot more at play than just a small diameter increase making that difference.
    Last edited by Paochow; 01-20-2016 at 08:02 PM.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  50. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    OK, thank you. I wasn't experimenting, I just own 2 set of wheels and I reported my impressions of them, how ever useless that may be. I'll just stay our of this and leave it up to the scientists. Thanks!
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  51. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-24504710195_663d054cd9_b.jpg

    mounted on nextie junglefox2 45mm internal, 87mm casing, 93mm tread, 745mm diameter. this was imediately after mounting tubeless, at 25psi, so it might stretch a bit, but the casing is pretty robust (1250g) so maybe not.

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-23875781514_3f230b111e_b.jpg
    Last edited by dRjOn; 01-21-2016 at 04:45 AM.

  52. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If I gave you a Barb with a 757mm diameter and then swapped it with a slightly undersized one 9mm smaller with everything else being equal (bike, psi, rim size, etc) I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in ride height.
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.

  53. #353
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.
    It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"

  54. #354
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 493
Size:  37.9 KB
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  55. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  56. #356
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,233
    Not those exactly but I ride with guys that have Nextie's fat rims and they swear by them.
    I like turtles

  57. #357
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    i have some older Nexties and wasnt ecstatic about the drilling, a common issue, but they have held up ok otherwise to a year plus of use, though they are on a rigid singlespeed so not massive impacts etc. the newer one i built up seems to have a step up in construction and the drilling was both directional and perfect.

  58. #358
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.
    You know some of us have been a this for a while.

    However, I can totally tell that my front tire was molded from a different lot/production run than my rear tire. Must have been the next day and a different dude was molding the tire. Maybe a .002 difference in durometer but man the rear totally absorbs bumps better than the front. It's awesome and confidence inspiring once the bump gets to my rear tire and my butt cringes less than my wrists.

  59. #359
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"
    Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.

    -Walt

  60. #360
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    I must be drinking from an entirely different cup, I dream of 24" of pure bliss with some 4.6's and super short stays. Instead of worrying about about rolling over logs I'd be flying over em
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-shrek20012.jpg  


  61. #361
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,966
    I'm curious if anyone has tried fitting these to a Salsa Bucksaw on 44mm rims. Given the complaints about these tires that they're not true to size, I wonder if they'd fit...

  62. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    walt: do you think the hodag would fit in paragons' yoke? (do you build with that, ever? i know you often dont use a yoke...)

    edit....nope! too close!

    MS2060.PDF

  63. #363
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    I'm curious if anyone has tried fitting these to a Salsa Bucksaw on 44mm rims. Given the complaints about these tires that they're not true to size, I wonder if they'd fit...
    I'm 99% sure the 27.5 Hodags would fit the Bucksaw.

    -Walt

  64. #364
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Welnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.

    -Walt
    Some people are more sensitive about things than other people.

    Amazon.com: Books

  65. #365
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I'm 99% sure the 27.5 Hodags would fit the Bucksaw.

    -Walt
    Sweet. Just ordered some for my bucksaw. I decided to build a set of 27.5 plus wheels for it first, because I got a sweet deal that I couldn't pass up on some WTB Scrapers. Of course, now that snowmageddon is about to hit the northeast, I'm wishing that I'd built up my marge lite rear instead, hopefully, we'll still have snow when the tires arrive next month.

  66. #366
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm Jackelope@ 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.
    Width?

  67. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"
    Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.

  68. #368
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.
    Jeez talk about getting hung up Uh nobody really said you had a valid point.

    Oh and I read the rest, I just didn't want to call you out in public and call BS but since you bring it back up.

  69. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.
    Nobody is arguing that the difference doesn't exist. It's just that with all of the other factors, a 4.5mm ride height difference is going to be extremely hard to notice. A slight pressure difference will result in more ride height difference than that and be much more noticeable.

  70. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    982
    I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.

    It is a given that people have different sensitivities. Just because you can't feel it does not mean that it is not perceptable to others.

    I can feel when a tire is getting worn and the knobs are shorter I don't stop riding but it does change the feel of the bike.



    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.

    -Walt
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  71. #371
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid.
    You may want to research this and then read their statements again.....
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  72. #372
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.

    It is a given that people have different sensitivities. Just because you can't feel it does not mean that it is not perceptable to others.

    I can feel when a tire is getting worn and the knobs are shorter I don't stop riding but it does change the feel of the bike.
    So the shorter, worn, rounded knobs, and stretched/degraded rubber do nothing to change the feel of the tire, but yet you can feel the 2-3mm decrease in ride height?

    "Why'd you change your tires- were they worn out and not gripping anymore?"
    "No- I couldn't handle the 3mm decrease in ride height."

    Worn tires feel different I agree, but there are other factors contributing much more to that change. With knobs averaging in the 4-6mm range, a half worn tire would only have a 2-3mm difference in ride height.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  73. #373
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,966
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?

  74. #374
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?
    Curious about this as well.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  75. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.
    .
    Note: Don't send Shoo to the grocery store to shop for apples and oranges.

  76. #376
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    A blog article on this very subject:
    Bigger Wheels | DANOS MODERN(ER) LIFE

    I am not the author but the guy being the owner of a bike shop has had many bikes over time so he can compare formats.

    He also says that "big guns" are working on it.

  77. #377
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?
    Ive heard that other manufactures are having a hard time replicating the magic fairy dust that gives them their super powers
    Last edited by bdundee; 01-22-2016 at 08:07 PM.

  78. #378
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    Personally I believe these where created specifically for a 6 foot whater freakishly tall dood that drifts like a *******

  79. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Ive heard that other manufactures are having a hard time replicating the majic fairy dust that gives their super powers
    Placebo powder!

  80. #380
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    A blog article on this very subject:
    Bigger Wheels | DANOS MODERN(ER) LIFE

    I am not the author but the guy being the owner of a bike shop has had many bikes over time so he can compare formats.

    He also says that "big guns" are working on it.
    So a guy who sells Trek bikes, gives them a positive review....

    Theoretically a larger diameter tire would hold the advantages he notes. However looking at the real numbers being posted here, there is little to no difference in diameter compared to available 26" options, so the the only advantage appears to be all placebo effect.

    And with that placebo advantage you get the disadvantages of:
    - smaller casing/less squish
    - narrower footprint at lower pressure also due to smaller casing
    - no winter/studded tires
    - no other tires available
    - more mass concentrated further from the wheel center
    - inability to run low pressures without rim damage

    If Trek really wanted this to succeed, they should have made it bigger so it truly has an advantage in contact patch and not just an advertised advantage.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  81. #381
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    So here's a thought and question:

    I do think that it would be difficult for me personally to notice 1/4" or so of difference in ride height - at least as it affects things like inertia, mechanical advantage (gearing) and rollover ability ("angle of attack"). But I kind of wonder if there are other aspects or ride qualities that might truly be more noticeable in a change this small. Things like trail and center of gravity (bb height).

    Looking at trail, for instance (calculator HERE):

    Assuming a 70 degree head angle and 50mm of fork offset, tire diameters of 750mm, 760mm & 770mm give you trail figures of 83mm, 85mm & 87mm respectively. If you listen to roadies obsess about trail and their custom forks, those could be significant numbers.

    Or maybe not? Interested in opinions, for sure.

    Going back to the original question posed by this thread, this is why I've personally been excited about 650bx4, and why I thought Trek was on to something. It gets us closer to my dream of being able to choose whatever tire width I want, in the exact diameter I need.

    I've always thought it funny how we fat bike guys all try to squeeze in as wide of a tire as possible - sometimes an inch or more fatter than the bike was designed for - and then critique the bike's "handling."

    I also think the industry obsession with 27+ is kind of silly, when 29+ diameter is so much better. (Yes - a subjective opinion, I know.) But just like with road bike conversions, where a fat-tire 650b actually DOES equal the diameter of a skinny 700c, this should have been the perfect use of the wheel size for a change.

    What I DON't get is why Trek would have botched it right out of the gate, by making the tire undersized. Not to mention failing to offer a properly sized rim. Now, my fear is that they'll throw in the towel, without even giving it a fair shake:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I'm also confused about Trek's thinking on this, given that they just released a bunch of new tires and didn't make any of them 27.5. -Walt
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  82. #382
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    2mm of trail is not discernible to anyone. 5mm is about the lower limit.

    Trek botched this, though, for sure. They made a sweet plus tire, not a fatbike tire. Then when they released a bunch of nice new tires... they didn't make any of them in this supposedly superior size. No idea what the thinking was there.

    I mean, I really like my 27.5 Hodags. They're great. But they really probably aren't any different/better than a 26x4" tire for most people.

    -Walt

  83. #383
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    So who says that what they have is all that they are going to have? I have a Trek 9.6, and it seems like there is plenty of room for more tire, both in width as well as height. If someone was to produce a 27.5 x 5 tire, it seems like you would have the width of any of the good snow tires now, and a larger diameter and longer patch.

    It does suck that there is no studded option currently, although I head that Trek is putting out a 27.5 studded in time for next year. I am still on the fence about getting a set of 26 rims or waiting to see what comes next...

  84. #384
    Desert of the real
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If Trek really wanted this to succeed, they should have made it bigger so it truly has an advantage in contact patch and not just an advertised advantage.
    They get a better return advertising.

  85. #385
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265


    well, its a very iffy video, but the hodag was anything but iffy...27.5x4 is allllllright by me...

    more thoughts on my blog, here.

  86. #386
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    The question is how "allllright" is it in relation to the standards that already exist.

    Higher pressure than 26" (thus negating any possibly TINY increase in contact patch) means there's little point in it.
    Not that I don't think it works just fine - it should since it's more or less the same thing - with less cush.

    I tested the 9.6. My thoughts were "heavier and slower than 29+, and not feeling any better in the rolling resistance/quickness department than the 4.7 Barbis unless I air them up beyond what would feel good to me on the trail, then I just lose lose cush. So what's the point?" Might as well ride 4.7's and then get 29+. Best of all worlds.
    I'm with Walt in that they're a nice Plus tire if you want the extra weight and more contact patch (compared to other Plus tires) but as a fat bike tire it comes in somewhere between no difference and slightly inferior.
    Much of my take on this is due to how well the Barbis work - and that happens to be Treks own tire. Comparing the 27.5 Hodag to say a Lou - well now have something with regard to weight, rolling resistance, etc.

    This new standard is a sort of weird, intermediate, sort of "worst of all worlds" compromise. I'm sure they work great for the right person, not sure that person wouldn't be just as happy on 26x4" and a few of those people even on a fast rolling 4.7" tire. As I said before I don't think anyone is a dummy for buying them - just talking about the tires here relative to each other.

  87. #387
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    Woulda coulda shoulda... 29x3.8! 27.5 was always basically silly, not enough of a difference to matter over 26.

    Someone make it so I can build a bike around it.

    -Walt

  88. #388
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post


    well, its a very iffy video, but the hodag was anything but iffy...27.5x4 is allllllright by me...

    more thoughts on my blog, here.
    27.5 "fat" should have more grip than 29+, it's .8" wider.

    I'm not seeing anything in your vid though that 26" fat couldn't do as well or better, which is kind of the whole point of this thread.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  89. #389
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Woulda coulda shoulda... 29x3.8! 27.5 was always basically silly, not enough of a difference to matter over 26.

    Someone make it so I can build a bike around it.

    -Walt
    Screw that build me a 24er!!

  90. #390
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Screw that build me a 24er!!
    That would work too! 24x6" would be amazing for a lot of stuff, I bet. And I personally think the Q factor would be tolerable, if barely, at least for most people.

    Maybe we'll get there. One can only hope; tires keep getting bigger and better so maybe it's just a matter of time.

    -Walt

  91. #391
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    27.5 "fat" should have more grip than 29+, it's .8" wider.

    I'm not seeing anything in your vid though that 26" fat couldn't do as well or better, which is kind of the whole point of this thread.
    Yeah, I'm not a GoPro jockey, I just did that video for sh!ts and giggles - I didn't expect it to prove anything... ;-)~

    I haven't ridden the wtb trail boss or a dirt wizard- my point was simply that the Hodag is the most aggressive, biggest plus tyre I have tried and for that, it works very well. I don't see it as a replacement for my 26x4.5 but I do really like it ... I think it *is* better on my terrain...indeed for most trail riding I think it will be better than 26x4-5 ... Which in my mind is more suited for questionable surface- bog, snow, sand etc fwiw, I also think a bigger diameter would be pretty awesome...

    But it's all fun, and that's the point I hope!

  92. #392
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    If anyone was wanting to try 27.5x4's for cheap, I'm selling my set of used Hodags and Jackalopes (have some bends, I recommend tubed on 'em, now). PM me if you're intersted!

    Edit: Hodags are now sold.
    Last edited by JR Z; 01-27-2016 at 05:11 AM.

  93. #393
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177

    more to argue about

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_1996.jpeg

    I'll just put this right here, looks like a 2017 carbon Trek Frame, with 27.5 wampa wheels and 4.7 Barbagazi tires. (fromTravis Brown's Twitter. No words about the bike. The extra cables are data sensors for a log box probably in the bag.)

    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  94. #394
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177

    Full Monty

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-czxgh1lvaaaopon.jpg
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  95. #395
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mbeardsl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    597
    Not sure what everyone is complaining about. I took 7th today in a fatbike race running these. 3rd was running them too. I passed people running everything you're saying is better. Do you just not like running low pressure? What am I missing?

    If I had any complaint it'd be with the tread, not the size. I really dig the low weight and they seem to roll better at all pressures than the bigger tires my buddies ride. Maybe I'm crazy?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  96. #396
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,861
    I think one thing we can agree on is people are very sensitive over a silly wheel size.

    @mbeardsi if you don't like the tread design just go get some different tires, simple right?

    Oh and I don't believe anyone is calling then inferior just not superior, ie the same
    Last edited by bdundee; 01-25-2016 at 05:21 AM.

  97. #397
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,316
    The point isn't that they suck. They're great. The point is that they're really not any different than 26" fatbike tires. That is really something you could say about all 27.5 stuff, not just fat 27.5, though. The difference in radius is pretty minimal, and hence the difference in ride is pretty minimal. So why do it, especially when there's not much evidence the size will be supported with more tires?

    -Walt

  98. #398
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Walt,

    Outer Diameter as large as 4.7 without the "larger" 4.5+ tyre. I am all for it as my terrain is very rolling. 26x4 seems a rather small wheel size for my 6'1 height. And 26x4.7 is of no use for me as snow is probably going to last only a few days here in Europe.

    27.5x4 brings some of the Fat tyre benefits without as much rolling resistance. I believe Trek is addressing the market wanting more of an all-year-round bike rather than a snow-only bike.

    We can see that all large manufacturers are offering 26x4 on their high-end fat bikes (Specialized & Canyon come to mind, Surly with its Wednesday). If Fat bikes are to become year round bike they need to offer a better compromise.

  99. #399
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    Walt,

    Outer Diameter as large as 4.7 without the "larger" 4.5+ tyre. I am all for it as my terrain is very rolling. 26x4 seems a rather small wheel size for my 6'1 height. And 26x4.7 is of no use for me as snow is probably going to last only a few days here in Europe.

    27.5x4 brings some of the Fat tyre benefits without as much rolling resistance. I believe Trek is addressing the market wanting more of an all-year-round bike rather than a snow-only bike.

    We can see that all large manufacturers are offering 26x4 on their high-end fat bikes (Specialized & Canyon come to mind, Surly with its Wednesday). If Fat bikes are to become year round bike they need to offer a better compromise.
    Did you miss the last few pages of this thread? You know the part where everyone measured their tires and found them undersized and having smaller diameter than the 26"x4.8's and similar to many 26x4.0's. In theory, Trek should have some performance advantages, however their actual tires lack the diameter to have said advantages, so you are stuck with a similar performing wheel size with only one tire to chose from. Now with time that may change, as Trek will likely come out with more types and sizes of tires, but for now and until it is correctly implemented it's just a gimmick.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  100. #400
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Did you miss the last few pages of this thread? You know the part where everyone measured their tires and found them undersized and having smaller diameter than the 26"x4.8's and similar to many 26x4.0's. In theory, Trek should have some performance advantages, however their actual tires lack the diameter to have said advantages, so you are stuck with a similar performing wheel size with only one tire to chose from. Now with time that may change, as Trek will likely come out with more types and sizes of tires, but for now and until it is correctly implemented it's just a gimmick.
    I didn't miss that. However, they aren't bontrager tyre though.
    Now 27.5x4 is compared to every other type of wheel & tyre combo in the fatbike universe.
    Comparing different manufacturers tyres does not make sense when weight and structure play such a major role in a fatbike wheel behavior.
    I am not sure we have any firm objective conclusion on what the benefits are. Only feedback we have is people having tried both type of wheels and reporting improvements.

    Imagine what the different brands tyres would do with a 27.5x4' size?
    Pic of that 2017 trek farley is showing Barbegazi probably in 27.5 size.
    Are we going to say it's the same as 26x5 from a different brand?

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... 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: 560

Posting Permissions

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