Results 1 to 47 of 47
  1. #1
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,768

    + Bike or Fat Bike?

    Is there any real advantage to the 26+ over a fat bike? Or is it just another sales gimmick? IMO a lot of mfg's missed the boat with fat bikes. Now it seems like they're jumping on every new fad regardless of what it is. I need a new toy.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    16
    Depends on where and how you plan to ride. I rode a buddy's 29+ (3 inches wide, needs more psi) for some time and finally decided to go full fat with a 4.25 I'm going to upgrade to 4.5 shortly. On the beach and the sandy off-paths here in central Florida there's a noticeably difference in float capability at sub 10 psi for my 240 lbs frame. 29+, in my opinion, is just a little bit floatier 29. Full fat (4" plus) is a totally different ride experience. Even with no front squish you don't need to pay such close attention to lines. Rocky, rooty trails? What rocks? Thing just FLOATS over everything! Less agility at speed, yes, but you also feel you don't need that steering precision that much anymore.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    651
    I've primarily ridden fat bikes and enjoy them.

    But this year I built a set of plus wheels for my fat bike and am completely convinced that plus wheels are where it's at for summer riding. Even for packed winter single track I think aggressive plus tires would be fine.

    I'm going to stick with my Wozo for a while since the geometry is pretty tough to match even compared to other plus bikes, but my next bike will probably be a purpose built 29+.

  4. #4
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,118
    Really depends on your use. I put 27.5+ wheels on my fatty recently, it rips the singletrack!
    But! There is no way they would handle snow or sand like my 26 fat tires.
    I'd but a frame that fits the fat stuff, and you can always put plus wheels in after the fact.

  5. #5
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,291
    Get a fattie and another set of 29+ wheels and enjoy it all the time. I have three sets of wheels for my fat bike. One 29+ and two fats for different conditions. Love it all.
    I like turtles

  6. #6
    RAKC Industries
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,262
    26+ isn't some new "standard" being jumped on. Actually not that easily available currently. Not like b+ and 29+.

    But yes plus bikes have a huge advantage over fat bikes, not hauling those big a$$ wheels and tires around the trails when there is no need for them. Plus brings the comfort and traction to normal riding conditions, reducing the draw backs of full fat.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    Life on a bike doesn't begin till the sun goes down.

    US partner for ITUO and Ravemen:
    www.rakcindustries.com

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    173
    What is the limit/ definition for a plus bike. Seems to be 29 x 3, but what is the top for 27.5? Is it not almost 4 inches/ border fat

  8. #8
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by MozFat View Post
    What is the limit/ definition for a plus bike. Seems to be 29 x 3, but what is the top for 27.5? Is it not almost 4 inches/ border fat
    Plus is 2.8-3" tires generally.

  9. #9
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,254
    26+ is silly, frankly, IMHO, B+ is too.

    That said, whatever blows your hair back once you stop reading some other dude (or dudettes) opinion on such matters.

    + will never, in a million years, do what fat can do, when conditions warrant. That's just a fact.

    Many of my customers and friends ride fat all year round and love it. A good number have also bought a 29+ and love the benefits it provides. Even better roll, and roll over capabilities than fat, or 29, (or that silly upstart 650B) which is why I question reducing those benefits by going with a smaller diameter + than 29.

    I switched to 29, and never looked back, so why I'd want to halve that feeling, is a mystery.

    "But B+ is the same diameter as 29, but lighter than 29+" they say.

    Okay, so if weight is the concern, I'll stick with 29 skinny, thanks.

    But since weight isn't first and foremost, and fun is, give me all the monster rollover and giggle inducing bomber feeling you can pack into a bike. That would be, 29+....

    So yeah, if you're in, I'd do a fat bike, and get a + wheelset for it, best of both worlds!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  10. #10
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,952
    I've ridden a couple 29+ bikes and don't like the pork in the wheels. b+ feels good to me. It's a good "trail bike" size. Quicker than fat, but more grip than skinny. I have fat when I need float or even moar grip.

    I'm looking at adding a plus bike to my stable (which already includes one fatbike). I'm looking specifically at bikes meant to take skinny 29er wheels, too. So I'll be able to add wheelsets to the current bikes to change things up even more.

  11. #11
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,577
    One bike, two wheelsets. 26 fat for winter, 650B+ or B fat for summer. Love them all.

  12. #12
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    26+ is silly, frankly, IMHO, B+ is too.
    seek a therapist asap.


    + will never, in a million years, do what fat can do, when conditions warrant. That's just a fact.
    and when conditions don't warrant fat they can't do what + can in a bazillion years...soooo
    "ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK"

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    Is there any real advantage to the 26+ over a fat bike? Or is it just another sales gimmick?
    It's much lighter and faster on trails, at the expense of not being able to go on stuff that otherwise is not rideable on a bike. It's really best if you just want one bike and the fat tires are a bit too much of a boring slog in the summer.

    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    IMO a lot of mfg's missed the boat with fat bikes. Now it seems like they're jumping on every new fad regardless of what it is. I need a new toy.
    Eh, fat bike sales have crested and started dropping. Plus bikes are new and growing. That doesn't mean fat bikes are bad and + bikes are a fad, it means most of the people who would have bought a fat bike now have them.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    281
    I have a 29+ hardtail and a rigid fat bike, the plus bike is my good weather bike for dry trails which I enjoy riding as a grippy 29er while the fat bike is for poor conditions when it's wet and muddy as it ploughs through it all with ease. I added the 29+ after getting the fat bike as I didn't find it great riding all year round, I didn't want to change the fork and in good conditions the fat tyres aren't giving that much benefit. I prefer the two bikes separate as swapping forks isn't that quick and the Stache frame is better designed for 29+ wheels with shorter chainstays at the back.

    John
    2014 Trek Fuel Ex 8
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2016 Trek Stache 7

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,617
    26 fat in the winter, want B+ for the summer. It really depends on the winter where you live.

    I would get a fat frame that has clearance enough for a 4.8 and get/build a 2nd + wheelset. I do remember seeing a couple + capable frames that will fit a 4.0 tire with a Rohloff, the Surly 1x1 and Tumbleweed will work. The Durango Hooey is frame that will work, Kona Wozo too.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  16. #16
    Old Fat Guy
    Reputation: bentyyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    234
    '17 Rocky Mountain Blizzard -50º

    Winter Mode: 26 x 4.8 Maxxis Minion FBF/FBR, Sun Ringlé Mulefüt 80SL rims



    Summer Mode: 27.5 x 3.0 Maxxis Chronicle, Race Face Arc45 rims
    BenTYYC

    2015 RMB Thunderbolt 790 MSL BC Edition
    2017 RMB Blizzard -50º


    "Love the ride"

  17. #17
    Flying Sasquatch
    Reputation: KTMNealio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    135
    @CS2
    many people don't mention the 2 biggest things that factor into this decision IMHO:


    Rider Weight:
    For normal riding conditions, fat tires work great for a large (225+ rider). They are proportionally the correct for someone larger. If you are around 200lbs, the plus is great, and if you are 150 there probably isn't much need for anything over 2.2 (which you will see a lot of guys say). When you weigh 250-300lbs you have to keep your skinny tires pumped up so high to avoid rim strikes, that it rides like a wagon wheel. And the skinny tires plus a lot of weight means that those tires knife into softer terrain, negating any "lower rolling resistance" you have on pavement. I will never go back to skinny tires.

    Terrain:
    Now terrain is a big factor along with rider weight. If you are 150lbs, you can probably ride in sand with 27.5x3 or 29x3 tires. If you want to ride in sand but weight 200+, that won't work out as well. Also fat tires allow you to ride places you never thought of. I rode the local irrigation ditch bottom for several miles and its just filled with pumpkin sized rocks. You'll see videos on this site of guys going true cross country over sand and rocks in Utah, Colorado, and Idaho. You can't do that really with plus or skinny tires. So if you like to adventure, then fat gives you more options. If you just wanna bang packed singletrack, then you don't really need the extra tire (unless you weigh a lot).The fat tires also are much more forgiving in rocks and nasty terrain. They also grip better. One thing you'll hear is that fat or plus tires have more rolling resistance. If you are on pavement, packed singletrack, etc then this is true. You get into sand, gravel, or anything soft and the fat tires are going to roll much easier....

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,458
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    26+ is silly, frankly, IMHO, ...
    You're in trouble now.

    You've offended all the 1x1 owners who have been running 26 plus tyres for the last 19 years. Grr, teeth gnashing, threats of turning your lefties into righties, etc etc...

    On a more serious note - I haven't gone 29er+.

    I briefly rode one, thought it was ok but it didn't offer anything that the 1x1 on Dirt Wizards and the Pugsley didn't cover. Not a big enough gap between them to justify a 29er.

    If I didn't have the 1x1 I'd consider a 29er+, but I'd be more likely to simply build a 29er set of wheels for the Pug.

    (My bikes are for getting places not racing so that colours my opinion)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    281
    I don't agree with the rider weights, I'm around 120lbs but there's a noticeable advantage with the 29+ wheels over my 29er and I don't find the 29+ works well in sand or mud where the fat bike excels.
    2014 Trek Fuel Ex 8
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2016 Trek Stache 7

  20. #20
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,237
    + is pretty slow. Fat is really slow.

  21. #21
    Chris Bling
    Reputation: dustyduke22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I've ridden a couple 29+ bikes and don't like the pork in the wheels. b+ feels good to me. It's a good "trail bike" size. Quicker than fat, but more grip than skinny. I have fat when I need float or even moar grip.

    I'm looking at adding a plus bike to my stable (which already includes one fatbike). I'm looking specifically at bikes meant to take skinny 29er wheels, too. So I'll be able to add wheelsets to the current bikes to change things up even more.
    This is why I like the Otso Voytek. Narrow q like my mountain bike, will fit anything from 29x2.25 up to 26x4.6 or 29x3 or 27.5x3.5. Super versatile bike that rides like a normal mtb. I like to look at it from the angle of being a 29er mountain bike that can fit plus and fat wheels.

    Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
    The obsession of wheels fused with the passion of cycling
    Affordable Custom Wheels

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by KTMNealio View Post
    Rider Weight:
    For normal riding conditions, fat tires work great for a large (225+ rider). They are proportionally the correct for someone larger.
    I haul ass on my 29er full suspension with 2.4" tires, and take it on all sorts of ridiculously technical terrain.

    I ride my 700 x 40c cross bike on dirt, gravel, even some single track.

    I'm 270 pounds.

    There is a nugget of truth in what you say: bigger riders benefit from bigger tires, but at my weight that means riding 32c on a road bike, 2.4" on a mountain bike, and 5" on snow.

    Someone weighing 225 does not, for any reason, need a fat bike just to ride trails.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  23. #23
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,070
    I say : get a fat bike , put some 4'' tires in summer and 5'' in winter
    End of story.
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by fokof View Post
    I say : get a fat bike , put some 4'' tires in summer and 5'' in winter
    End of story.
    Spot on. 4.0 jumbo Jim's on 65mm rims are fantastic summer wheels. I built up a set of 29+ carbon wheels for my bike and I felt like I had less control of the bike. They even felt slower. I went back to JJ 4.0 on 65s and all is well. In the winter, I put Buds on the 65s and can plow through almost any conditions. One set of wheels and two sets of tires.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    472

    + Bike or Fat Bike?

    Quote Originally Posted by bentyyc View Post
    '17 Rocky Mountain Blizzard -50º

    Winter Mode: 26 x 4.8 Maxxis Minion FBF/FBR, Sun Ringlé Mulefüt 80SL rims



    Summer Mode: 27.5 x 3.0 Maxxis Chronicle, Race Face Arc45 rims
    OP, get a fattie and do this ^

    Just get a + wheelset for it, trust me it's a better choice to have versatility.

    I have a fattie and a 29er wheelset, but now want either 29+ or 27.5+ wheelset.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    2015 Specialized Rockhopper
    2015 Giant Stance FS (wife's bike)
    2016 Framed Alaskan Alloy

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jack Burns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,407
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    Is there any real advantage to the 26+ over a fat bike? Or is it just another sales gimmick? IMO a lot of mfg's missed the boat with fat bikes. Now it seems like they're jumping on every new fad regardless of what it is. I need a new toy.
    Having read all the replies so far, here is my qualified reply:

    Get a 26+ because I need you to join in this movement with me to help nurture and sustain this budding love-child of a format sites by Fat Bikes fornicating with 27+ bikes!

    Not even there at this point myself though. However I have bought a 26" i35 Scraper rim and a WTB Ranger 26x2.8 tire to build a new front wheel for my 23 year old 26" rigid single speed, just because I can and I know it will ****ing rock my little cycling world.

    I've got a fat bike. I've got a 27+ FSR. I have imagined the ride on a ROS 9er. I have had skinny 29ers, I have a 29" wheelset for the FSR too.

    Basically the fatter tired bike is going to be more capable. Heck, you don't really need a trail sometimes (but obviously this is not right to free ride over nature snuffing out lives - so don't do it - this was for illustration purposes only).

    But the negative aspects​ include the ponderous weight, self steer, potential bead burps, etc. and other handling traits.

    Three things turned me away from riding full fat on dirt trails most of the time. I have to say that I did ride the fat for a solid year,and still do, with lots of amazing times, riding mind-blowing for me lines at times, and just digging it altogether.

    One of these things is undamped rebound of the huge tires. As I became more accustomed to taking the fat bike up to high speeds I found myself getting into dicey situations on occasion where the bike would spend half it's time in the air as it rebounded off​ the rough tread sort of skittering with front and rear tires bouncing like basket balls underneath me. This would only happen above 20mph, on certain surfaces. But it almost got me in dangerous trouble and it caused me to use other bikes for higher speeds.

    Self-steer is another bugaboo. Maybe 26+ will have this trait too? I am however fairly confident that a 26x2.8" wheel will be fine.

    Finally, even though it was a rare occurrence, I have burped my front fat tire so bad I have nearly crashed hard.

    These three poor handling traits manageable to a point that is reached and passed when speeds and terrain start getting exciting.

    So that's why I ride a Stumpjumper 6Fattie a lot now. The 27+ handles fine for me. Although there is a reduction in the depth of looseness you can ride over with 27+ compared to a fat tire.

    I really think 26+ on a purpose built bike can build a permanent niche in the bike world. These new wheels if built on boost hubs for boost frames have the potential to be lighter and more nimble than their larger kin.

    Anyway a am going too SS 26+ rigid first, go from there looking for new 26+ bike frames to get on the market.



    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    + is pretty slow. Fat is really slow.
    Not on some trails for some riders.

  28. #28
    frl
    frl is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    74
    When it comes to rolling resistance. I tried side by side. On asphalt, gravel, rooty trails. And some more. I'm on fb with 4.8 jj. One on hard tail b+. And one on 29er full suspension. They have to ride to hold side by side. The one on 29er, same weight. The one on b+, 30 kg heavier. Just saying.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jack Burns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,407
    Quote Originally Posted by frl View Post
    When it comes to rolling resistance. I tried side by side. On asphalt, gravel, rooty trails. And some more. I'm on fb with 4.8 jj. One on hard tail b+. And one on 29er full suspension. They have to ride to hold side by side. The one on 29er, same weight. The one on b+, 30 kg heavier. Just saying.
    Please clarify your statement. I do not understand the conclusion or example you have drawn for us here.

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    frl
    frl is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    74
    Less rolling resistance with fb. Than b+ hardtail and 29er full suspension. On any surface we tried.
    That is on Schwalbe Jumbo Jim liteskin 4.8". 1950 g 80mm wheelset and tubeless.
    Sorry about my English.

  31. #31
    RAKC Industries
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by frl View Post
    Less rolling resistance with fb. Than b+ hardtail and 29er full suspension. On any surface we tried.
    That is on Schwalbe Jumbo Jim liteskin 4.8". 1950 g 80mm wheelset and tubeless.
    Sorry about my English.
    Where is the data to support this? Dyno tests etc?

    99.9% of riders can't afford to build (nor would they want too as durability is low) a wheel set that has weight that low with tires included.

    So even if you were able to build a fat bike that apples to apples for tires etc has truly better rolling resistance your sacrificing in many other areas. Especially rediculously over priced.



    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    Life on a bike doesn't begin till the sun goes down.

    US partner for ITUO and Ravemen:
    www.rakcindustries.com

  32. #32
    frl
    frl is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    74
    The wheelset comes with the fatbike. Not cheap. It's my hobby.
    And this is the bike
    https://fat-bike.com/2016/06/diamant...an-pennington/
    And here is a test for rolling resistance for fatbike
    Fat Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews
    I just tried side by side, with different bikes.

  33. #33
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,870
    It's not the wide tires on a fatty I don't care for in the non snow months, it's the wide crank and rear end. Not really that much fun in the rocks.

  34. #34
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    973
    Buy a 26 in wheeled municycle.......

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    26+ is silly, frankly, IMHO, B+ is too.

    That said, whatever blows your hair back once you stop reading some other dude (or dudettes) opinion on such matters.

    + will never, in a million years, do what fat can do, when conditions warrant. That's just a fact.

    Many of my customers and friends ride fat all year round and love it. A good number have also bought a 29+ and love the benefits it provides. Even better roll, and roll over capabilities than fat, or 29, (or that silly upstart 650B) which is why I question reducing those benefits by going with a smaller diameter + than 29.

    I switched to 29, and never looked back, so why I'd want to halve that feeling, is a mystery.

    "But B+ is the same diameter as 29, but lighter than 29+" they say.

    Okay, so if weight is the concern, I'll stick with 29 skinny, thanks.

    But since weight isn't first and foremost, and fun is, give me all the monster rollover and giggle inducing bomber feeling you can pack into a bike. That would be, 29+....

    So yeah, if you're in, I'd do a fat bike, and get a + wheelset for it, best of both worlds!
    Some of us shorter riders just don't fit well on a 29+. I've ridden all sorts of bikes in all kinds of conditions and no matter how I try I just can't get comfortable on a bike that 'big'. I've been spending most of my riding miles this year on a B+ bike and on dirt I get all of the traction benefits of fat in a somewhat more manageable and nimble platform. I'm currently running 47mm Scrapers with Fat B Nimble 3.5's and enjoying the heck out of it but will be changing to the new Dirt Porcupine 51mm with Terrene Chunk 3.0 as soon as the new wheels are available next month. A little lighter and a little more aggressive rubber will be fantastic.

    The argument about rider weight is valid but rider height is equally as important.

    Quote Originally Posted by dustyduke22 View Post
    This is why I like the Otso Voytek. Narrow q like my mountain bike, will fit anything from 29x2.25 up to 26x4.6 or 29x3 or 27.5x3.5. Super versatile bike that rides like a normal mtb. I like to look at it from the angle of being a 29er mountain bike that can fit plus and fat wheels.
    There are a couple of bikes that offer similar benefits like the Advocate Hayduke that I've been riding. It doesn't have full fat capability though but does have a narrower Q than a true fatty and the short stays of a great climber and will easily handle a B+ 3.5 or 29x3 with a quick dropout change. Personally I wasn't thrilled with the feel when I tried the 29 option, it made the bike so long...

  36. #36
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,291
    Quote Originally Posted by gravitylover View Post
    Some of us shorter riders just don't fit well on a 29+.
    How short are we talking here? My twelve year old has been riding his Medium frame 907 for about two years now and he's about 5'8" now. Bike's had 29+ wheels on it for a year and a half and it hasn't hampered his riding at all. He loves the bike with the plus wheels.
    I like turtles

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,147
    I'm on the shy side of 5'6" and ride a small or 15" frame. Heck, I don't like the way any 29ers feel and the extra length of + just them feel that much more awkward.

    Young kids are also much more adaptable and if they don't know better they will ride what they have to the extent that their ability will let them. Me, I've been riding mt bikes for over 30 years so have a pretty fair idea of what works well for me and what doesn't.
    Last edited by gravitylover; 05-15-2017 at 07:31 AM.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    It's not the wide tires on a fatty I don't care for in the non snow months, it's the wide crank and rear end. Not really that much fun in the rocks.
    Yes. Sometimes the weight gets me too, but usually at the end of the ride.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  39. #39
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,291
    Fair enough.
    I like turtles

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by gravitylover View Post
    I'm on the shy side of 5'6" and ride a small or 15" frame. Heck, I don't like the way any 29ers feel and the extra length of + just them feel that much more awkward.

    Young kids are also much more adaptable and if they don't know better they will ride what they have to the extent that their ability will let them. Me, I've been riding mt bikes for over 30 years so have a pretty fair idea of what works well for me and what doesn't.
    Agreed.
    I'm 5'7" and been riding about as long as you on medium frames. Was not personally a fan of 29ers when they came out although I certainly understand why many taller guys would prefer them.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    How short are we talking here? My twelve year old has been riding his Medium frame 907 for about two years now and he's about 5'8" now. Bike's had 29+ wheels on it for a year and a half and it hasn't hampered his riding at all. He loves the bike with the plus wheels.
    Gotta keep in mind that kids are getting tall these days. For some of us older, shorter guys (me pushing 50 at 5'7", for instance) who've been mtbing for 20-30 years and who are accustomed to more nimble 26", 29+ on even a small frame is going to seem annoying.

    Oddly enough, I got the hang of year-round riding a 26" fat bike with 4.8" tires on 100 mm rims after years on 26" 2.2"-2.35" ones so there's some flexibility to adapt. ☺

  42. #42
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,768
    Gv
    Quote Originally Posted by bentyyc View Post
    '17 Rocky Mountain Blizzard -50º

    Winter Mode: 26 x 4.8 Maxxis Minion FBF/FBR, Sun Ringlé Mulefüt 80SL rims



    Summer Mode: 27.5 x 3.0 Maxxis Chronicle, Race Face Arc45 rims
    Very nice and a great solution to the too many bike dilemma.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  43. #43
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,768
    B
    Quote Originally Posted by KTMNealio View Post
    @CS2
    many people don't mention the 2 biggest things that factor into this decision IMHO:


    Rider Weight:
    For normal riding conditions, fat tires work great for a large (225+ rider). They are proportionally the correct for someone larger. If you are around 200lbs, the plus is great, and if you are 150 there probably isn't much need for anything over 2.2 (which you will see a lot of guys say). When you weigh 250-300lbs you have to keep your skinny tires pumped up so high to avoid rim strikes, that it rides like a wagon wheel. And the skinny tires plus a lot of weight means that those tires knife into softer terrain, negating any "lower rolling resistance" you have on pavement. I will never go back to skinny tires.

    Terrain:
    Now terrain is a big factor along with rider weight. If you are 150lbs, you can probably ride in sand with 27.5x3 or 29x3 tires. If you want to ride in sand but weight 200+, that won't work out as well. Also fat tires allow you to ride places you never thought of. I rode the local irrigation ditch bottom for several miles and its just filled with pumpkin sized rocks. You'll see videos on this site of guys going true cross country over sand and rocks in Utah, Colorado, and Idaho. You can't do that really with plus or skinny tires. So if you like to adventure, then fat gives you more options. If you just wanna bang packed singletrack, then you don't really need the extra tire (unless you weigh a lot).The fat tires also are much more forgiving in rocks and nasty terrain. They also grip better. One thing you'll hear is that fat or plus tires have more rolling resistance. If you are on pavement, packed singletrack, etc then this is true. You get into sand, gravel, or anything soft and the fat tires are going to roll much easier....
    Well I'm a 150 lbs and don't ride a thing too technical. But big tires really caught my attention.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    ...I really think 26+ on a purpose built bike can build a permanent niche in the bike world. ...
    Anyway a am going too SS 26+ rigid first, go from there looking for new 26+ bike frames to get on the market....
    A friend and myself both run 1x1s with the 2.8" Dirt Wizards and Pugsleys with Nates.

    We both think the 1x1 has close to the capability of the Pug except on very soft going. It's only disadvantage is it feels so similar that you're sometimes lured into riding into gloop only to realise you're not on a fat bike.

    Once I discovered how good the 1x1 was with the Dirt Wizards, it was the death knell for my 29ers as I can't get high volume tyres into them. (I can see how a 29er+ would be ok, but between the 1x1 and the Pugsley anything the 29er can do is covered.)

    The irony is the 1x1 has been made since 1998, but it has taken all this time for the rest of the industry to wake up to the advantage of high volume tyres. If you have ridden a 1x1 previously you'll know it's a decent but not remarkable bike. The opinion of the two of us is that the Dirt Wizards transform the bike.

    Mine is a bit fugly but functional



    My friend has more of an eye for style



    (Our riding is exploring natural trails in the Scottish Highlands so there's not much heroic type stuff going on, and there's very little jumping the bike or flat out descents - unless we know the track)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  45. #45
    Old Fat Guy
    Reputation: bentyyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    Gv

    Very nice and a great solution to the too many bike dilemma.
    Thanks CS2 - new wheel set is rolling well. Really enjoying it!
    BenTYYC

    2015 RMB Thunderbolt 790 MSL BC Edition
    2017 RMB Blizzard -50º


    "Love the ride"

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    + is pretty slow. Fat is really slow.
    Not neccesary... I have been riding with cyclo cross riders during the winter in Denmark. A lot of mud and wet surfaces. My advantage on the fatbike Trek Farley 9.6

  47. #47
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Gravlund View Post
    Not neccesary... I have been riding with cyclo cross riders during the winter in Denmark. A lot of mud and wet surfaces. My advantage on the fatbike Trek Farley 9.6
    Yeah it's true, lately I've been riding the local black diamond trails on my plus bike with doods on road bikes and most days I am faster

Similar Threads

  1. Hitch Mount 2 Bike Tray Rack - Road Bike to Fat Bike
    By UserNameTaken in forum Car & Biker
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-20-2015, 09:05 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-06-2014, 03:25 PM
  3. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 02:22 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-30-2013, 11:52 AM

Members who have read this thread: 245

Posting Permissions

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