Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 1039
  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
    4,660
    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
    1,367
    I ordered the Farley 9,so,yea,I'm pretty excited!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    845
    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
    1,367
    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
    8,598
    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
    2,995
    meh.

  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
    259
    Not
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    417
    Giving up 1.5" of sidewall will hurt your cush.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    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
    1,126
    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
    1,134
    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
    1,716
    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
    1,134
    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
    3,854
    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
    SS MonsterCross
    SS cyclocross
    all steel

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  18. #18
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,929
    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
    396
    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
    3,509
    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
    3,509
    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
    7,259
    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
    1,716
    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
    3,509
    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
    1,716
    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
    384
    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
    1,716
    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
    384
    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
    1,716
    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
    1,061
    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
    7,929
    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
    20,640
    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
    415
    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
    2,995
    the overall diameter is the same on a 27.5x4 as a 26x5, not 26x4.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    415
    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
    2,995
    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.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    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
    1,061
    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
    415
    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
    1,061
    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
    259
    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
    10,318
    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
    806
    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
    1,134
    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
    384
    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
    1,716
    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.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    384
    and Framed....and others
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Yep, they'll all slowly come around I think - or if they know what's good for them they will anyway.
    Dropping the top tube and using a gusset to get stand over is a no-brainer. I think Specialized is just being stubborn and not wanting to look like they're copying Trek or other makers, but really there's no other solution. The stand over on the Fat Boys is ridiculous - I couldn't get my wife sized property to one.

  53. #53
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Just put a DROPPER on it!!!!!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Put some Windex on it.

  55. #55
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    I'm going to weigh in here, at first I had the same WTF mentality as most of the responses here

    Last night I rode a farley 8 back to back with my blackborow on the same super rooty climb, I'm so used to climbing with the blackborow that the slightly smaller wheel diameter seemed to hang up more, it felt like a lot more work and I was almost stalled twice

    It was not a traction issue, zero wheel slip on either bikes, picked the same line up the roots as always

    I'm committed to riding fat all year round now, my 29ers see very little trail time and I'm pretty sure the farley 9 is the trail bike that will replace my FS29er

    I've tried 29+ and 27.5+ different tires in both sizes and they give up too much traction and cush for my tastes, 27.5x4 retains the tire diameter that I'm now used to riding and is sure to shed some weight and a little tire flex as well, I think it's a good option for summer fatties, 26x5 will always be king of ungroomed snow, this new size will only be marginally better than 26x4 in snow

    Assuming you're a tall enough rider to be comfortable with the size, I'm 6'2" these larger diameters feel natural to me
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Yeah, I can see that - and I'm on board in theory.
    What I need though is 2 things. I need a 65mm rim to maximize weight savings and give me a round tire profile...and I need more tire options. Give me those 2 things and that will be my second wheel set for the Farley 7.

    I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well.
    If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    Where are you getting 50mm rims? Do you mean second wheelset? The bike are coming stock with 75or 83mm rims.. Well the Wampas are 83mm I presume the jackalopes are similar to the 26ers which have 75 internal

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    Where are you getting 50mm rims? Do you mean second wheelset? The bike are coming stock with 75or 83mm rims.. Well the Wampas are 83mm I presume the jackalopes are similar to the 26ers which have 75 internal
    Stock rims are 80mm on the 7 (which is what I ordered) and yes I'm talking about a second wheel set.

  59. #59
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well.
    If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears.
    Quite a few folks I ride with are running 4" tires on 47-50mm rims, surly rabbit holes or schlick northpaws, one of them even ran dillinger 5's on the neon trials rim last season, never burped or anything when I was riding with him, I can't speak to ride quality on that big of a size difference, for summer riding the schlick 47's with 3.8 knards was pretty nice, surprisingly not too much tire squirm at about 8-10psi
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Hmm...thanks for that. I think I'll wait and see what Interbike brings.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    122
    Has anybody seen or heard when these tires will be available? I for one am excited to try them. I originally bought 26x4 tires for summer use but I didn't like the reduced diameter and with my 80mm rims I didn't like the tire profile and self steer that i was getting. I bought a second set of summer wheels and went with chinese carbon 27.5x50mm rims with Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 tires. That has been a very light, fast setup for summer but FBN 3.5 are more like 2.75 in width. I would love to get some 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 on there for dirt riding. I haven't seen any mention of being able to buy Bontrager tires in this size or other companies making comparable tires. Any spottings yet?

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_T View Post
    Has anybody seen or heard when these tires will be available? I for one am excited to try them. I originally bought 26x4 tires for summer use but I didn't like the reduced diameter and with my 80mm rims I didn't like the tire profile and self steer that i was getting. I bought a second set of summer wheels and went with chinese carbon 27.5x50mm rims with Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 tires. That has been a very light, fast setup for summer but FBN 3.5 are more like 2.75 in width. I would love to get some 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 on there for dirt riding. I haven't seen any mention of being able to buy Bontrager tires in this size or other companies making comparable tires. Any spottings yet?
    I've been trying to keep my eye out and haven't seen anything available yet. Even when they are though, don't forget about the minor issue of availability of suitable rims. Those might actually be harder to find at first. I think 650bx4 is going to be perfect for my fat-front summer setup (26x5 is the correct height, but is a bit overkill and sluggish), but I'm not interested in an 80mm wide carbon fiber rim.

    Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b?

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-barbegazicomparo.jpg
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b]
    That's what I'm after as well, but nothing so far. I was hoping for something at Interbike.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    336
    I myself am looking forward to getting a 27.5x4, but not in any hurry. I read that other mfrs will be coming out with rims and tires, so there should be a selection. I suspect 65mm will come around eventually, and be popular for this and also B+ as a max width.

    The reasons I am looking forward to this tire are first that I've determined that this is the wheel diameter that best suits my body size and preferences. So that means 29+, this, or 26x5. Essentially, we were wondering when they would go up in wheel size next, well, this is how they've done it, and I approve. Second, I've determined that I'm Q-factor sensitive, and full fat frames are too wide for comfort. I will need a special low-q frame, which limits me to 4" tire on 80mm rim. With that frame, a second wheel set in 29+ would make sense, not that it would be absolutely necessary.

    Basically, I like fat, and I like diameter. But I can only take so much of each, and this is it for me.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swissam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,128
    26 for life! FTW!!!
    26 ain't dead!!!
    It's a marketing ploy, man!

    Wait, didnt we already go through all of this?

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,324
    anybody have a width measurement for these yet? and ideally a real world height from rim at (x) psi would be useful (though we can work it out if we assume treks diameter figures are correct...

  67. #67
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,598
    I need these right now.
    I like turtles

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    122
    I stopped into the local Trek dealer at lunch time to day and asked if the tires were available yet. They were able to order a pair for me, they should be here next week! I have 50mm Chinese Carbon rims I will be trying them on. I currently have Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 but they are way skinnier than 3.5. I am hoping these Hodag will be exactly what I am looking for.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_T View Post
    I stopped into the local Trek dealer at lunch time to day and asked if the tires were available yet. They were able to order a pair for me, they should be here next week! I have 50mm Chinese Carbon rims I will be trying them on. I currently have Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 but they are way skinnier than 3.5. I am hoping these Hodag will be exactly what I am looking for.
    Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Please post back with a ride report on those narrow'ish rims. I'm thinking of trying this myself as a summer option for the Farley.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.
    I will definitely weigh them and measure them and post the numbers. In the 2016 Trek Fat Bike thread I saw an actual measured weight of 1290 and 1295 grams.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.

    Sorry didn't measure but my pair weighs 1290, 1295 when I weighed them last night

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    336
    I have a Gravity Bullseye that was made for 26x3 tires on 50mm rims. I was able to fit the notoriously undersized FatBNimble in the rear and ended up with either the skinniest fat bike or the widest plus bike, all with standard width components.

    I say this on this thread because I am wondering if a 27.5x3.8 on a 45-50mm rim might possibly work in some frames designed for 29x3. I would be very interested in the actual tire width if anyone puts this together.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by BATRG3 View Post
    I have a Gravity Bullseye that was made for 26x3 tires on 50mm rims. I was able to fit the notoriously undersized FatBNimble in the rear and ended up with either the skinniest fat bike or the widest plus bike, all with standard width components.

    I say this on this thread because I am wondering if a 27.5x3.8 on a 45-50mm rim might possibly work in some frames designed for 29x3. I would be very interested in the actual tire width if anyone puts this together.
    I should be able to make measurements on 50mm rim next week. I will post some numbers once I get them.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,189
    FWIW, I just test rode a Farley 9.8 (27.5x4) and then a Pivot Les Fat with a 26x4 on a sand beach. The 27.5x4 had significantly more float than did the 26x4.

    J.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    Got a bunch more riding on the 27.5 x 4's this week. Technical rock gardens, baby head ATV tread, buff single track, small pebble gravel roads, big roots, pavement, off trail grassy rocks-- pretty much everything.

    I'm sold. The way I describe them is that they are not earth shaking different than my 26x4, just a tad better in every category.

    I know one thing--I don't have the slightest interest in any rim or tire smaller than that for summer use--it's a mountain bike, not a gravel grinder!

    Can't wait to try them on snow, but I'm also setting up some 100mm with 5". Will be able to use the best tool for the conditions.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I'm sold. The way I describe them is that they are not earth shaking different than my 26x4, just a tad better in every category.
    BAM! That was the sound of 26" rimmed fatbikes going obsolete. The industry needs a new trend anways now that it has churned through 27.5, 26er fatbikes, enduro and plus bikes in just 3 years.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Holding out for 29er fat wheels and tires with low casings to keep weight down.

    Small increments don't make sense. Go right upto the best size in one shot.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Windigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    FWIW, I just test rode a Farley 9.8 (27.5x4) and then a Pivot Les Fat with a 26x4 on a sand beach. The 27.5x4 had significantly more float than did the 26x4.

    J.
    What could possibly give it "significantly more float"?

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Windigo View Post
    What could possibly give it "significantly more float"?
    Trek's marketing materials under the tires......

    I can setup my Fatboy so it has considerably less float and grip with a 4.8 tire than my Bucksaw with a 4.0, just pump the 4.8 up to 20psi and drop the 4.0 to 6psi.

    Not to say that the 27.5" won't have more float than an identical width and tread pattern 26" tire both set to the same psi, but "significant" is drinking the manufacturer's Koolaid....
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Exactly - some wishful thinking and placebo effect going on I think.
    The difference in outer diameter/contact patch just isn't that huge.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Exactly - some wishful thinking and placebo effect going on I think.
    The difference in outer diameter/contact patch just isn't that huge.
    Exactly!

    If you compare a popular 26x4.0 tire, Surly's Nate (749mm dia) with the 764mm diameter Hodag 27.5 you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height. I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference.

    What I find really funny is that manufacturers are pushing riders towards the "better handling" 27.5" MTB tires over the wagon wheel 29er's on mountain bikes. Yet at the same time they are trying to push so called 27.5" fat tires that are actually a 30" tire if you look at the actual diameter. Even a 26X4 fat tire at 29.5" is larger than the so called "undesirable" handling 29ers.

    Nothing about the Hodag 27.5" tire has anything to do with 27.5" except for it using a 584mm (23") rim that if shod with a tradional MTB tire would be 27.5".

    I'm guessing if they called them by their actual measurement like motorcycle tires instead of a value somewhat associated to the rim size then the manufacturers would have a harder time fleecing consumers with an "improved" product every year.

    I was trail riding yesterday and had a 29er rider tell me that my Bucksaw must be quicker through the trees than his bike due to its 26" wheels. I tried to explain that it had a larger diameter tire than his bike, but eventually just gave up. Looks the manufacturers have everyone tricked.....
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    This diameter similarity is a big part of the reason why I got the Farley 7.
    I'll just throw 4" tires on it if I feel like it - can't go the other way and put 4.7" tires on the 9 models without new wheels.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.

    I have to admit you might be partially right though. Part of my enthusiasm over this new size might be clouded by new bike excitement. Going from a pugs ops to a carbon trek has a few things going on besides wheel size difference. I'm a pretty avid rider though, and I do think I'm detecting small improvements with rollover, traction and compliance with the new size. I cleared a few logs yesterday that I'm not so sure anything a millimeter smaller could have done.

    I also think I can run a pound or two more pressure without getting the dreaded "fat tire bounce" which allows me to gain snappier steering.

    I just measured my wifes farley with 26 rims/hodags and my bike with 27.5/hodags. About an inch difference diameter.

    I suppose one place that extra .5" radius shows up is pedal height. In the rough areas I've been riding, that's something I'm glad to have. Also, when I switch to 26x100mm rims with 5" tires, the bike geometry stays about the same.

    I would never tell anyone to go out and get the new wheelsize. But if you bike comes with it, don't worry about it for a second.
    Last edited by Teton29er; 10-11-2015 at 06:47 AM.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.
    I don't need to ride a bike with both purple and green paint to know they both ride the same, similarly some of us here have enough experience to know without having to ride these bikes that this small difference in diameter will not yield "significant' difference in floatation, traction, or anything else. The variance is just too small even at +.5" radius.

    In fact with more sidewall on the 26x4 tire contact patch is likely of similar size.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I have to admit you might be right though. Part of my enthusiasm over this new size might be clouded by new bike excitement. Going from a pugs ops to a carbon trek has a few things going on besides wheel size difference.
    Yeah, just slightly. In fact going from a Pugs even to a lighter steel frame is likely to yield a similar experience, let alone aluminum, let alone carbon.
    I think that accounts for your perceived super float and roll over powers.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.
    I've ridden a 9.6 and it felt a little harsh compared to a 26x4.8, granted it wasn't in sand or snow. It felt like riding 26x4.8 at too high of pressures.

    All of my recent saddle time on a 26x4 has been on my Bucksaw, and that really isn't a fair comparison as the suspension really transforms that bike.
    Last edited by Paochow; 10-11-2015 at 06:15 AM.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  87. #87
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,547
    Im sure the betterness of 27.5x4 is due to Treks Boost standard, l can see no other reason
    always mad and usually drunk......

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    It's like we're back in the 90's, but instead of everyone going crazy over suspensions it's tires. Kind of cool and I'll be really curious to see how many of these survive the Great Dying.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,367
    I was really excited about 27.5 and ordered a Farley 9 early, almost bought a Farley 8 that was sitting on LBS floor for 2000 but as we were talking they expressed that a 27.5 version was in the works and since I am smitten with this wheelsize I was game even though I did not care for the 197 rear because my intended purpose is mostly for dirt with some snow here on the East Coast but the 27.5 sold me.

    In July I fractured my ale with some tendon damage during an Enduro event and after copays and deductibles my dream of owning the Farley 9 had to be put off this year. As I was cruising Fat Bike Trader I came across a 2016 Specialized Fuse Comp, I knew little about plus sizes but did some research and came to the realization that this sizing may better fit my needs better and for a third of the cost, Paid 1075 shipped ,in comparison to the Farley and doable with my budget.I bought it and came in this week, I am back riding but still in rehab but managed to give it a good test ride. Bike comes in at 28.4 lbs but the previous owner made some upgrades, RF Deus cranks, Saint shifter, XT Plus rear derail, Sram Centerline rotors and converted to tubless. Pretty impressed with ride overall, steers and handles very much like my Mach 6 with just a tad steeper HA ,accelerates, climbs and tracks well and overall a very comfortable fun ride, does not feel sluggish in any way.So,did not go full Fatty 27.5 but by accident literally discovered a bike that better fits my needs and saved a bundle to boot. For you all out there considering a four inch 27.5 it my be in your interest to check out a plus size depending on your needs.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I've ridden a 9.6 and it felt a little harsh compared to a 26x4.8, granted it wasn't in sand or snow. It felt like riding aired up 26x4.8
    Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.

    But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.

    The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.

    But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.

    The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.
    That was my sense in the brief demo I did of a 26x4 and a 27,5x4 on sand. More float, rolled over obstacles better, less bounce and the bike seemed to be more nimble/less inertia feel to it. Didn't have that monster truck sort of feel to it. My feeling was that the 27.5x4 had a wider sweet spot and was more versatile than either the 26x4 or the 26x5/4.8.

    J.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    That was my sense in the brief demo I did of a 26x4 and a 27,5x4 on sand. More float, rolled over obstacles better, less bounce and the bike seemed to be more nimble/less inertia feel to it. Didn't have that monster truck sort of feel to it. My feeling was that the 27.5x4 had a wider sweet spot and was more versatile than either the 26x4 or the 26x5/4.8.

    J.
    Was the bike you demoed with a front suspension? Do you feel that it would benefit from a front fork? Or are we too concerned with air volume?

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,189
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    Was the bike you demoed with a front suspension? Do you feel that it would benefit from a front fork? Or are we too concerned with air volume?
    I demo'ed a straight up 9.8 (and bought it but haven't picked it up yet) with a rigid fork. That's how I'm planning on riding it this winter. I didn't want a Bluto fork because of the cold where I'll be riding it (Minnesota) and because I'll be primarily on snow and beaches. The Bluto has a temp spec that doesn't go down as low as what I'll be routinely riding in. In the summer, I think it would benefit from a suspension fork but not necessary in a lot of applications.

    So, I guess it would depend on the fork. I would guess there would be some other alternatives popping up soon and prices should also come down.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.

    But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.

    The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.
    I agree- rider preference has a lot to do with it. I initially bought my fatbike for snow only, but quickly realized that it was more capable than I realized. After years of offroad motorcycling, I hurt more than I used to and take longer to heal, so for me now fatbiking is all about cushy ride and mountain goat capabilities so I can ride harder terrain longer and hurt less. I had a Fuel 29er which rode fast, but it was much harder to ride in technical terrain and lacked the fun factor of a fatbike.

    One factor that can really help with the dreaded bounce of fat tires is suspension. It dampens the bounce effect and allows you to run the ideal pressures for the terrain. I rode my Fatboy a few months without a Bluto and after adding one there is no way I'd ever go back. It let me tune my tire pressure for grip/rolling resistance without bouncing out of control on the downhills. It allowed me to ride my Fatboy as fast as the Fuel.

    I think the 27.5 with its shorter sidewall would make a good tire for a fat Fuel, the suspension would really help smooth out the harshness without having to regulate psi so precisely.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    What I need though is 2 things. I need a 65mm rim to maximize weight savings and give me a round tire profile...
    I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well...
    If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b?
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    That's what I'm after as well, but nothing so far. I was hoping for something at Interbike.
    Quote Originally Posted by TrailCrawler View Post
    - 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).
    Well, since no new rim options seem to have come through at interbike (good thread/overview [here]), but tires are now available for purchase separately, I'm starting to research what existing options might work. Again, like many of you, I'm looking for an alloy rim in something significantly less than 80mm width, to optimize these tires for summer use. I'm after the height and a round profile, and don't need to maximize the footprint.

    The best option, right now, might be the Sun Ringle Mulefut 50 [here].

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-mulefut50.jpg

    I can't find a profile illustration, but if the sizing holds true to other Sun rims, it would have an internal dimension of 50mm. So it would actually be 6mm wider than a 50mm rabbit hole (44 internal), 11mm wider than a 45mm Dually (39mm internal), and 10mm narrower than a 65mm Marge (60mm internal).

    Then, there's this Stan's Hugo 52, [here], which is almost 50mm internal as well :

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-hugo52_profile.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-hugo52_rendering.jpg

    Both are available only in black, though, where Rabbit hole and Dually are available in silver.

    Meanwhile, here are some places where you can see 3.8" tires on the narrower Dually and other plus-size / mid-fat width rims:

    Pics of 3.8"-4" tires on Velocity Dually/Surly Rabbit Hole

    Velocity "Dually" 26" Wheel Set: Final Review

    Seems slightly forced, but I'd love to hear actual ride reports or impressions from others. Maybe the profile is perfect. I've used the Dually with a 2.4 Ardent, for which it was clearly too big - but it still worked ok. So maybe it works just as well going the other direction?!

    Also anxious to hear of other options if anyone knows of some.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Got a bunch more riding on the 27.5 x 4's this week....
    I know one thing--I don't have the slightest interest in any rim or tire smaller than that for summer use--it's a mountain bike, not a gravel grinder!
    I might have missed it, but what rim are you using? Is it just the stock 80mm trek carbon rim? If not, you wouldn't happen to have a 135 qr front hub, would you? You're local to me and it would be nice to test fit if you're willing.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    ........
    I might have missed it, but what rim are you using? Is it just the stock 80mm trek carbon rim? If not, you wouldn't happen to have a 135 qr front hub, would you? You're local to me and it would be nice to test fit if you're willing.
    It's a 27.5 x 80mm alum rim called the jackalope. 150 Thru axles. PM me if you want to check it out. I've always like the wider rims even in the summer for good low pressure stability and volume.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    iamkeith, I checked in with Bdundee here since he has experience with 4" tires on 50mm rims. He had nothing bad to say about the setup.

    I'll either go with the 27.5x50mm Mulefuts which will give me the option to run that Hodag, or 29+.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    This diameter similarity is a big part of the reason why I got the Farley 7.
    I'll just throw 4" tires on it if I feel like it - can't go the other way and put 4.7" tires on the 9 models without new wheels.
    This is exactly why I ordered a 2016 F5 frame. I can go 26x3.8 summer, 26x4.7 winter on the same wheels. And if I feel crazy I can build up a set of 27.5 X 3.8 summer wheels too. Stealing all the great parts I have upgraded on my 2015 F6 and putting it back to stock for my wife to ride. The black/orange frame looks fabulious.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,716
    I like the black and orange too, if I could have that color scheme with the 7 build kit I would have been all over it. That said the purple is damn nice in person.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    iamkeith, I checked in with Bdundee here since he has experience with 4" tires on 50mm rims. He had nothing bad to say about the setup.

    I'll either go with the 27.5x50mm Mulefuts which will give me the option to run that Hodag, or 29+.
    Good to hear. Let us know what you decide, and your impressions if you happen to get your hands on a Mulefut 50 rim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    PM me if you want to check it out.
    Thanks! Even if I can't mount it, it would sure be nice to see it side by side with the tires I'm using. Sometimes all the specifications and internet chatter in the world can't compare to holding something in your own hands. I'm in Hoback. I think you're in Victor or Driggs, right? If this beautiful weather holds, I'll try to get in touch soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I've always like the wider rims even in the summer for good low pressure stability and volume.
    You do make a good point. I kind of forgot and am frequently surprised by how low I've had the pressure in the current 26x4.8, that I want to replace - even in the summer. I think the Dually, as illustrated in the thread I linked, is completely out of the question. Tire would likely roll right off. The Mulefut will probably be marginal.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... 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: 387

Posting Permissions

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