Page 1 of 20 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 965
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149

    27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not?

    I just sold my Fatboy and I think I've finally narrowed down my next ride to be a Farley..

    My next first world problem is do I make the new 27.5x4 wheel set work or do I try and trade it off for a 26x5 setup?

    If I understand correctly 27.5x4 will excel on groomers and in the summer. The Farley will be a late fall/winter/early spring bike for me so summer performance is not an issue and my trails are a mix of packed and not packed.

    Can anyone comment on the differences between 26x4 and 26x5? How noticeable is the width?

    Is anyone excited about 27.5x4?

  2. #2
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,528
    In soft or marginal snow that extra width is very nice but 4" tires are fine in a lot of winter conditions. I'm intrigued by 27.5 x 4" tires simply because I already have a wheel set. If someone makes a light 4" tire I'd like to try it out, assuming it will fit my frame.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,317
    I ordered the Farley 9,so,yea,I'm pretty excited!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    810
    How could you not be excited to at least ride it and see? I suspect it will kick ass. I also think the biggest mistake people are making when talking about this bike or whether or not they would consider it is, "My 26X4.8 will be better in the snow, so I don't have an interest in this bike"....I say, own more than one bike. Think back to our roadie days, or cross country race days. I never expected one bike to do everything perfectly, that's why I/we, owned multiple. However, if I could only afford one fat bike, I would pre order the Farley with the 27.5X4 and consider it the best of all worlds, and if it didn't perform in the snow as well as I would like, great. Gives me an excuse to buy another fat bike, or build a set of new hoops for the Farley. More choices is always badass.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,317
    I intend to ride mostly on dirt, the geometry is sweet for this and a trail maintenance bike,winters here in NE Pa are sporadic,but will entertain 26er wheelset for bigger tires if I can find some groomed trails close buy.

  6. #6
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7,992
    I'm in. 26x3.8 is a little small for me.
    I like turtles

  7. #7
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,939
    meh.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    yeah^^^^ i love how nimble my 26X4 are. woundn't want the diameter any larger for my type of riding.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    263
    Not
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    413
    Giving up 1.5" of sidewall will hurt your cush.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    I suspect either wheel size will handle majority of conditions with aplomb. I plan on building a 27.5/4" wheel set for my Farley 7, but not because I think it will be superior in any way - mostly just curious. Oh and I'll wait for a 65mm 27.5 - otherwise what's the point.

  12. #12
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    In soft or marginal snow that extra width is very nice but 4" tires are fine in a lot of winter conditions. I'm intrigued by 27.5 x 4" tires simply because I already have a wheel set. If someone makes a light 4" tire I'd like to try it out, assuming it will fit my frame.
    ^^^On board as well! Would like to try a light 4 inch tire or at least something bigger than the current 3.25 only be offered now, as I think it will fit my frame!
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto Night Train
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 Cannondale Rush
    99 GT XCR
    93 Raleigh MT 200

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    if you want a light 4" tire go with 26er fat

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    I think it is a brilliant marketing ploy. You get the name recognition of a 27.5 and everyone who falls for the bike industries "look at me- I'm new" sales tactics will jump right on board. And don't forget you get to sell a buttload of rims when people try to run them at ideal fat tire pressures and ruin their rim. You also get to sell a bunch of Bluto forks, when people realize than a rigid half fat doesn't have enough cushion and bounces like a basketball when inflated to the required 12+ psi required not to ruin your rim. Win win.

    Ask the guy running 24's on his SUV how they ride- they may look cool, but the lack of air doesn't equal comfort.

    I'd love to buy a Trek Farley 9.6, but the wheels just don't make any sense to me. If they had made it a true 27.5 wheel with a 1.5" larger diameter than the 26's I'd likely change my tune, but this low profile wheel just doesn't make any sense.

    So if you haven't guessed it now- I'm not very excited.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Yep, not quite sure what Trek was thinking there, and one of the reasons why the 7 is the sweet spot in the lineup. A 27.5 x 65mm wheel, now we're talking and I can see the point in having that setup.

    Lower profile tire and identical outer diameter, plus same rim width though - doesn't pencil out with me.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    I agree- the Farley 7 is the winner. I wish they had the option of bigger wheels on the pricer models as I'd love a carbon frame though. Also looks like the 26" Jackalope is MIA, unless they release it later in 190mm to fleece the 27.5" owners again.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  17. #17
    wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,269
    if someone buys one of these and needs someone to test ride it, shoot me a line. otherwise i'm sticking with my current fatbike. 29+ interests me much more than 27.5x4.

    the real question to me is when will they stop screwing around with mid sizes that overlap each other and just go to extremes. I want a 4" tire on a 65mm 29er rim. or maybe a 3" tire on a 36"x50mm rim.

    alternately i want to ride a 6" tire on a 24"x120mm rim. or maybe a 8" tire on a 24"x180mm rim. tubeless of course. that just sounds ridiculously fun.

    if only i had the tools, materials, time, money, and equipment...
    Rigid SS 29er
    Fat Lefty
    29+

    SS cyclocross
    all steel

    "Fully rigid" isn't a thing.

  18. #18
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,812
    My momma once told me if I don't have anything nice to say about something don't say anything at all. So here I am sayin nothin at all

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Ha!

  20. #20
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: anortherncrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    658
    Yeah no thanks here but I'm all for whatever anybody's stoked on. My Whiteout has 65mm 26in Nexties with 4.0 LS JJ's set up tubeless and my Fatback has 52mm 27.5 Hugo's with Vee Traxx Fatties set up tubeless as well. I thought the Vee/Hugo would be a lot quicker, but it's actually more sluggish due to the wheel diameter/rubber combo. Haven't weighed them either and I'm sure there's a bit of a difference as well. One thing I know for certain is that if you put more rubber further away from the hub, the "wagon wheel" effect increases. Tried 29+ as well and no thanks, but like I said, whatever's clever for ya! If all the fat was gone, I'd be riding 27.5x2.3.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    two wheel livin'..

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    391
    I'll say something nice--
    I think 27.5 x 4 might actually be a touch better than 26x4 in the winter.
    I've always thought a 29 or 32 x 4 might be better than 26x5 on snow, and this is a tiny step in that direction.

    Often what slows a snowbike down is not just not enough float, but all the energy needed to break trail. Skinnier, long contact patch tires with a huge diameter would seem to have an advantage, just like long skinny skis are better for touring.

    So kudos to Trek for trying something new, even if it might not have my name on it, it's great to see more and more ideas and options.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,895
    It's gonna be really tall, as tall as a 29+, so fit will be a problem with many fat bikes and it's gonna raise the BB a whole lot.

    On my Mutz, the Trax Fatty 27.5 x 3.25 only leaves a short 1/2" of clearance at the bridges, so I couldn't run it. I could run them on my Jefe tandem, but I like 29+ on that ride.

    Seems like a waste of molds, but you can't really complain about more choices

    I'm more interested in B+ tires, we have plenty of 4-5" tires these days.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,895
    Taller is not going to be better. I have 32" and 36" munis, the extra height puts your COG too high, so agility and slow speed performance are compromised. If you want "clearance", then a high BB 26 x 4-5 is your ticket.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I'll say something nice--
    I think 27.5 x 4 might actually be a touch better than 26x4 in the winter.
    I've always thought a 29 or 32 x 4 might be better than 26x5 on snow, and this is a tiny step in that direction.

    Often what slows a snowbike down is not just not enough float, but all the energy needed to break trail. Skinnier, long contact patch tires with a huge diameter would seem to have an advantage, just like long skinny skis are better for touring.

    So kudos to Trek for trying something new, even if it might not have my name on it, it's great to see more and more ideas and options.

  24. #24
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,012
    Its great to have options, but personally I don't get all the in-between wheel sizes.

    (coming from the guy that has never owned a 29er, any kind of +, or 650b - what a catchy name lol)

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Taller is not going to be better. I have 32" and 36" munis, the extra height puts your COG too high, so agility and slow speed performance are compromised. If you want "clearance", then a high BB 26 x 4-5 is your ticket.
    There's nothing taller about the 27.5x4 setup, maybe a 1mm difference in final diameter. So only is there no difference in that department, but you're not getting a narrower rim either to save weight and round out your tire profile.
    I'll stick with the 26x4.8 and either build a set a Marge Lites as an option or wait for a 27.5 that makes sense - meaning 65mm.
    The rides I've had on 4.8's haven't left me feeling the need for less tire though.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,895
    Bad math.

    The only way a 27.5 x 4" tire will not be taller than a 26 x 4" tire is if WTB makes it

    If Vee Rubber makes it, it'll be friggin tall as shite!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    There's nothing taller about the 27.5x4 setup, maybe a 1mm difference in final diameter. So only is there no difference in that department, but you're not getting a narrower rim either to save weight and round out your tire profile.
    I'll stick with the 26x4.8 and either build a set a Marge Lites as an option or wait for a 27.5 that makes sense - meaning 65mm.
    The rides I've had on 4.8's haven't left me feeling the need for less tire though.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Bad math.

    The only way a 27.5 x 4" tire will not be taller than a 26 x 4" tire is if WTB makes it

    If Vee Rubber makes it, it'll be friggin tall as shite!!
    I'm talking about 26x5 vs 27.5x4.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    385
    29 inch inseam...bike fail
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by MUSTCLIME View Post
    29 inch inseam...bike fail
    Doesn't work like that - logic fail?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    385
    taller wheel tires= the boys betting smashed....fail
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by MUSTCLIME View Post
    taller wheel tires= the boys betting smashed....fail
    Stand over is stand over - regardless of wheel size. Do you honestly think top tubes are 3" higher than they were back in the day of the 26" bike?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,025
    I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  33. #33
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,812
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.
    About lost my morning beer

  34. #34
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,334
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.
    Yeah, I am in this same camp.

    I find myself asking, "why?" What is this supposed to do that 26x4 or 26x5 cannot? This screams to me a bike company trying to tell me what to buy, rather than offering something that riders actually want.

    With regular 27.5 wheels, I can't tell a difference from 26. I'm pretty "meh" on those, too.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    342
    if the overall diameter is the same on a 27.5x4 as a 26x4 and the width is the same isn't the contact patch the same? all you are doing is changing the sidewall. to me this seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy. the manufacturers saw how everyone went out and bought a fat bike and now they want to get everyone to but this new size. i see no advantage and as others have pointed out less cushion with the short sidewall. Now if the OD is taller so the 27.5 tire has the same sidewall as the 26 then there would be an advantage. not sure how much of one plus the addition of the extra weight may negate the advantage. either way i will not be jumpin into the 27.5x4 market.

  36. #36
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,939
    the overall diameter is the same on a 27.5x4 as a 26x5, not 26x4.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    342
    if this is true then your contact patch is most likely smaller on the 27.5 due to the narrower tire given the relative tire pressures. there is then no advantage.

  38. #38
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefflinde View Post
    if this is true then your contact patch is most likely smaller on the 27.5 due to the narrower tire given the relative tire pressures. there is then no advantage.
    it will be a bigger contact patch than a 26x4, yet should roll faster than a 26x5, at least in theory.
    Maverick Moto Media Motorcycles, Mountain Biking & Social Media Mgt
    Facebook Twitter Instagram

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    I don't see any point to this either unless we're talking a 27.5 x 65mm rim. Now we're getting somewhere. That would yield a rounder tire profile on the 4" tire and actually save weight instead of adding it while maintaining the overall diameter and bb height.

    Keeping the 80mm rim width with the 27.5" rim on the other hand really makes the whole endeavor a wash at best IMO, at worst an actual disadvantage of only a minor one. We shall see. However in true MTBR fashion most who forked out the cash for those models will spew about how much of a difference it makes no matter what.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,025
    I really wanted to post about Trek's new expandable rim coupler that allows you to switch between 26 and 27.5, but thought better to not.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    342
    Nice. Maybe next year they will allow it to cover all 3 sizes 26, 27.5 and 29. But by then the new 28.125" tire will be all the rage so you will still be missing the one everyone wants.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,025
    I believe the settings are supposed to be very incremental, to be "future-proof".
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    123
    I would say I'm mildly interested.
    - If the bike is designed to run on 26x5 tires, then 27.5x4 (same tire diameter) would roll faster without compromising frame geometry in case 29x3 isn't enough traction/float/etc…
    - Want a faster rolling 27.5x4? You don't have to use 80mm rims, they would work fine on 50mm rims, which there are an abundance of on the market. I've used 26x4 on 50mm rims, they are still very capable if traction is needed (I used them down to 7 psi).
    - There are not many fast rolling 26x4.8 tires on the market (back to the bikes built around 26x5 tires, frame geo), tons of 26x4 tires though!
    - I'm really interested in the 907 full suspenion bike (prototype at the moment) that can fit 26x4.8 on 100mm rims. This option would work well without effecting geometry (27.5x50mm rim and 4” tires is what I would run), I'm not interested in 29x3. Why am I particularly interested in this bike? I already have a 65mm Nextie/I9 wheelset built for my Blackborow that would fit this bike.

    What I don't like about it is there is only one tire available in 27.5x4… If there were as many tires available in size as there are for 26x4, I would have had a wheelset built for my Blackborow. As of this time I am not interested in 27.5x4 for lack of tire selection, but I see the benefits as I stated above.

    To each his own...

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    it will be a bigger contact patch than a 26x4, yet should roll faster than a 26x5, at least in theory.
    Can't you'll have less sidewall to squish...
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,380
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    How could you not be excited to at least ride it and see? I suspect it will kick ass.
    That tall tire will roll over things really nice and 4" is as fat as most people need.

    Although Surly's inevitable 29 x 5" fatbike will be awesome in an excessive way as well.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  46. #46
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    I really wanted to post about Trek's new expandable rim coupler that allows you to switch between 26 and 27.5, but thought better to not.
    problem solvers has the 29 adapter.
    ptarmigan hardcore

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    It sucks.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  48. #48
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,220
    I'll admit I am intrigued. After having tried 29+, I'd rather stick to fat. 4" would be great for summer time riding, but it does lower the BB a bit for a bike measured for 26x5". This would enable running slightly lighter 4" tires during the summer without the BB height drop.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Stand over is stand over - regardless of wheel size. Do you honestly think top tubes are 3" higher than they were back in the day of the 26" bike?
    With many small fat bike frames having stand overs of 30+ inches....yes I do. Used to be small frames had stand overs of 27 inches with 26 inch tires. Look at a small fat boy, it has a stand over of 757mm....thats 30.25 inches !....here a link to prove it.

    Specialized Bicycle Components
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    That's a frame design problem, not a wheel size issue. Look at the Nimble 9 or Ventana El Gordo, or Norco Bigfoot and see if you can figure this out. Specialized is just being stupid with their top tubes/seat tubes.

Page 1 of 20 1234511 ... 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
  •