Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 965
  1. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    827
    Lots of good info here around 11:40. 27.5x4 not as great volume/ floatation in super soft conditions as 26x5" but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.

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

  2. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.
    Verified. 27.5 Hodags roll better than the double Buds I had before, but the Buds rolled significantly worse than the Ground Controls before that. Ground Controls are the best rolling 5" tire I've had so far (out of many), but the 27.5" Hodags MIGHT give them a run for their money. My main worry is how the Hodags will handle on MTB trail. I've gotten used to the forgiveness of 5" traction and squooosh.

  3. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,376
    You're saying a low knob 4" tire rolls better than a big knob 5" tire?
    Amazing!


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

  4. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Yeah, pretty much my response as well.

  5. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,131
    ATTENTION ATTENTION!

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

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

  6. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,218
    Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?

  7. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

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

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

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

  8. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

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

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

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

  9. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140

  10. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?
    No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.

  11. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.
    Having just ridden some soft early season snow with 27.5 x 4 with 80mm and super low pressure, I can assure you that the rim width was not unnecessary.

  12. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    For most conditions 65mm rims would stand you in good stead,
    and provide other advantages to boot. There are conditions where
    a 100mm rim and a 5" tire provides an advantage.

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

  13. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  14. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I have a Farley 9.6 with the 27.5 wheels and 3.8 Hodag's. During the fall, it seemed great, but as the snow is building, I am getting closer and closer to getting a set of 26 x 5's. I am trying to decide between DT Swiss 2250, which is out of stock at the cheap places, Chinese Carbon or going nuts and getting HEDs. For tires, maybe Dinninger 5 studded, although I know this is not as wide as some. Where I am struggling with the 27.5's on on unpacked single track with some ski tracks or a little foot traffic, and sometimes only my previous tracks. The issues has been mainly with the front end on downhills wanting to wash out when there is a bit of a sidehill. I started at 6 lbs in the front and 7 in the back, and ended dropping the front down to about 4 lbs which improved things, although I am fearful of frozen stumps. Things seems really good an stable while climbing; the problems seems to come on the downhills with more weight forward.



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

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    ...especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.
    Must not be considering all things, then? It makes all the sense in the world that Trek would just re-roll the awesome 26" rim (that was already bought and paid for) to a bigger diameter when they took a gamble on this whole 27.5-Fat thing...

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

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

  16. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Yeah don't get me wrong, I don't think 80mm is
    a horrible idea. I just don't think they took
    their own 'faste' logic far enough. 65mm would be
    lighter and yield a better tire profile.
    80mm isn't fully comitting to what they say that
    they're going for with those bikes, and its leaving
    some performance unutilized/sitting on the table
    for no apparent reason, which doesn't make
    much sense from where I sit.

  17. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

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

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

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

  18. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Ok, diameter seems clearer, but to the point, width is the most important factor needed for float in soft sand or snow, correct?
    Not necessarily.
    Listen to the "fat camp" podcast with the Trek engineers and the old agriculture/tractor
    research they utilized with regard to tires.

  19. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,218
    So, still murky here. Longer foot print ala 26er vs 29er debate? I need science dammit, not some engineer/ marketing double speak. And now my Farley 6 I have to put out on trash day

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Both diameter and width play a role.
    A happy combination of both parameters
    is the name of the game.

  21. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    342
    Flotation comes down to the ratio between over all diameter and width. it does not mater what size rim is in there. Except that with more sidewall (ie smaller rim for the same overall diameter) you will get more squish. More squish means wider tire on the ground. So if your goal is to have the most foot print you would want to go even smaller then 26" rim while keeping the same overall diameter.

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

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

    just my $.02

  22. #172
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,174

    I agree with Trek

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

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

    -Walt

  23. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    The sidewall of the Hodag isn't making up for anything.
    What i meant is that the 27.5 Hodag is a bit lower profile than a 26 x 3.8 Hodag, so shorter sidewalls, and may be a bit firmer, maybe, IDK.

  24. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Oh, yes definitely.
    If they are actually lower profile anyway.
    I've seen mixed messages on that point.

  25. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Did some measuring today at the LBS:
    26 X 3.8 is 29.0 in diameter
    26 x 4.7 is 29.25 in diameter
    27.5 X 3.8 is 29.3 in diameter
    29.0 x 3.0 is 30.25 in diameter.

  26. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
    and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
    I knew they were all close - but damn.

  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
    and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
    I knew they were all close - but damn.
    Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.

  28. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    I will say thought that I've seen measurements that put the 29x3 Chupie on the 50mm, and the 4.7 Barbegazi in the 80mm much closer together - within a few mm.
    768mm, and 765+- respectively.

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

  29. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,131

    We the people ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not only that but it also has following downsides:

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

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

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

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

  30. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Yep - it's all pretty transparent when you top to look at it.

  31. #181
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,174
    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

  32. #182
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.

  33. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,131
    I wouldn't say the concept by itself sucks- if it was the only fatbike tire size available I'd be ridding the $h!t out of it and be happy. My complaint is that this product under certain conditions gives a very limited diameter/performance advantage over 26" setups that have an abundance of options that therefore give a much wider range of performance. The irony is that these so called 27.5" fat tires are bigger than the 29er wagon wheels that many say are too big for the trail, which is why 27.5" MTB tires were developed in the first place.

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

  34. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.
    Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.

  35. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.
    I already own the Makwa, I've had it almost a year and it was on my Farley 6.

  36. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140

    Just an update from my perspective:

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

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

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

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

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

  37. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    391
    While people were taking time to write long essays about how bad this new rim choice is, I went on a ride in 3" new snow and had a great time!

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

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

  38. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.
    Hey!!! You get back down in that hole!!

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

  39. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.
    Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".

  40. #190
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".
    No it pretty much only comes out in the winter when all the uncool kids are hiding in the house.

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

    edit: Now I remember who beat me up.

  41. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    That is my problem with this whole 27.5" thing, it is a marketing scam. Trek is trying to capitalize on the "hot" 27.5" MTB's to sell fatbikes that offer a very small diameter increase over a 26X4" tire.
    I don't know. I'm the world's biggest hater of big, corporate bike companies - especially for their marketing hype around useless trends, use of components with built-in obsolescence, their tendency to hold up racing as the end-all archetype and - in Trek's case in particular - their propensity for swallowing up good, small companies. But, having just listened to that podcast (while I should have been working), I think I've changed my mind about Trek quite a bit! I have to say those guys actually "get it," in many ways where others don't.

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

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

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

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

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


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

  42. #192
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    2. Diameter is where it's at - in terms of efficiency, speed, comfort, traction, float! They clearly are NOT pushing this 27.5x3.8 thing because of the 650b trend. Quite the opposite, they're pushing it because they realize that 29+, with it's bigger diameter, is far superior to 650b+, and they want to build bikes around that geometry - which is what this tire does.
    This.... and I'll be happily riding the piss out of my farley 9, I went from 26x4 to 26x5 for snow reasons (clydesdale) then went back to smaller tires for summer, then up to 4.8 knards for summer because I liked the larger diameter more, then trek went larger diameter with a 3.8, I'm sold, I rode last year's farley 8 after my salsa with 4.8 tires, I won't go back to that diameter, the 27.5x3.8 is a happy medium when I don't need the float

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

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

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

  43. #193
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    I sure do like the new Farley's, one of the coolest bikes out at the moment. Trek is actually an awesome company who help out a lot with the local MTB scene around WI and MI. If I needed another fatty I would be checking out the 7 fur sure.

  44. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Still wouldn't buy a wheelset that had one tire available. Them days are long gone no need to limit oneself.
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P

  45. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by jr z View Post
    i'm guessing you didn't buy an original pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-p
    bam!!!

  46. #196
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P
    Im guessing either your reading comprehension is off or you didn't read the whole post. Bam!!

    And no I waited till the Larry came out.

  47. #197
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,814
    It amazes me how people can get their panties all up in a bundle over someone not agreeing with them on a silly wheelsize. Do we all have to agree in order to get along? There is not a right or wrong just different opinions.

  48. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P
    So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.

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

  49. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.

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

  50. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    Fat biking is far from a revolution. It's just an interesting evolution of rigid mtb that originally fitted a niche market of snow riding. Now that we are further improving that branch of the market, new wheel and type size are certainly options that need to be tested.
    Maybe not in France, but here in the northern US, it definitely is....
    https://www.google.com/search?sclien...74.qUbvmlRVMSA
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I was so excited.
    By modifier in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-22-2013, 11:19 AM
  2. Excited about ss
    By jrogs in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-24-2012, 02:14 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, 09:49 AM

Posting Permissions

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