Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 974
  1. #401
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,438
    Outer diameter is about the same as a Surly Nate, or any number of other 4"x26" tires. So they are basically the same thing, albeit a little narrower.

    Again, that's not bad, per se. But it's frustrating when they're trying to say that larger diameter is such a huge advantage. If that's the case, they should have gone to 29" wheels or something else where the diameter difference would actually have been significant.

    -Walt

  2. #402
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    390
    This seems to be a tire size in search of a cause. And it is being defended by people who have already spent the money and have a vested interest in making the supposed advantages come true. It feels like this is a test that has a predetermined result and will be run and tweaked until that result is proven. I have read what is supposed to be better about this tire size and to be honest it is all BS. People may feel the difference in steering responsiveness and blah blah blah but show me facts. I don't care if you came in 3rd on 27.5's. All that tells me is 2 26ers where faster then you. Since the size of your wheel makes such a small difference in a race compared to the racer it is a mute point. Also the fact the this is from trek and no one else has come along and joined in just tells me that this is a way to sell more junk and make sure you buy it from trek. If multiple brands hopped on board it would give it more credibility.

    Sorry. Rant over.

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    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?
    That's the point, you have to imagine the tires the other manufacturers are making. If a bunch of manufacturers jumped on board and made all kinds of options in 27.5 we'd compare them. BUT they haven't, so we are comparing the sole 27.5 tire to the horde of 26" tires and quite frankly it doesn't do anything better than the collective and in some cases, i.e. Deep snow, it actually is worse.

    I agree, so far the conclusion is incomplete, but with what we have right now, the existing Hodag tire, there isn't a compelling reason to switch from 26" to 27.5".
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  4. #404
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Attachment 1045207

    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.)

    If you zoom in this could be a 26" carbon Wampa and std 26" barba tires. Thats my bet based on tire profile

  5. #405
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Attachment 1045207

    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.)

    If it is a 27.5 Barbagazi, then Trek sure didn't learn from their mistakes. Looks very close to the 26" Barbagazi in size judging from where the tire meets the bends in the fork.
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-image.jpg
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-image.jpg  

    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  6. #406
    Desert of the real
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Outer diameter is about the same as a Surly Nate, or any number of other 4"x26" tires. So they are basically the same thing, albeit a little narrower.
    Not fair.

    Surly labels it as a 3.8 tire. That's 12mm different.

  7. #407
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If it is a 27.5 Barbagazi, then Trek sure didn't learn from their mistakes. Looks very close to the 26" Barbagazi in size judging from where the tire meets the bends in the fork]
    That's my guess at this point.

  8. #408
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    I stand corrected- looks like they are making a bigger Barbagazi after all... I'm guessing 770+mm from the pic?

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-image.jpeg
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  9. #409
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    390
    I know they are not lined up but the distance the axles are off set looks to be pretty close to the distance the behind tire sticks out over the front tire on the right side and also about the same amount that the rims are off set on lower left of the tires. And the front is clearly a 26" wheel. To me they look pretty close to the same size just not lined up.

  10. #410
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Yeah tough to say from that pic - line up the perspective on both axles and they're awfully close. Pictures lie all the time because of perspective. On the surface if you adjust for the difference in perspective on the axes it's pretty even. On the other hand the tire to the rear is going to look a bit smaller, again due to perspective.

    Maybe the same difference between the 26x4 and 27.5x4 Hodags?
    Tough to say - but if I had to hang my hat on something according to the pic alone...

    The good news, assuming this is indeed a 27.5 Barbi is that peeps who bought into that wheel size will have another tire - and that Barbi rips.

  11. #411
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    It's far more progress than my beloved Trek has shown up to this point with 27.5; so far it has been superior performance through marketing. A bigger Barbi is definitely an improvement. Now we are going to need a bigger Bluto to clear this and the Snowshoe 2XL.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  12. #412
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    It's far more progress than my beloved Trek has shown up to this point with 27.5; so far it has been superior performance through marketing.
    I know we are all passionate about the mtb sport & subtleties.
    Can we agree that though that this 27.5x4 may bring some good things on the table? Maybe not to the level that the marketing would like to advertise but still?

    At this point, it looks like the naysayers are going to compare same tyre/different wheel sizes and repeat that this is basically the same thing. 26 vs 27.5 skinny wheels debate all over again.

    As for many of the mtb parts, this is not a major breakthrough or change in mtb fatbike technology but rather a small improvement. A small improvement that I am sure does not grant the need to change someone's fatbike for a new model.

  13. #413
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I stand corrected- looks like they are making a bigger Barbagazi after all... I'm guessing 770+mm from the pic?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpeg 
Views:	630 
Size:	93.7 KB 
ID:	1045675
    everyone is obsessed with looking at tires, no one notices the 26" carbon wheel
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  14. #414
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,430
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    everyone is obsessed with looking at tires, no one notices the 26" carbon wheel
    Nobody is saying the tire/wheel in front is a 27.5, they are talking about the wheel behind it as a possible 27.5 Barbegazi.

  15. #415
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    776
    I fall firmly in the camp of "the more tire size options, the better" so I'm not a hater or naysayer by any stretch. But...

    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    At this point, it looks like the naysayers are going to compare same tyre/different wheel sizes and repeat that this is basically the same thing. 26 vs 27.5 skinny wheels debate all over again.
    This is going to end up being even more impassioned - over even more subtle nuances - than the skinny version of the debate, because of the increased size of the tires we're talking about. For 2" tires, you gain something like 3.8% in diameter, by going from 559 to 650b. For these tires, the change only gains you something like 3.4%. Plus, as others have noted above, you can defeat or exaggerate any of that gain with just a couple of lbs of air pressure.


    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    As for many of the mtb parts, this is not a major breakthrough or change in mtb fatbike technology but rather a small improvement. A small improvement that I am sure does not grant the need to change someone's fatbike for a new model.
    Since it appears that Bontrager fat tires are going to be consistently under-sized compared to the industry average (they're not alone, of course), I don't think many people will need to change their bike even if they DO want to use these wheels. I think we can safely assume at this point that a A 650b Barbagazi will be the same height, or slightly smaller, than a Bud or some of the larger 26 x "4.8' tires.

    Nonethless, this could easily end up being the exact tire I'm waiting for. so I say, BRING IT ON,TREK - but don't wait until next winter. You kind of have to wonder if they even realize that the these 27" fat tires hold most of their promise in the possibility of use as summer tires.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  16. #416
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I know we are all passionate about the mtb sport & subtleties.
    Can we agree that though that this 27.5x4 may bring some good things on the table? Maybe not to the level that the marketing would like to advertise but still?

    At this point, it looks like the naysayers are going to compare same tyre/different wheel sizes and repeat that this is basically the same thing. 26 vs 27.5 skinny wheels debate all over again.

    As for many of the mtb parts, this is not a major breakthrough or change in mtb fatbike technology but rather a small improvement. A small improvement that I am sure does not grant the need to change someone's fatbike for a new model.
    It is definitely a step in the right direction, Trek has really blown it to this point by only having one tire available. If they release a few more and one of the big guys like Surly, 45NRTH, or Vee jump into the fray then this size may have a shot at succeeding down the road.

    I wouldn't say that this is 26" vs 27.5" all over again, it is more like 29" vs 30" or with the new tires- 30" vs 31". With all of these huge sidewall tires nowhere close to their 26" or 27.5" stated measurements, maybe it is time that the bike manufacturers ditch the antiquated system and the switch over to a more accurate sizing system like on cars and motorcycles.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  17. #417
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    It is definitely a step in the right direction, Trek has really blown it to this point by only having one tire available. If they release a few more and one of the big guys like Surly, 45NRTH, or Vee jump into the fray then this size may have a shot at succeeding down the road.

    I wouldn't say that this is 26" vs 27.5" all over again, it is more like 29" vs 30" or with the new tires- 30" vs 31". With all of these huge sidewall tires nowhere close to their 26" or 27.5" stated measurements, maybe it is time that the bike manufacturers ditch the antiquated system and the switch over to a more accurate sizing system like on cars and motorcycles.
    "blown it"? Really? Is that why the bikes are flying out of the LBS's and some of the models are sold out or are hard to get? Making tire molds is not simple and just takes a while.

    J.

  18. #418
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    "blown it"? Really? Is that why the bikes are flying out of the LBS's and some of the models are sold out or are hard to get? Making tire molds is not simple and just takes a while.

    J.
    Well, nobody is really saying that there's anything wrong with the Farleys. They're clearly a great bike. Plus - a lot of people seek out value-packed , mass-produced, carbon fiber bikes from big corporate manufacturers - that's no surprise. This thread is more of a debate about the merits of the tire platform alone.

    I do agree that Trek blew it a bit. Not on the level of Surly with the Knard, where they actually came up with a real improvement but then let others steal the thunder because they couldn't follow up with more tires. But more because they didn't even follow through on their OWN idea, thereby denying anybody the opportunity to really test their theory.

    If you go back and read the whole thread chronologically, from when there were just rumors, you'll see what @paochow is talking about. Trek initially suggested that the 27x4 was going to be the same size as 29+ and 26x5 tires. Unfortunately for all of us, it's not.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  19. #419
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    "blown it"? Really? Is that why the bikes are flying out of the LBS's and some of the models are sold out or are hard to get? Making tire molds is not simple and just takes a while.

    J.
    I'm a Trek fan, I've owned more Trek's than any other brand in my life and half the bikes in my garage are currently from Waterloo, but you are far too willing to give Trek a pass on the tires... If they had the time to design the carbon and aluminum frames, two different wheels, and one set of tires, they had more than ample time to figure out a few other different tires. I'm guessing they didn't decide just prior to the launch date that they were going to be using 27.5" wheels. To me it is similar to the days of Microsoft using paying consumers to beta test their products.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  20. #420
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    390
    in the new 9.8 review that is posted on MTBR's home page, they pitch the bike as a wide tired 27.5 race bike. where the wide tires are there to increase traction on hard pack and soft dirt Now if it would have been sold to me from that aspect i would maybe buy into the marketing. they should have called is a 27.5++ or something. interesting how if didn't fair so well in traditional fat bike areas like snow performance and ride compliance. Actually they recommend switching to a 26er for snow conditions.

  21. #421
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    ...and if that's where I'm at..."hard pack race bike" then I just go to 29+. In other words if I care about speed above all else I don't bother with a fat bike.

    Still - I'm liking that Trek is expanding on this. Only good can come from it whether or not it's currently superfluous. They did well with that Barbegazi.

  22. #422
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    This may be old news, but my LBS said that Trek has a 26" studded tire out now (forgot which model) and committed to have a 27.5 version of it out by nest winter.

  23. #423
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    Hi wondering were this pic came from, inside Trek ? Thx

  24. #424
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Well, nobody is really saying that there's anything wrong with the Farleys. They're clearly a great bike. Plus - a lot of people seek out value-packed , mass-produced, carbon fiber bikes from big corporate manufacturers - that's no surprise. This thread is more of a debate about the merits of the tire platform alone.

    I do agree that Trek blew it a bit. Not on the level of Surly with the Knard, where they actually came up with a real improvement but then let others steal the thunder because they couldn't follow up with more tires. But more because they didn't even follow through on their OWN idea, thereby denying anybody the opportunity to really test their theory.

    If you go back and read the whole thread chronologically, from when there were just rumors, you'll see what @paochow is talking about. Trek initially suggested that the 27x4 was going to be the same size as 29+ and 26x5 tires. Unfortunately for all of us, it's not.
    I did read the thread all the way through (a lot of it more than once). I'm just making the point that I don't this is a binary thing but rather more of a scale. So that makes it hard to have "blown" it be it as a bike or as a tire. Experientially, for me, I'd say that they probably got it a lot more right than wrong. I really like the performance of this tire and wheel combination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I'm a Trek fan, I've owned more Trek's than any other brand in my life and half the bikes in my garage are currently from Waterloo, but you are far too willing to give Trek a pass on the tires... If they had the time to design the carbon and aluminum frames, two different wheels, and one set of tires, they had more than ample time to figure out a few other different tires. I'm guessing they didn't decide just prior to the launch date that they were going to be using 27.5" wheels. To me it is similar to the days of Microsoft using paying consumers to beta test their products.
    I'm presuming your not a mind reader hence I really don't think you know what I am or am not willing to do (nor have you and I discussed it). That all aside, I can tell you that I am willing to be patient on the tire issue because I know how difficult it is to make such things and am familiar with all the issue of manufacturing in Asia. This is going to take a while. Which would have been better - hold back the bike until *everything* and all accessories are available or get it out in the real world? With that kind of a real world decision in front of Trek management, I'd say that sooner is better than later and I think that is beneficial to consumers too.

    I'm also willing to be patient on this because the 27.5x4 format is a lot closer to the 26x5 format in performance than it is to the 26x4 format. I've also found that it works really well for me where I ride (beaches, trails in winter - traditionally at the lower end of 26x5 applications) and I think (for me, personally) that validates a lot of the research that Trek put into this.

    Based on all of that, and the fact that the bikes have been very well received so far by actual consumers spending their own money that I think that it's hyperbole to say that Trek has "blown" it with either the tire or bike (and/or). If they had blown it, then sales would quickly have dried up. But that hasn't happened, has it?

  25. #425
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    I'm also willing to be patient on this because the 27.5x4 format is a lot closer to the 26x5 format in performance than it is to the 26x4 format. I've also found that it works really well for me where I ride (beaches, trails in winter - traditionally at the lower end of 26x5 applications) and I think (for me, personally) that validates a lot of the research that Trek put into this.
    I'm really in the same boat here, between my own findings, (switching my rides between my farley 9 and my 26x5 clownshoed salsa) and what others in my local rider pool have said, I think it has a lot of merit with the exception of really deep or loose snow, tires will catch up and I can only imagine what a 27.5 x 4.25" or 4.5" tire could do, I think it would still roll more efficiently than the more square contact patch of a 26x5 tire
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  26. #426
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    This may be old news, but my LBS said that Trek has a 26" studded tire out now (forgot which model) and committed to have a 27.5 version of it out by nest winter.
    Gnarwal I think.

  27. #427
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,568
    So, would any frame/fork that fits a 27.5x4 also fit the new 26x 5.05 2xL's ?

  28. #428
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Outer diameter will be the determining factor there, and if the difference is as small as the difference currently between the 2 different sized Hodags....

    I'm watching with interest.

  29. #429
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    I'm really in the same boat here, between my own findings, (switching my rides between my farley 9 and my 26x5 clownshoed salsa) and what others in my local rider pool have said, I think it has a lot of merit with the exception of really deep or loose snow, tires will catch up and I can only imagine what a 27.5 x 4.25" or 4.5" tire could do, I think it would still roll more efficiently than the more square contact patch of a 26x5 tire
    Well said and I think, exactly right. The 27.5x4 will do anything a 26x4 will do and most of what a 26x5 will do with the exception of the very loose or very deep sand/snow. With that, you also get the benefit of a fast responsive wheel in all the conditions in which it will work. You also get the increased rolling efficiency of a larger diameter wheel. Hard not to see that as a lot of positive benefit.

    Additionally, if they are getting ready to introduce a 27.5x4.7 or similar, that's going to be really interesting. All the benefit of the full 26x5 range plus better rolling efficiency.

    I keep coming back to the podcast on fat-bike.com where the engineers and product people for the Farley were interviewed. They spend a lot of time talking about their research and why they made this decision. Trek is a large enough company that they can afford to do the research and they can also afford to prototype to test it before they launch it. While it's risky to push the innovation curve, you also don't gain good marketshare unless you do just that. You minimize that risk by doing solid research up front to make sure you're right or at least minimize the chances that you're wrong.

    Here's that link to that podcast again. Well worth the listen. I found it fascinating because, after riding the bike in a lot of different conditions, it pretty much enumerated the experience I've had riding it. I think their research matches my experience with the bike (a very good thing).

    J.

  30. #430
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Gnarwal I think.
    Interesting.

    That said, I studded up the tires that came on the bike. At 75 grip studs per tire - well below the sort of "armor plating" approach to studding that many of the pre-studded tires have - I don't lack for grip on ice (at all) and so I don't have the extra weight. This has worked so well that I think this is the better approach.

    I'll just buy an unstudded version for the summer.

    J.

  31. #431
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    Well said and I think, exactly right. The 27.5x4 will do anything a 26x4 will do and most of what a 26x5 will do with the exception of the very loose or very deep sand/snow. With that, you also get the benefit of a fast responsive wheel in all the conditions in which it will work.
    Yes, the 27.5x4 does everything the 26x4 does, and the the other way around. That's been the entire point of this thread.

    "Most of what the 25x4.7 will do" Good point! A 26x4.7 will do anything those other sizes will do and more, and guess what? You don't give anything up. Ride the Barbis and you'll see what I mean. Contact patch, plus fast, plus cush - you won't be crying for the 27.5x4" Bontrager Placebos I promise. That said, those 27.5's feel just fine for what they are. I'd ride em if I could come up with a reason to.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post

    You also get the increased rolling efficiency of a larger diameter wheel.
    Yeah - so we've heard.
    See the rest of the thread.

  32. #432
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    wow this thread is really fun to follow. I have both a Farley 5 with 4.7 and Farley 9.6 love them both, ride them back to back in conditions to see what i can learn.

  33. #433
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Nice!

  34. #434
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Yes, the 27.5x4 does everything the 26x4 does, and the the other way around. That's been the entire point of this thread.
    We disagree about this. And that is not what I said. The 27.5x4 does more than a 26x4 does. Putting words in my mouth and then pretending we agree is just argumentative to no good purpose.

    "Most of what the 25x4.7 will do" Good point! A 26x4.7 will do anything those other sizes will do and more, and guess what? You don't give anything up. Ride the Barbis and you'll see what I mean. Contact patch, plus fast, plus cush - you won't be crying for the 27.5x4" Bontrager Placebos I promise. That said, those 27.5's feel just fine for what they are. I'd ride em if I could come up with a reason to.

    So the diameters of the wheels are completely and totally irrelevant? A 26" wheel does everything and there is *no* advantage whatsoever to anything different? But further than that, it's optimal and it's better than all_other_sizes (i.e. "and more" and "you don't give anything up")? That's actually absurd on it's face.


    Yeah - so we've heard.
    See the rest of the thread.
    Obviously the larger diameter has a better rolling efficiency - that's just math. I presume we are arguing about how much that difference is.

    J.

  35. #435
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    I'm not arguing - that would be pointless.
    Ignoring the rest of the thread is fun!

  36. #436
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    The 27.5x4 does more than a 26x4 does.
    .
    Elaborate on this - in the context of (not ignoring) what's already been pointed out regarding the almost exact sameness of the two sizes.
    I'm curious what the 27.5x4 does that the 26x4 doesn't do, or where the 26x4 noticeably falls short. Again, not ignoring the facts already pointed out.

    Go

    Also just a conversation - don't confuse a debate with 'arguing' or me or anyone else being overly attached. This is all interesting given the similarities in size and the marketing. That's all.

  37. #437
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Elaborate on this - in the context of (not ignoring) what's already been pointed out regarding the almost exact sameness of the two sizes.
    I'm curious what the 27.5x4 does that the 26x4 doesn't do, or where the 26x4 noticeably falls short. Again, not ignoring the facts already pointed out.

    Go

    Also just a conversation - don't confuse a debate with 'arguing' or me or anyone else being overly attached. This is all interesting given the similarities in size and the marketing. That's all.
    Already done so far earlier in this thread, I believe. Go.

    I'm not confusing anything. I asked you to not put words in my mouth and attribute that to me. That's generally considered common courtesy in both conversation or debate.

    J.

  38. #438
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    I added to your statement with my own statement, I didn't put words in our mouth.
    Have a cookie.

  39. #439
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Gambit,

    We just went over this 2 pages ago. You are just being aggressive with nothing new.

    What you say is basically the same debate between 26 & 27.5 wheels for skinny tyres.


    Envoyé de mon SM-G900F en utilisant Tapatalk

  40. #440
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Look at what I said above about "discussion" and even outside of that I'm hardly being "aggressive" that's the trouble with written communication though eh?
    ...and not it's not the same as 26 vs 27.5 - as already pointed out.

  41. #441
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,890
    I'm going to stick to my original statement from page 1or2 and it is fact. Right now there is 1 tire available for this wheel size and I remember the days of 2 tire choices. I am not ready to go back to them days. When more tire choices become available I will revisit the notion but as of right now I have tires for every occasion.

  42. #442
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Yep - that new Barbi looks promising though.

  43. #443
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Look at what I said above about "discussion" and even outside of that I'm hardly being "aggressive" that's the trouble with written communication though eh?
    ...and not it's not the same as 26 vs 27.5 - as already pointed out.

    Yup, until the new Barbi comes out it's still 29" vs 29.375".

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-image.jpeg
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  44. #444
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    I'm going to stick to my original statement from page 1or2 and it is fact. Right now there is 1 tire available for this wheel size and I remember the days of 2 tire choices. I am not ready to go back to them days. When more tire choices become available I will revisit the notion but as of right now I have tires for every occasion.
    Exactly- owning a 24" Muni, I know exactly what you are talking about. Every other size has a bunch of lightweight and better tire options, but the 24", not so much...
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  45. #445
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    390
    The difference between 26 and 27.5 non-fat is that the 27.5 actually has a larger diameter then a 26. This gives the 27.5 an actual advantage over the 26. With the 2 fat versions all you are doing is changing rim diameter within the same size overall diameter of tire.

    claiming that trek has the money to research is ok logic but they also have the money to develope something just to see if they can suck a bunch of people into buying it. If they really felt it was the future you would see this wheel on lower end bikes. But since it is only on the high end, high margin bike that tells me they are trying to get there money back ASAP. Also, if other companies saw this as a real option you would see other tire companies coming out with them. Look at how fast 27.5+ tire became available.


    Stir stir stir

  46. #446
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Yup, until the new Barbi comes out it's still 29" vs 29.375".

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpeg 
Views:	646 
Size:	123.1 KB 
ID:	1045892
    Yup!
    I like this image because although photos can lie and deceive due to perspective and distortion - this particular photo is pretty much dead-nuts on in representing the real difference between the two. Thus, it bothers some people - especially with graphics added. Add to this the fact that with other 4" fat tires the difference shrinks to almost nothing.

    I give Trek credit where it's due, they brought it, big time with these new fat bikes, and the Stache to boot. Just a bit of a miss on the 9's and the 27.5 thing so far - which is why I went 7. Again - I have an open mind and waiting for progress - which it seems is on the way.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-circumference-comparison.jpg  


  47. #447
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    what seems to be developing here is a schism between discussing the Hodag 27.5x4 tyre and 27.5xfat as a concept. personally, i find the hodag 27.5 a great tyre. but it is more akin to a robust, grippy and big 'plus' tyre. it is somewhere inbetween x4" fat and x3" plus in terms of width and casing height, rim depending and probably nearer 4", but due to its 584 ISO it maintains the same rolling diameter as a 26x4.5 ish tyre (it is within a mm or two of my flowbeist for example, a smidge bigger than surly nate and smaller it sounds like the bud/lou for example, but in the ballpark so could be used in either situation with minimal issue.

    This may have been what Trek were aiming at. its a poke in a new direction, afterall. as many fat users have found, 26x4.0 is not ideal for fast, *trail* riding in some circumstances at certain speeds. perhaps more circumstances than not. user opinion varies, but just as a lot of faster, aggressive riders in particualr terrain are experiencing with the current, relatively immature 'plus' tyres, they tend to wallow around a bit and be imprecise, while offering good traction in some terrains, but providing a bit of a slide out potential in deep mud - where a narrower tyre will bite through a bit more and offer more precision if less cush.

    none of this stuff is black and white of course! but a narrower/bigger diameter tyre for a fat bike is a heck of an addition to the options. IN SAYING that, the hodag may not be where this heads - it may be that this is a feeler towards 27.5x4.5 or even 5. with the birth of the XXL, it seems that tyre molds and machinary for bigger tyres are being made...(if memory serves, the limits oif which were the reason why 26x4 was the biggest tyre made back in the endomorph days- it was the limit of what the then current machinary/molds could handle -though i might have a poor memory!)

    i for one really like the idea of being able to chose a flowbeist for snow/bog/questionable terrain with the option to stick a hodag on for faster, aggressive, rocky or dry riding - in that it will not change the geo and it seems (in my, admitedly relatively limited use, so far) to be more precise and offer as good grip while mainitaining low pressure bump absorption as the full fat, with less hang up on trail 'sides', bush and whatnot due to its less portly girth.while maintaining decent rollover with its diameter. I can only imagine that with a suspension fork this effect will be amplified.

    If you have a fat bike, and never use it in the terrain for which a 4.5-5.0 tyre is truly suited, but like somethign low pressure, i suspect you will actually be better with a 27.5x3.5-4.0.

    my 2 p...
    Last edited by dRjOn; 01-28-2016 at 03:34 AM.

  48. #448
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    When I measure my measure my farley 5 and 9.6 tires total height they are almost identical.

  49. #449
    Saving lives with knives.
    Reputation: frank daleview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    939
    I've been riding my wife's Beargrease with Flow & Dunder and my farley 9.6 back to back quite a bit recently. On groomed terrain, the Hodags definitely have the edge, the thing is fast and precise. I think this tire size has merit. A 27.5x 5.0 would awesome in an over the top sort of way.
    Formerly known as iceaxe

  50. #450
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,890
    Quote Originally Posted by frank daleview View Post
    I've been riding my wife's Beargrease with Flow & Dunder and my farley 9.6 back to back quite a bit recently. On groomed terrain, the Hodags definitely have the edge, the thing is fast and precise. I think this tire size has merit. A 27.5x 5.0 would awesome in an over the top sort of way.
    Do you think it's the actual tire size difference or the extra weight and big knobs that are making the Beisties slower? At least for myself and the groomed trail I ride If I would've built a groomed specific tire for it they would be nowhere as aggressive as the Beisties. Point is even though the 45nrth tires where built for groomed I think you are comparing apples to oranges. I would rather see a comparison between a d4 and the new 27.5 Hodag. (if I actually cared about speed

  51. #451
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I added to your statement with my own statement, I didn't put words in our mouth.
    Have a cookie.
    Same thing. Don't do that. If someone didn't say it or write it, don't make it look like they did.

    J.

  52. #452
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by frank daleview View Post
    I've been riding my wife's Beargrease with Flow & Dunder and my farley 9.6 back to back quite a bit recently. On groomed terrain, the Hodags definitely have the edge, the thing is fast and precise. I think this tire size has merit. A 27.5x 5.0 would awesome in an over the top sort of way.
    It's actually going to depend on what the construction of the tire looks like. If Trek can do this at 4.7" but keep the tire volume down to a degree, that could be an interesting tire. Keep the surface area/contact patch up and narrower/longer but the rotating weight down.

    J.

  53. #453
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    ***whine mode = on***Same thing. Don't do that. If someone didn't say it or write it, don't make it look like they did.***whine mode = off***
    Uh huh

  54. #454
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Uh huh
    Maybe you'll grow out of this phase. Then again, maybe not.

  55. #455
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    John - move on.
    You completely mis-characterized/misunderstood my post. They were my thoughts based on certain facts - that's all.
    I simply expanded on your post, but it was MY post.
    I won't engage this with you here - take it to PM if you must continue.

    On with the adult discourse...

  56. #456
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,890
    I rode with a guy tonight on the hodag 27.5++ and here is my take, (snow only) if you want to go fast in perfect groomed or stomped conditions these seem like good tires. If you want to ride in anything but perfect conditions these pizza cutters aren't for you. This really has nothing to do with the wheel size but with the crap size tires they put on em. Just not a good tire for everyday riding in adverse winter conditions, ymmv of coarse.

  57. #457
    Saving lives with knives.
    Reputation: frank daleview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    939
    Yes, I agree. I'm not sure where the definition of "groomed singletrack" breaks down, but the 45NRTH combo looks like it was pulled off a tractor, and behaves like it. It will pull you through deep snow and mashed potatoes if you're desperate. They roll like a Mississippi stern wheeler in mud season... but my GAWD do they have some cornering grip. Take these out in fresh over hardpack and you can corner with impunity. On the down side, they do grip the edges of ruts and seem to enhance the auto-steer feature of fatties at lower pressures.

    The hodags on the other hand are bit more subtle. They roll very well and grip much better than you'd expect. On the snow they are hardpack blasters, so much so they will get you in trouble as they don't have quite the cornering muscle of the Dow/Flunder but then again, they are completely different tires. Much to my surprise the dags performed extremely well in the "crunchy" thaw-freeze conditions today. My wife had a much harder time on her bike with the Flunderbeists and I was simply spanking it. Lastly, I will say without question the 'dags need more pressure than what you would think and perform best with minimal to no sidewall deformation.

    So which do I prefer: Riding on snow is kind of like surfing: it's a little slidey, when the bike drifts you smile instead of soiling your chami like you would on dirt. The hodags stay true to their name sake; they look the business of serious snow racer tires-- and they could be, but I can't help but feeling they are a little bit of a joke as they are very fun tires-- kind of like a thoroughbred with siracha smeared up its bottom. The 45 NRTH's on the other hand are purpose built severe conditions tires with no sense of humor at all.

    Breaking trail, I'll take the Flow/Dunder. For everything else I'll take the 27.5 hodags.

    It's good to have options

    For reference: trails: Lebanon Hills, Elm creek-- Metro Twin Cities MN, 45NRTH tires are on a Salsa beargrease with Mulfut 80sl rims.
    Last edited by frank daleview; 01-29-2016 at 12:32 AM.
    Formerly known as iceaxe

  58. #458
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Everyone focusing solely on the external diameter is missing two key points.

    First you're forgetting about the importance of sag. When you hit a rock and want the bike to roll over it nicely, the tire is going to be compressed. Sagged diameter (or even aggressively compressed diameter) is what matters when rolling over that rock, and 27.5 has the advantage. It's a small advantage but it's there.

    Second, even ignoring sag, larger diameter rims allow you to get an equal outer diameter tire without having to resort to as fat of a tire. If your goal is float this is bad. But if your goal is trail riding, speed, etc, a tire that is slightly narrower without decreasing outer diameter could be ideal.

    An analogous discussion would be: 27.5+ vs 29er. They have roughly the same outer diameter. Does this mean 29er wheels are stupid and unnecessary just because they are the same height as 27.5+? Obviously not. They have different pros and cons and serve different purposes.

    I have not tried 27x4 so I'm not advocating them. But having the discussion focus on outside diameter only is dumb. If you think that's all that matters go ride your 2XL snowshoes and be happy!
    Last edited by matto6; 01-29-2016 at 09:52 AM.

  59. #459
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-24392027749_11a6c9c492_b.jpg

  60. #460
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!
    Wow those look bigger than 29+, it may be perspective, but they look taller than the top arch of the Bluto next to it.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  61. #461
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Good catch on the Instagram photo. This is gonna get interesting, I think.

  62. #462
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    There are some more (excellent) photos on a photographers site ajphoto

  63. #463
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Wow those look bigger than 29+, it may be perspective, but they look taller than the top arch of the Bluto next to it.
    Could be, but I wouldn't trust this shot to determine one way or the other because of distortion/perspective as you said. Very well could be the case though.

  64. #464
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xctearor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    200
    Man that 27.5 x 4.5 looks tight in that fork; I'm thinking there's no way that would clear a Bluto. Ted- any insight on this?

  65. #465
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	24392027749_11a6c9c492_b.jpg 
Views:	207 
Size:	249.9 KB 
ID:	1047036

    Number 11 and 58 have the same size tires and wheels. They look like 27.5 with 4 or 4.25 tires.

    One step closer to my dream, a 29er fat bike.

  66. #466
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    Here is my logic on bluto, Chupa 30.4” effective wheel size. Trek may follow that for target size of 27.5X4.5. Does a Chupa fit into a bluto ? What is the max size that does ? Also what is the min clearance required 10mm. I am looking to get a bluto 100mm travel for 9.6. I find it hard to believe that Trek would offer a new tire targeted at 9 series farley when the 9 comes with a bluto.

  67. #467
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by ascarlarkinyar View Post

    One step closer to my dream, a 29er fat bike.
    Maybe you're missing how the wheel size thing works but you already have this - it's called 26x4. 26x4.7 is a "30er"
    What you're saying is that you want a "32er" or similar - which would be ridiculous IMHO.

  68. #468
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by ascarlarkinyar View Post
    Number 11 and 58 have the same size tires and wheels. They look like 27.5 with 4 or 4.25 tires.
    so you're telling me that #11 is running a prototype 27.5 dillinger 4 AND a prototype 27.5 whiskey 70 carbon wheel?????

    I'm skeptical
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  69. #469
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	24392027749_11a6c9c492_b.jpg 
Views:	207 
Size:	249.9 KB 
ID:	1047036
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Maybe you're missing how the wheel size thing works but you already have this - it's called 26x4. 26x4.7 is a "30er"
    What you're saying is that you want a "32er" or similar - which would be ridiculous IMHO.

    29ers describe the rim size not the radius of the tire. Thats how that works. Most fat bikes are 26" and this new kinda fat trek is 27.5. Ok school is over....


    So not ridiculous at all. A 29er wheel with a 6" tire. We need more float and traction. I want to be able to ride on top of the snow, not just plow though it like we do now.

    We will eventually get there, slow painful increments that the bike industry puts us through.

  70. #470
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	24392027749_11a6c9c492_b.jpg 
Views:	207 
Size:	249.9 KB 
ID:	1047036
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    so you're telling me that #11 is running a prototype 27.5 dillinger 4 AND a prototype 27.5 whiskey 70 carbon wheel?????

    I'm skeptical

    Me too. I just measure the wheels and tires with a ruler from the pic. There must be a hieght distotion. If so then the tire in the middle could be any size.

  71. #471
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,890
    Take a heck of a motor to turn a 6" tire on a 29" wheel and goofie geometry to boot. Give me a 24" wheel with a 6" tire any day.

  72. #472
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	24392027749_11a6c9c492_b.jpg 
Views:	207 
Size:	249.9 KB 
ID:	1047036
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Take a heck of a motor to turn a 6" tire on a 29" wheel and goofie geometry to boot. Give me a 24" wheel with a 6" and tire any day.

    Nope, with a 29er x 6" tire you would not need to air down as much, so you can have a less tall casing. That decreases the spinning weight dramatically and you get the same effort of a 26" x 5" tire now with triple the float and traction.

  73. #473
    Desert of the real
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Take a heck of a motor to turn a 6" tire on a 29" wheel and goofie geometry to boot. Give me a 24" wheel with a 6" tire any day.
    It's OK--They got 'em in the bottom bracket these days.
    (on a serious note, we keep agreeing on this)

  74. #474
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,890
    Quote Originally Posted by ascarlarkinyar View Post
    Nope, with a 29er x 6" tire you would not need to air down as much, so you can have a less tall casing. That decreases the spinning weight dramatically and you get the same effort of a 26" x 5" tire now with triple the float and traction.
    Your still drunk, go back to bed.

  75. #475
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by ascarlarkinyar View Post
    29ers describe the rim size not the radius of the tire. Thats how that works. Most fat bikes are 26" and this new kinda fat trek is 27.5. Ok school is over.
    Gotta love Internet boneheads.

  76. #476
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    It's OK--They got 'em in the bottom bracket these days.
    I think ascarlarkinyar gets it in the bottom bracket.

    ...and in case there's any confusion I'm talking about unexpected impacts to the bottom bracket due to height or other factors. Rocks...sticks...logs.

  77. #477
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,028
    29x6 is a fantastic idea. I want a fat bike that handles like my Big Dummy.

  78. #478
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    there is a devon balet photo essay here that has a good shot of TB. its hard to tell but they certainly look pretty big..

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-p5pb13126198.jpg

    if you expand mr balet's fine pic, you can just make out the 'prototype' on the sidewall...

  79. #479
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    2016 Farley will fit 29+ with the axle full forward - so there's plenty of room.

  80. #480
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    2016 Farley will fit 29+ with the axle full forward - so there's plenty of room.
    you mean for 27.5x4.5? yeah - TB's frame looks to be the 9 point carbon frame here, right?

    you have to guess that whole hodag=diameter of 26x4.7 was perhaps aimed more at these tyres...

  81. #481
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64
    Ok guys I'm going to give you a few more tidbits. Gotta love feeing the trolls.

    1. The tire is a 4.5 but as usual measures slightly smaller at riding pressures. This is because when we measure tires it has to be done at MAX pressure for CPSC and ISO. We also need at least 6mm of clearance between frame and tire @max to ship bikes. As you all know fat tires stretch a lot, so a 4.5@ 30psi is a lot larger than a "4.5" @ 4.5psi

    2. They fit with the sliders slammed all the way forward in the 2016 Farley. Still room to grow

    3. Finding vendors to make tires this big is VERY hard. Incremental improvements aren't an industry conspiracy, simply the realities of actually making things.

    4. Taller = faster rolling and better floating. When these launch (which should be soon) I highly encourage you to give them a try before dropping the e-hate. It's a difference you can feel right away. And the good news is they should fit most 5" bikes even if they don't say Trek.

    5.

    Enjoy

    TA




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  82. #482
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Good stuff - thank you!
    Do you know the outer diameter at either max psi or realistic riding pressures?

  83. #483
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    It seems like that is a 30.7" diameter using a little math.

  84. #484
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64
    The diameter image I posted above is at 5psi in my analogue low pressure gauge. Some simple math should get you the overall height. We find using a tape to measure circumference then back calculating is the most accurate way to measure height.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  85. #485
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Sorry - I missed that tape measure pic on my phone the first time

  86. #486
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    244/pi minus a bit, or 777! thanks [TA] - incremental or not, very cool!

  87. #487
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64
    My math says 778.9mm diameter


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  88. #488
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,028
    Going bigger rims and smaller tires seems like the opposite direction that the current 27.5+ vs 29er trend is taking us. Some people might like it and I love that Trek is trying new things, though. So keep it up.

    I'd just rather see 120mm 26 inch rims.
    You change your own flats? Support your LBS and pay them to instead.

  89. #489
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    Going bigger rims and smaller tires seems like the opposite direction that the current 27.5+ vs 29er trend is taking us.
    yeah true! :-)~

    It's a real mix of 29+ roll over, but lower pressure and width. I was surprised going to a Hodag front from a chupa how noticeable the rollover is on a 29+. Really like the Hodag though- so this 4.5 has my interest piqued for sure!

  90. #490
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    550
    I've read approximately 10,000 posts on tire size and none of it has made sense to me until this........


    1. The tire is a 4.5 but as usual measures slightly smaller at riding pressures. This is because when we measure tires it has to be done at MAX pressure for CPSC and ISO. We also need at least 6mm of clearance between frame and tire @max to ship bikes. As you all know fat tires stretch a lot, so a 4.5@ 30psi is a lot larger than a "4.5" @ 4.5psi

    Thanks.....
    "At least I'm enjoying the ride"

    16' Trek 8.4 DS
    16' Farley 7
    and I'm OK admitting..
    16' Sturgis

    Minneapolis MN

  91. #491
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    175
    I'll admit I only made it through 1/2 of this thread, but am I the only one that wishes for true 26x4.8/4.9/5.0 tire options before we move on?

  92. #492
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    73
    If it is diam. 244,6mm

    /3.14159 (pi)

    You get 778,6mm As height. And now you need to take -2% of to get correct size... So around 763mm...

    Why -2%, hodag 27,5x3,8" sayd 764mm -2% is 750mm as in reality...

  93. #493
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64
    764mm Hodag was measured @MAX pressure. The image I posted was @5psi... Not sure where you're getting this 2% thing. Not trying to argue, but you're not comparing apples to apples.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  94. #494
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    I've read approximately 10,000 posts on tire size and none of it has made sense to me until this........


    1. The tire is a 4.5 but as usual measures slightly smaller at riding pressures. This is because when we measure tires it has to be done at MAX pressure for CPSC and ISO. We also need at least 6mm of clearance between frame and tire @max to ship bikes. As you all know fat tires stretch a lot, so a 4.5@ 30psi is a lot larger than a "4.5" @ 4.5psi

    Thanks.....
    Seconded!

  95. #495
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,438
    Woot!

    Looks like my full squish 27.5 Hodag bike is obsolete after only 3 months!

    -Walt

  96. #496
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Woot!

    Looks like my full squish 27.5 Hodag bike is obsolete after only 3 months!

    -Walt
    The next question being, will the fox 34 clear this barbegazi beast? :-)~

  97. #497
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,438
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    The next question being, will the fox 34 clear this barbegazi beast? :-)~
    I'm going to go ahead and say I really, really doubt it. The 3.8 has almost a cm on each side and loads at the crown, but even an undersized 4.5 is going to fill up all that space pretty fast.

    Maybe Travis will hook me up with some to mess around with at some point and I can check.

    -Walt

  98. #498
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    Wow, good stuff, will these new tires work with a bluto 100mm travel ?

  99. #499
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    also wondering what the weight of the new tire is ?

  100. #500
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    I'm not giving up my 4.7" Barbis, but if I was starting from scratch this new size would at least have me debating what to do, unlike the 27.5x4's.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... 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: 323

Posting Permissions

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