29+ tire choices- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 1651
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    280

    29+ tire choices

    I see two 29+ tire choices (Knard and Dirt Wizard) on the Surly site. Are these the only choices at this time?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Dirt Wizard in 29+ flavor is not available yet, so the Knard is it for now, I suppose you have two choices, 27 or 120 tpi.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Vee Rubber has a 29+ tire in their marketing info, but I haven't see one on anyone's bike.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Coloradoxj13 View Post
    Dirt Wizard in 29+ flavor is not available yet, so the Knard is it for now, I suppose you have two choices, 27 or 120 tpi.
    The ETA that folks in the Surly sub-forum are talking about for the 29+ DW is August. I want to believe that's wrong, but it may be bang on. For the moment there's nothing to do, but rock your Knards and wait.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  5. #5
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    real nice clark! i hope they don't release the DW at the end of a riding season. that's just silly marketing

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    I agree. Announcing a product in Sept 2013 and delivering in Sept 2014 is a bit [actually a lot] lame.

    Having said that the wet parts of the year are when many riders want to switch out their Knards for something more aggressive so a fall release isn't totally goofy from that perspective.

    I'm not suggesting anyone actually planned things that way.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  7. #7
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    true that, but you could also have 'em for the earlier wet season of lets say spring.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoNin9r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,701
    Dumb question. what's the difference between fat tires and 29+

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,590
    One is slow and one is fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoNin9r View Post
    Dumb question. what's the difference between fat tires and 29+
    http://www.bikingtoplay.blogspot.com/
    RIGID, not "ridged" or "ridgid"
    PEDAL, not "peddle." Unless you're selling stuff

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoNin9r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by seat_boy View Post
    One is slow and one is fast.
    thanks! no seriously...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,590
    29+ is made to go on a 29er (622mm bead set diameter, or BSD) rim, and is about 3" wide.

    Fat tires are typically made to go on a 26" (559mm BSD) rim and are in the range of 3.8" ~ 5" wide. Because of the wider tire, the outer diameter is close to that of a 29er.

    They're also slow

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoNin9r View Post
    thanks! no seriously...
    http://www.bikingtoplay.blogspot.com/
    RIGID, not "ridged" or "ridgid"
    PEDAL, not "peddle." Unless you're selling stuff

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoNin9r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,701
    haha awesome. rep for you.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoNin9r View Post
    Dumb question. what's the difference between fat tires and 29+
    With 4" or 5" tires you can ride some soft terrain like deep snow and sand that would stop a normal MTB. 29+ tires really don't go anywhere a normal 29er couldn't go, but they provide good traction and a bit better ride through say gravel or sandy section on a normal MTB trail. 29+ also gives you great roll through tech sections due to how tall the tire is.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  14. #14
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    that and they are at an od greater than 29 which slackens your head a lil bit. a fun tire, so not to be taken seriously

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by seat_boy View Post
    One is slow and one is fast.
    I actually agree with this statement. 29+ is the next 27.5 once people figure out they are 26" wheels with marginally taller tread. And people will get tired of 15-18 pounds wheels once the novelty wears off or if you need to climb hills.

  16. #16
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    I actually agree with this statement. 29+ is the next 27.5 once people figure out they are 26" wheels with marginally taller tread. And people will get tired of 15-18 pounds wheels once the novelty wears off or if you need to climb hills.
    your post is obscure. 29+ is a 29er tire, not a 27.5 or a 26 w/ a taller tread. the tread is 4" taller than a 26. its a 29er high volume tire, thee end. i climb hills with them no problem so i think you might need to HTFU

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,590
    I think GSJ was making two points:

    - there's only a small difference between 26" and 27.5", about the same as between 29 and 29+. So similar to all those punters who saw 27.5 as revolutionary, the current crop of 29er riders may see 29+ as the Next Big Thing.

    - or coming at it from the other way, people will realize their fat bikes are too slow and ponderous for everyday riding, so they'll downsize, but still want some simple cush. So... 29+.

    Of course, what's stopping this is the fact that there's currently only one tire and two frames that work with 29+.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishwrinkle View Post
    your post is obscure. 29+ is a 29er tire, not a 27.5 or a 26 w/ a taller tread. the tread is 4" taller than a 26. its a 29er high volume tire, thee end. i climb hills with them no problem so i think you might need to HTFU
    http://www.bikingtoplay.blogspot.com/
    RIGID, not "ridged" or "ridgid"
    PEDAL, not "peddle." Unless you're selling stuff

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by seat_boy View Post
    - or coming at it from the other way, people will realize their fat bikes are too slow and ponderous for everyday riding, so they'll downsize, but still want some simple cush. So... 29+.

    Of course, what's stopping this is the fact that there's currently only one tire and two frames that work with 29+.
    I posted the info below in another thread. There are quite a few 29+ compatible frames. The tires are the issue.

    There are tons of 29er tires so if you have a fatbike and want a faster dirt ride no need to really worry about 29+ just roll with "normal" 29er rubber.

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    29+ stuff....

    29+ Tires

    Surly Knard 29 x 3 [available now]
    Surly Dirt Wizard 29 x 2.75 [summer 2014??]
    Vee Rubber Vee8 29 x 3 [available ???]

    29+ Rims

    Surly Rabbit Hole 29 x 50mm [available now]
    Velocity Dually 29 x 45mm [available now]
    Velocity Blunt 35 29 x 35mm [available now]
    Derby Carbon 29 x 35mm [available now]
    Schlick North Paw 29 x 47mm [available now]
    Stan's 29 x 50mm rim [available ??]

    29+ Bikes

    Surly Krampus
    Surly ECR
    Some fatbikes
    -- Pugsley
    -- Ti Mukluk [pre-2013]
    Carver Gnarvester
    Muru Mungo
    RSD Bikes
    Lenz Sport Fat-Moth
    Travers Bikes Rudy Fat
    38 Frameworks Mastadon
    Singular Rooster

    All the custom frame builders can do a 29+ if they are interested in the format and design challenges.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I posted the info below in another thread. There are quite a few 29+ compatible frames. The tires are the issue.
    Add the REEBdonkadonk to that list of 29+ compatible frames
    Tested: REEB Reebdonkadonk Mountain Flyer Magazine

  20. #20
    SyT
    SyT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    614
    After a few 'attempts' of riding my Krampus in snow, I find that test ride/report a bit questionable. Even misleading, maybe outright deceiving. Comparing it to a fat bike and a normal 29 with skinny aggressive tires, my opinion is the knard is the worst of both worlds. It behaves pretty much as it does in muddy/wet conditions; worthless.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: octavius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    278
    Another to add to the list.
    Just spotted in twitter, a maxxis chronicle.
    29x3

  22. #22
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    no date though, huh?

  23. #23
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by octavius View Post
    Another to add to the list.
    Just spotted in twitter, a maxxis chronicle.
    29x3
    Image courtesy of On One's Brant Richards
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 29+ tire choices-maxxis-chronicle-29-.jpg  

    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  24. #24
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    thanks GT, just wish it was a better pic.

  25. #25
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,071
    Quote Originally Posted by fishwrinkle View Post
    thanks GT, just wish it was a better pic.
    From here:

    Taipei Cycle Show First Look: Maxxis Mammoth and Chronicle Fat Bike and 29+ Tires



    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3 every time I post on MTBR.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    That tread looks nice. I'll definitely keep my eyes open for some user reviews when they get out into the wild.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  27. #27
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,071
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    That tread looks nice. I'll definitely keep my eyes open for some user reviews when they get out into the wild.
    Maxxis is saying fall.

    I'm saying, "must haz now."
    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3 every time I post on MTBR.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdicky View Post
    Maxxis is saying fall.

    I'm saying, "must haz now."
    LOL - I have learned my lesson. I'm thinking spring 2015!
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,727
    Quote Originally Posted by SyT View Post
    After a few 'attempts' of riding my Krampus in snow, I find that test ride/report a bit questionable. Even misleading, maybe outright deceiving. Comparing it to a fat bike and a normal 29 with skinny aggressive tires, my opinion is the knard is the worst of both worlds. It behaves pretty much as it does in muddy/wet conditions; worthless.
    I agree. Can't wait until some better tires come out so I can steer in the snow again.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019

    Vee Tire Trax Fatty 29+

    Here is another from the Taipei show:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 29+ tire choices-trax-fatty.jpg  


  31. #31
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    damn i wish i would've held out a little bit before buying the knard. might be a knard for sale here soon & still has all whiskers on it, maybe 30 miles.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by fishwrinkle View Post
    damn i wish i would've held out a little bit before buying the knard. might be a knard for sale here soon & still has all whiskers on it, maybe 30 miles.
    Unless you can actually find these new tires for sale I'd keep the Knard. No telling when they'll be ready for sale. Just look at the 29+ Dirt Wizard.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  33. #33
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    yeah i know, pretty soon it will be back to the dirt and the knard will be shelved for a bit. i'm rolling a mid fat front on my xc ht on some duallys i built several weeks ago. the duallys are going on my nimble 9 w/o the knard. i guess i could still roll the knard on my p35's though. just thinking out loud sorry


    that chronicle does look nice though

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    49
    Any have updates on the maxxis and vee rubber 29er plus.
    Especially the chronicle

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by ozisnipe View Post
    Any have updates on the maxxis and vee rubber 29er plus.
    Especially the chronicle
    I haven't seen anything hit the market. I think we'd see quite a few people posting when they do. So far nothing.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: funnyjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    672

    29+ tire choices

    I'm awaiting 27.5+ as I think that would be perfect compliment for my fatbike

  37. #37
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,071
    Here's my quick initial thoughts on the 3.0 Maxxis Chronicle.

    Bad Idea Racing: The Chroni(what)cles of Gnarnia



    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3 every time I post on MTBR.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,155
    mmm does it offer better cornering or braking grip? those are my issues with my knards. nothing quite like the sound of a 3" wide tire skidding into a tight corner.

  39. #39
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,071
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    mmm does it offer better cornering or braking grip? those are my issues with my knards. nothing quite like the sound of a 3" wide tire skidding into a tight corner.
    It was kinda slick out there, being all the rain and humidity. That said, it never let me down. Pushed it as hard as I was willing to and never slipped unexpectedly. Did feel a bit like driving a four wheel drive truck, but as would be expected with this much rubber pulling the front end around.
    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3 every time I post on MTBR.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Well glad to see this tire coming one step closer to reality.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdicky View Post
    It was kinda slick out there, being all the rain and humidity. That said, it never let me down. Pushed it as hard as I was willing to and never slipped unexpectedly. Did feel a bit like driving a four wheel drive truck, but as would be expected with this much rubber pulling the front end around.
    thanks dude!

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sasquatch rides a SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,565
    Vee Rubber Trax Fatty 29x3" tires are out. Anybody picked up a set or have some real world experience on these?

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by sasquatch rides a SS View Post
    Vee Rubber Trax Fatty 29x3" tires are out. Anybody picked up a set or have some real world experience on these?
    Available where???

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sasquatch rides a SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,565
    QBP. Your LBS can get them.

  45. #45
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    I have one coming in the mail tomorrow and a Gnarvester frame next week. I was thinking of running it on front and will replace the Knard on the front of my Les to try it out. I'll post some pics tomorrow night.

    Bought it from AEBike.
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    I have one coming in the mail tomorrow and a Gnarvester frame next week. I was thinking of running it on front and will replace the Knard on the front of my Les to try it out. I'll post some pics tomorrow night.

    Bought it from AEBike.
    thats where i ordered mine from. should be here end of the week. i hope they are more durable the 120tpi knards. i love the knards but hate their delicate sidewalls.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by sasquatch rides a SS View Post
    QBP. Your LBS can get them.
    I see them listed at some stores now. AEBike seems to have the best price.

    Anyone know if/when the 27.5+ version will be available? I've got a project just waiting for these!

  48. #48
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,774

    Looks like Bontrager is getting into the game too.

    29+ tire choices-10556316_10204274436318372_1006704539956557180_n.jpg
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    The more 29+ tires the merrier.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,064
    anyone know what version of the vee rubber tire AE is selling, can't seem to tell from their site?

    here are the three models listed on the vee rubber website for the trax fatty:
    $100- 293.0 (WB, 72 TPI) (Weight: 1025)
    $110- 293.0 (FB, 72 TPI) (Weight: 950)
    $120- 293.0 (FB, 120 TPI) (Weight: 920)

    tread pattern looks decent (though i'd like a tire with deeper knobs for fall/winter). I liked all the regular vee rubber tires i have tried so far so i am hoping this is a winner.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by max-a-mill View Post
    anyone know what version of the vee rubber tire AE is selling, can't seem to tell from their site?

    here are the three models listed on the vee rubber website for the trax fatty:
    $100- 293.0 (WB, 72 TPI) (Weight: 1025)
    $110- 293.0 (FB, 72 TPI) (Weight: 950)
    $120- 293.0 (FB, 120 TPI) (Weight: 920)

    tread pattern looks decent (though i'd like a tire with deeper knobs for fall/winter). I liked all the regular vee rubber tires i have tried so far so i am hoping this is a winner.
    It's the last one on your list. Says right in the listing, 120tpi folding bead.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,064
    doh reading... I FAIL.

    thanks!!!

  53. #53
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,371
    Just caught wind of those last night.

    Here are the specs:

    FT/RR/PR : Dual
    Size : 29 x 3.00
    TPI : 120
    Durometer : 62a/60a
    Bead : Aramid
    Type : TLR/Clincher
    Color : Black
    Weight : 850g

    And here's a pic:



    The bad news? ETA of 12/8/14.

    That said, I've been riding the Chronicles for a ~month. I tend to reserve this bike/these tires for mellower trips where float is necessary and techy chunk isn't as prevalent. So far so good, especially the tubelessness.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    601
    Any idea on the measured width of the bontrager tire? How do you like the maxis tire? What width rim are you using with it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Just caught wind of those last night.

    Here are the specs:

    FT/RR/PR : Dual
    Size : 29 x 3.00
    TPI : 120
    Durometer : 62a/60a
    Bead : Aramid
    Type : TLR/Clincher
    Color : Black
    Weight : 850g

    And here's a pic:



    The bad news? ETA of 12/8/14.

    That said, I've been riding the Chronicles for a ~month. I tend to reserve this bike/these tires for mellower trips where float is necessary and techy chunk isn't as prevalent. So far so good, especially the tubelessness.
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious. :D

  55. #55
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Just caught wind of those last night.

    Here are the specs:

    FT/RR/PR : Dual
    Size : 29 x 3.00
    TPI : 120
    Durometer : 62a/60a
    Bead : Aramid
    Type : TLR/Clincher
    Color : Black
    Weight : 850g
    Thanks Mikesee! That is sweet; I love Bonti tires!

    Got the Fat Trax today and will mount it later on my Derby 35mm wide rim to see if it fits in my Fox 32 that has a 29/3.0 Knard in it now.


    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  56. #56
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    So, I realize these are on a 35/29mm rim, but the size of the Fatty Trax is a little disappointing compared to the Knard on the same rim. The only good thing about the smaller size is that it actually fit in the back of my Les with 2.5mm on each side! If I had a few more millimeters on each side, I'd cancel my Gnarvester; Plenty of room for the diameter of the tire. Also, the Fatty clears on the fork bridge by a few more millimeters. Both tires were measured at 30 psi on the exact same rim, right after mounted and before being ridden.

    Knard 3.0 on Derby wide rim:
    knob to knob


    casing


    Fatty Trax on Derby wide rim:
    knob to knob


    casing


    2014 Fox 32 Float 120mm clearance:




    Comparison of the two on Derby wide rims:



    So, my tire came in 40gr lighter than advertised, but I think it's because they shorted me on tread. The casing is quite wider than the tread, and will grow even more on a 50mm wide rim. It will be a good, fast rolling rear tire on my Derby's until I build some 50mm rims; When someone makes some carbon hoops. The Trax Fatty, was a little tougher to get on the rim, but not really hard. They also seated and held air without Stan's, which the Knard would not hold air due to leaking around the bead.

    Can't wait to build my Gnarvester and take full advantage of this setup!
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  57. #57
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    Have you ridden the trax yet?

  58. #58
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan GSR View Post
    Have you ridden the trax yet?
    Not really, just on the street. I did take it on a fairly steep pea sized loose gravel walking path at a really slow speed and a relatively high torque; No slippage.

    Not sure I want to ride it on my Les on real trails, as the clearance is pretty minimal.
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  59. #59
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    Im interested as a front tire

  60. #60
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    No, I mounted it on front, but the narrower tread patch doesn't seem like it will have very good bite when leaning. Maybe, when I get some 50mm rims.

    I could be wrong though, as I am most of the time.
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  61. #61
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    It's bigger than the ardent 2.4 I'm also considering

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,155
    anxious to see these mounted on a 50 or 45mm rim. They look more aggressive than I had pictured, and I question whether anybody needs knobs pointed 90* to the right or left, but it does seem to have a pronounced shoulder where the knobbage stops.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    MTB Pilot: I can't tell from your pictures, but is the Knard brand new as well, and just mounted? Just asking because new tires will grow after a couple of days of being aired up, and tires this big could easily grow 3mm to 5mm wider and taller.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    559
    Mike - do you have any idea when the Chronicle will be available for sale?

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Question for those of you who have been following the 29+ tire saga closely...I'm running 120tpi Knards on my Krampus at the moment. For the most part I am happy, but there are some scenarios where I wouldn't mind some extra bite...particularly at the side of the tire. Initial reports about the 26" Dirt Wizard are that it's got an aggressive tread with great traction at the expense of being slow rolling.

    My 29+ rig mostly sees touring use so I don't want a slow rolling tire.

    I'm hoping that there is a compromise option that has decent side knobs without going fully knobby - which in a 3" tire is overkill for my needs.

    Any thoughts on which 29+ tires might fit the bill?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  66. #66
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,371
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Question for those of you who have been following the 29+ tire saga closely...I'm running 120tpi Knards on my Krampus at the moment. For the most part I am happy, but there are some scenarios where I wouldn't mind some extra bite...particularly at the side of the tire. Initial reports about the 26" Dirt Wizard are that it's got an aggressive tread with great traction at the expense of being slow rolling.

    My 29+ rig mostly sees touring use so I don't want a slow rolling tire.

    I'm hoping that there is a compromise option that has decent side knobs without going fully knobby - which in a 3" tire is overkill for my needs.

    Any thoughts on which 29+ tires might fit the bill?
    FWIW, the current 26" Dirt Wizard tread isn't the same as the upcoming 29". At least that's what I've been told. Casing will be bigger too--full 3" instead of 2.75".

    Trax Fatty's seem to have decent side knobs. Haven't ridden them yet.

    Chronicle seems to be the best overall combo of speed and bite that I've actually been able to see/fondle/ride.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    FWIW, the current 26" Dirt Wizard tread isn't the same as the upcoming 29". At least that's what I've been told. Casing will be bigger too--full 3" instead of 2.75".

    Trax Fatty's seem to have decent side knobs. Haven't ridden them yet.

    Chronicle seems to be the best overall combo of speed and bite that I've actually been able to see/fondle/ride.


    Thanks Mike. I'll keep an eye out for the Chronicle. I have enough life left in my Knards to get me through the rest of the year.

    Interesting to hear your comments on a different version of the DWs for 29+. Hopefully we'll see 'em this year.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fixgeardan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,170
    I want to know about casing thickness? Are all these new tires as wimpy in the casing
    as the Knards? Judging by the weight I would think so. Ill just stick with the Minions I think.

  69. #69
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    MTB Pilot: I can't tell from your pictures, but is the Knard brand new as well, and just mounted? Just asking because new tires will grow after a couple of days of being aired up, and tires this big could easily grow 3mm to 5mm wider and taller.
    Yes, both tires were new and measured about 10 mins after being inflated to 30 psi. The Knard has about 12 miles on it now. I will re measure both of these tires after I build the Gnarvester and get some miles on the tires.

    The casing on the Trax Fatty felt quite a bit sturdier than the Knard.
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  70. #70
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,187
    Rode my Vee Trax fatty last night and enjoyed it. It was moist/wet here and also dry in parts. A good overall test. Set up tubeless on my Duallies but burped and burped and burped until I was rolling back to the car on a half aired drag tire.

    Grip was great. Tubeless setup was great. No complaints at all except with the Velocity rim and the tubeless set up. Will get tubes tonight before I head out for SSUSA.

    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fixgeardan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,170
    That's what I figured. For where I ride and how I ride Ill stick with Minions.
    Thanks

  72. #72
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,371
    Quote Originally Posted by fixgeardan View Post
    I want to know about casing thickness? Are all these new tires as wimpy in the casing
    as the Knards? Judging by the weight I would think so. Ill just stick with the Minions I think.
    Nothing in 29+ will ever approach your Minion casings for durability. If they did no one would buy them because they'd be 1500g+.

    That said, both Trax Fatty and Chronicle casings seem much improved over the paper-thin Knards.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by appleSSeed View Post
    Grip was great. Tubeless setup was great. No complaints at all except with the Velocity rim and the tubeless set up.
    Hahaha! I feel your pain on the duallys.

    Vikb the chronicle looks like the way to go if they ever release them. Im very intersted in that bonty. that pattern looks like a fast rolling tire.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    6,101
    Chronicle Review, hopefully they will be available soon

    First Look! – Maxxis Chronicle 29+ Tire | FAT-BIKE.COM

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    Mtbpilot those tires actually make derbys look kinda normal. I know on my 650b derbys the tires look tiny compared to the rim.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    37
    A width of 2.7"/69mm is just about right for many standard 29er forks which allows for many more potential customers. I don't really get why no one made that size before 29+ was a thing. My current Vee Rubber Mission 2.4 actually has a 2.25/57mm casing on a 21mm ID rim but my Flyxii FK-8 rigid fork has room for 70mm. Big 2.4 tires get up to about 63mm on a 30mm ID rim but that is still short of what I want.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    Got my trax fattys mounted up yesterday. Took them out for a spin this morning. The narrow tread pattern gives up nothing to the knards. They roll just as good and have just as much if not more cornering grip. Mine weighed in at 900 grams dead on. On my duallies they measured 2.75 block to block and 2.95 at the casing. I set them up tubeless aired up to 50psi and let them sit overnight to stretch them out. Settled on 14psi front and 16 rear. I will drop down to 12 front and 14 rear on the next ride. The sidewall on them is much beefier then 120tpi knards.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    got a couple more rides in since mounting them up. found that they are a little more picky with pressure then the knards. ive settled on 13f 15r. i rode the second outing with 12 and 14. at 12 the front would burp ever so slightly on the dually when standing and cranking up hill. my krampus is setup ss. this eventually left me in around 8 psi by the end of my 15 mile loop. at this super low pressure the rolling resistance ramped way up and felt like i was dragging a tank. also at lower pressures they tend to have an auto steer effect. this goes away at higher pressures. at the 13/15 combo they roll fast and grip really well in the turns but ride a little harsher then the knard. overall im happy with this tire. at 30$ cheaper, 100g lighter plus the tr casing Vee has given us a really good alternative. i still plan on trying the Chronicle when it comes out.

    also i weigh 220lb all geared up. for what its worth

  79. #79
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    ...

    That said, both Trax Fatty and Chronicle casings seem much improved over the paper-thin Knards.
    WEEEELLLLLLL... Not so fast. 43 miles, 24 on tame, loose trails and 19 on rocky, chunky, loose trails. Last night on the way back in riding fairly fast speed on a solid rock section, just a few loose rocks around, I tore a hole in the the casing and knob. I'm guessing that the loss of air caused the small dent in rim and pinch hole in the bead. I was running 18 PSI which had been tested for 10 miles prior to this event on REALLY chunky terrain and was no where close to bottoming the tire to rim. I was running 14.5 on the tame trails. I weigh somewhere between 205-210 lbs depending on what I'm carrying. Pretty big hole in the casing and torn knob right next to it. Stan's filled the hole, but couldn't get the bead to stop leaking. I think the rim is fine; There is no cracking, stress fracturing or de-lamination. I'm happy it was the HD version of the Derby!

    So, the Knard on the front has ridden all of the same terrain, over the same chunk, and no problems yet. Vee Rubber's Silica, SMILICA! I'm also seeing chord on the side of the casing where the seem is... I'm giving this tire a FAIL for my riding... I doesn't even measure 3 inches, even on somebody's wider rim earlier, and the casing doesn't stand up to rocky terrain. Will the 72TPI be better at withstanding cuts in the casing?

    What's your opinions about warranty action? Is it just the way things go and I'm just unlucky or is a less than 50 mile 3.0 tire with Silica suppose to handle rocky terrain?

    HURRY UP MAXXIS AND BONTRAGER!!! I need tires that were actually meant to be put on a mountain bike and not a beach cruiser!!!!!

    ALSO: Look at the last few pics to see the cornering knobs starting to disintegrate; Vee must be in business with Schwalbe







    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    I destroyed a new tire on ride 3 or 5. Bummer, but putting a rock through the tread isn't a warranty issue any more than crashing and denting a frame is. I tried to save it, but in the end the damage was too severe to fix. So I bought a new tire.

    Same brand/model.

    No problems with the new one.

    Sometimes stuff just happens.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  81. #81
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Yeah, that's what my thinking is... Just had some preconceived notion that 29+ tires would be much more durable, since with bigger tires the idea is to be able to ride any terrain. That is my last Vee Rubber tire though. My LBS found the 72 TPI through J&B, but I'm not gonna bother since it doesn't measure 3 inches anyway. Such a waist of $80!

    I ordered the 24TPI and another 120TPI in the mean time. Will the 24TPI steel bead set up tubeless on hookless bead rim?

    Can't wait for the Chronicle and the Bonti Chupacabra to come out! Guitar Ted Productions: News Season Part 4: Tires V2 Trek 2015 mountain bikes - part I - BikeRadar
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    Just had some preconceived notion that 29+ tires would be much more durable, since with bigger tires the idea is to be able to ride any terrain.
    Since bigger tires are...well...bigger they make them thinner to keep the weight down...otherwise they'd be so burly it wouldn't be much fun to pedal.

    One incident of rock damage to one specific tire doesn't mean anything. It's totally random. Now if that happens to you 3 times in a short period of time your terrain is just too gnarly for that particular tire and your riding style.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  83. #83
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Since bigger tires are...well...bigger they make them thinner to keep the weight down...otherwise they'd be so burly it wouldn't be much fun to pedal.
    This. Folks wouldn't want a 29 X 3.0" tire that weighed 1500 grams, but it would be a tire that would hold up to rocks and abuse much better. When the weight limits get pushed, bad things might happen. They definitely will happen more often than if the tires weighed more.

    One incident of rock damage to one specific tire doesn't mean anything. It's totally random. Now if that happens to you 3 times in a short period of time your terrain is just too gnarly for that particular tire and your riding style.
    I get why this upsets folks though. I mean, if you have three failures, that's $240.00 down the tubes! Hard to self fund that kind of research.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    I get why this upsets folks though. I mean, if you have three failures, that's $240.00 down the tubes! Hard to self fund that kind of research.
    Sure, but looking at it the other way 1 incident of anything has no meaning for analysis purposes.

    My GF got 2 or 3 flats in a 1-2 week period on her commuter bike and wanted to swap the fast/light/supple tires I put on that bike to maximize her low leg power for some heavy/stiff/slow "flat resistant" rubber. She rationalized 2-3 flats over that period meant the tires were just not up to the job and she'd be fixing flats non-stop.

    I told her even that many flats doesn't mean anything just stay the course. 2 years later and no more flats.

    Crazy thing is if she had bought the flat resistant tires she would probably also have no flats and would convince herself they were the reason and never go back to supple tires. Despite the fact that wouldn't be true.

    Lighter/supple tires are really beneficial if you are weaker or you are riding longer/harder relative to your potential. It's worth the odd puncture/problem to stick with them.

    At the very least be aware that one problem is not something you can draw any conclusions from about the tire and it's applicability to your riding needs.

    I don't like spending money replacing tires early either. Sometimes it happens though and that's just mountain biking.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  85. #85
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Sure, but looking at it the other way 1 incident of anything has no meaning for analysis purposes.

    ...

    I told her even that many flats doesn't mean anything just stay the course. 2 years later and no more flats.

    ...

    ...

    At the very least be aware that one problem is not something you can draw any conclusions from about the tire and it's applicability to your riding needs.

    ...
    SOOOO, which number or how many flats do you have to have for it to mean something? To you it's not 1-3; Maybe it's 4?

    Saying a hole in a tire and knob doesn't mean anything is quite naive in my opinion. There's a 50% chance that this was just unlucky and a fluke, AND a 50% chance that the casing and rubber compound on this tire just can't hold up to rugged, rocky terrain.

    I've run some tires for years that have never had flats in this terrain, let a lone a hole torn in them, and I've had others that ended in the same manner 25-60 miles in; I didn't buy those again.

    Again, its a 50/50 chance that either it was a fluke or this tire simply won't hold up in my terrain, but saying that 1 hole doesn't mean anything, is denying the FACT that this tire got a hole and tore a knob in this terrain. I'm not willing to spend another $160-200 to find out if flukes come in threes.

    The reality is that this tire punctured in rocky terrain in the first 50 miles. Do with the facts as you like, but don't deny reality.
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post

    The reality is that this tire punctured in rocky terrain in the first 50 miles. Do with the facts as you like, but don't deny reality.
    I'm not denying the incident. I'm saying you are extrapolating meaning into it that is based on nothing.

    The following situations could all be true based on the one data point you have:

    - you'll never have another problem with that brand/model of tire
    - you'll have a few problems with that brand/model of tire
    - you'll have lots of problems with that brand/model of tire

    Your 50/50 number is totally made up fantasy. It's not based on anything real.

    Now as a consumer you can do whatever you want. Never buy that tire again. Never buy that brand again. It's a free world.

    Just don't tell yourself that the decision is based on a reasonable understanding of the situation.

    It's not like I am making this idea up. It's basic statistics.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  87. #87
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Since bigger tires are...well...bigger they make them thinner to keep the weight down...otherwise they'd be so burly it wouldn't be much fun to pedal.

    One incident of rock damage to one specific tire doesn't mean anything. It's totally random. Now if that happens to you 3 times in a short period of time your terrain is just too gnarly for that particular tire and your riding style.
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'm not denying the incident. I'm saying you are extrapolating meaning into it that is based on nothing.

    The following situations could all be true based on the one data point you have:

    - you'll never have another problem with that brand/model of tire
    - you'll have a few problems with that brand/model of tire
    - you'll have lots of problems with that brand/model of tire

    Your 50/50 number is totally made up fantasy. It's not based on anything real.

    Now as a consumer you can do whatever you want. Never buy that tire again. Never buy that brand again. It's a free world.

    Just don't tell yourself that the decision is based on a reasonable understanding of the situation.

    It's not like I am making this idea up. It's basic statistics.
    So your saying it's a random fluke the tire got a hole in it, or it got a hole in it because of the rocks? Wait, or both?

    How do I, the rider of this terrain in which the tire got a hole in it, not have a reasonable understanding of the situation?

    How is 50/50 fantasy; Should it be 25/25/25/25? Maybe 75/25...
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    So your saying it's a random fluke the tire got a hole in it, or it got a hole in it because of the rocks? Wait, or both?

    How is 50/50 fantasy; Should it be 25/25/25/25? Maybe 75/25...
    That's the point. One incident on a new tire doesn't give you enough information to know what's going.

    The fantasy part is assuming you know.

    Anyways I'll stop there.

    I hope you have better luck with whatever 29+ tires you run in the future.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  89. #89
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Your right, in that I don't have enough information, but I have plenty of experience that let's me make an educated guess. I made an assumption on the 2.25 Racing Ralph pacestar with SS when the first one, I bought two at the same time, had a hole torn in the casing between knobs, and tried the second one with the same results. I thought the first one was a fluke, but I assumed wrong. I had the same thing happen with 2 Maxxis Ardent 27.5x2.3 tires also.

    Like I said, I'm not assuming I know for sure, but I'm making an educated guess, based on my past experience that this tires casing isn't going to hold up for my style of riding, in all of the possible terrain that I ride in AZ. I'm also not willing to spend $80+ again on the same tire to find out if I'm right or wrong... right now. Who knows, I may go down the line and have bad results with all the available tires and come full circle back to the Trax.

    For now, I'll give the Knard, in both TPIs, a shot on the rear and see how it goes while I wait for the Maxxis and Bonti tires to come available.

    Thanks for your opinions, pointed debate and hopes for my luck to improve!

    Til next time...
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  90. #90
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    confirmed today
    vee trax fatty fits manitou tower pro on a stans arch ex

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    848
    subscribed

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    So, I realize these are on a 35/29mm rim, but the size of the Fatty Trax is a little disappointing compared to the Knard on the same rim. The only good thing about the smaller size is that it actually fit in the back of my Les with 2.5mm on each side! If I had a few more millimeters on each side, I'd cancel my Gnarvester; Plenty of room for the diameter of the tire. Also, the Fatty clears on the fork bridge by a few more millimeters. Both tires were measured at 30 psi on the exact same rim, right after mounted and before being ridden.
    I'm surprised we don't see a few 29 x 2.7" tires come out as there are a bunch of non-29+ frames and forks that could fit these out in the world so they's have access to a wider market than a true 3" 29+ tire.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  93. #93
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'm surprised we don't see a few 29 x 2.7" tires come out as there are a bunch of non-29+ frames and forks that could fit these out in the world so they's have access to a wider market than a true 3" 29+ tire.
    While that may work, this very idea is what drives the so called "B+" idea. Bigger volume, 2.8"-ish width, just slightly less diameter than a 2.3" 29"er tire, and the ability to fit a plethora of 29"er frames, (theoretically).

    The tires and rims are just getting out there and soon I will be finding out if any of this makes sense. Gotta go build some wheels now......
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    While that may work, this very idea is what drives the so called "B+" idea. Bigger volume, 2.8"-ish width, just slightly less diameter than a 2.3" 29"er tire, and the ability to fit a plethora of 29"er frames, (theoretically).

    The tires and rims are just getting out there and soon I will be finding out if any of this makes sense. Gotta go build some wheels now......
    I'm sure it will be a good solution for some people.

    The benefit with 29+ is two fold:

    1. wide low pressure tires for cush and traction

    2. very tall tires for amazing roll through the gnar

    B+ will give you #1, but won't give you benefit #2.

    If B+ means you can keep the same frame/fork that could be worth it for a bunch of people, but I do see it as not getting the full benefits of 29+. OTOH if the B+ tires are lighter maybe that will be worth it for folks having to accelerate their bikes a lot.

    I'll keep an eye out for your reviews comparing 29+ to B+.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    The B+ makes the most sense to me at 3.0, 3.25, & 3.5 tire widths where the diameter can reach 29inches. The WTB tire GT is reporting on is a nice effort, but according tho his website, it's not really very wide, it's not really close to a 2.3 29inch tires diameter, and it's really not particularly light at 900 grams. Plus, we'll have to wait and see how many bikes it can actually fit with the wider rims needed to maximize the tire size.

    I'm guessing there are going to be some B+ dedicated bikes coming out in the next year, so I think it will be cool to see where the concept goes.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    I'm guessing there are going to be some B+ dedicated bikes coming out in the next year, so I think it will be cool to see where the concept goes.
    More choices are more betterer!

    The good thing with fatbikes being popular is that the idea of a 3" tire seems totally reasonable.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    The good thing with fatbikes being popular is that the idea of a 3" tire seems totally reasonable.
    Certainly better than the days when XC racing dictated everything in the biz.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bigwheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,401
    There is already a 2.9 tire full 29" diameter on the way.
    A bike by any other name is still a bike.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    387
    `So, the B+ tire would be perfect for the guy who was dissing 29ers when he got his new 27.5 bike and now wishes he had kept his mouth shut.

  100. #100
    squish, squish in da fish
    Reputation: fishwrinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,685
    lol, faux 29 is what a b+ should be called.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigwheel View Post
    There is already a 2.9 tire full 29" diameter on the way.
    Care to elaborate?

  102. #102
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,371
    Quote Originally Posted by jnroyal View Post
    Mike - do you have any idea when the Chronicle will be available for sale?
    Sorry, no idea.

  103. #103
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    While that may work, this very idea is what drives the so called "B+" idea. Bigger volume, 2.8"-ish width, just slightly less diameter than a 2.3" 29"er tire, and the ability to fit a plethora of 29"er frames, (theoretically).
    If by "just slightly less" you mean only half way to 29er. It's 20mm less, or nearly an inch. The 27.5 format itself is only 38mm less without a +-sized format tire at all! You don't seem to realize that 20mm isn't just a little bit, it's half the shortfall.

    Most of the width is coming from the wide rim, the tire itself is only modestly larger. That's why it's not big enough in diameter. As vikb was saying, it would make sense to have a size more compatible with existing frames. Otherwise the tire should actually be close to 29", not just half way. You can get nearly the same by sticking existing tires on 50mm rims.

    Frankly, if it weren't for the assumption that the tire was mounted on a 50mm, the tire would be more accurately labeled a 2.5", not 2.8.

  104. #104
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    If by "just slightly less" you mean only half way to 29er. It's 20mm less, or nearly an inch. The 27.5 format itself is only 38mm less without a +-sized format tire at all! You don't seem to realize that 20mm isn't just a little bit, it's half the shortfall.

    Most of the width is coming from the wide rim, the tire itself is only modestly larger. That's why it's not big enough in diameter. As vikb was saying, it would make sense to have a size more compatible with existing frames. Otherwise the tire should actually be close to 29", not just half way. You can get nearly the same by sticking existing tires on 50mm rims.

    Frankly, if it weren't for the assumption that the tire was mounted on a 50mm, the tire would be more accurately labeled a 2.5", not 2.8.
    Note: I used the word "theoretically". That's because I didn't have an actual example in hand. Do you?

    You may be right.

    And now I do have an actual sample in hand......
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Note: I used the word "theoretically". That's because I didn't have an actual example in hand. Do you?

    You may be right.

    And now I do have an actual sample in hand......
    GT, I'm betting that craigsj is referencing reporting on your website, and I'm also pretty sure he'll be on shortly to yell at you about it.

  106. #106
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Note: I used the word "theoretically". That's because I didn't have an actual example in hand. Do you?

    You may be right.

    And now I do have an actual sample in hand......
    Well, "theoretically", a tire that can fit a "plethora" of 29er frames using a 650B rim size cannot only be "slightly less" in diameter, so the "very idea" is wrong from the start. This has been known since before 650B was adopted and I would think a founder of a site predicated on the value of wheel size would understand that 20mm isn't just in the margin of error. It's full 1/3 of the original difference that justified your site's existence and half the difference between 29 and 650B.

    My guess is that a few days ago when you posted that comment you did have an actual example in hand. Otherwise how did you publish an initial review on it? You have samples that no one else has and they are given to you for free. Perhaps that's why you might be driven to overlook that they aren't what they manufacturer claims them to be and why you'd offer posts here that tout the same flawed claims. I guess the value of 29" wheels isn't what it used to be; the ad dollars are elsewhere?

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    GT, I'm betting that craigsj is referencing reporting on your website, and I'm also pretty sure he'll be on shortly to yell at you about it.
    You're like Claire-voant or something. Spooky! ;-)

  108. #108
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    If by "just slightly less" you mean only half way to 29er. It's 20mm less, or nearly an inch. The 27.5 format itself is only 38mm less without a +-sized format tire at all! You don't seem to realize that 20mm isn't just a little bit, it's half the shortfall.
    Hmmm, winging it without the tires in hand..

    29" - ISO 622 = 311mm bead seat radius + 59mm big 29er tire = 370mm radius

    B+ - ISO 584 = 292mm bead seat radius + 70mm B+ tire = 362mm radius

    How do you get 20mm difference?

  109. #109
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: 2melow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    While that may work, this very idea is what drives the so called "B+" idea. Bigger volume, 2.8"-ish width, just slightly less diameter than a 2.3" 29"er tire, and the ability to fit a plethora of 29"er frames, (theoretically).
    The WTB Trailblazer 650B+ is in.

    920 grams.

    28.34 inches or 72cm on a 24.6mm wide rim.


    By comparison, a Geax Goma 29" 2.4 measures 29.72 inches or 75.5cm on same 24.6mm wide rim.

    So the WTB Trailblazer 650B+ is 1.37 inches or 3.5cm shorter than a Geax Goma 2.4" tire on the same 24.6mm rim.
    Front Range Forum Moderator

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,611
    Quote Originally Posted by 2melow View Post
    So the WTB Trailblazer 650B+ is 1.37 inches or 3.5cm shorter than a Geax Goma 2.4" tire on the same 24.6mm rim.
    Good info, but kind of a bummer.

  111. #111
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Wish I Were Riding View Post
    Good info, but kind of a bummer.
    That is on a narrow rim.

    It's also worth considering that this is analog to the first 29" Nanoraptor and it's going to err on the side of fitting more things that were never designed to fit it. If the idea takes off and frame designers put more clearance in the right spot on their 29/B+ combi bikes, then we'll probably see the volume creep up.

  112. #112
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Well, "theoretically", a tire that can fit a "plethora" of 29er frames using a 650B rim size cannot only be "slightly less" in diameter, so the "very idea" is wrong from the start. This has been known since before 650B was adopted and I would think a founder of a site predicated on the value of wheel size would understand that 20mm isn't just in the margin of error. It's full 1/3 of the original difference that justified your site's existence and half the difference between 29 and 650B.

    My guess is that a few days ago when you posted that comment you did have an actual example in hand. Otherwise how did you publish an initial review on it? You have samples that no one else has and they are given to you for free. Perhaps that's why you might be driven to overlook that they aren't what they manufacturer claims them to be and why you'd offer posts here that tout the same flawed claims. I guess the value of 29" wheels isn't what it used to be; the ad dollars are elsewhere?
    So...the answer to my question is....?

    Nice personal attacks and assumptions, by the way. Thanks.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,611
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.welby View Post
    That is on a narrow rim.

    It's also worth considering that this is analog to the first 29" Nanoraptor and it's going to err on the side of fitting more things that were never designed to fit it. If the idea takes off and frame designers put more clearance in the right spot on their 29/B+ combi bikes, then we'll probably see the volume creep up.
    Agreed. I'm hoping to hear more about total wheels weights and ride characteristics. I care more about those things than total size (height). If these kinds of setups can give me a ride similar to my 29er, but add some fat wheel traction, without too much of a weight penalty, then this could end up as a custom HT for me. I would then probably never need to be lured to FS (which I really don't need).

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fixgeardan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,170
    Any feedback on the vee trax fatty?

  115. #115
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    If anyone is at Interbike - can you get info on when the Maxxis Chronicle will be available?

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sasquatch rides a SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    If anyone is at Interbike - can you get info on when the Maxxis Chronicle will be available?
    +1!

  117. #117
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,774
    Finally, actual pics of the Dirt Wizard 29x3.0"! Second from the right
    29+ tire choices-dw-29x3.jpg
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    If anyone is at Interbike - can you get info on when the Maxxis Chronicle will be available?
    they said around December


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  119. #119
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Panaracer FatBNimble 27.5/29x3.0 $60




    29+ tire choices-p5pb11403888.jpg
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    Panaracer FatBNimble 27.5/29x3.0 $60
    Whoah. That one's new to me.

    So this is at least the 3rd 27.5+ tire I've seen, yet there really is no true 27.5+ bike to run them on. Do the tire makers assume that all the fat bikers are going to buy 27.5 wheels to run these on? Or is this the rare example of the tire makers being ahead of the coming trend?

  121. #121
    Big wheels keep on rollin
    Reputation: senor_mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    355
    This is getting pretty exciting. The 275+ Panaracer will probably fit my custom 29er hard tail even if it's a real 3.0".

    I'm sure some existing production bikes will fit both the WTB and this Panaracer tire. I'm pretty sure the Singular Swift will as it almost clears a 29+ Knard and normally there is more room as you go further back.

    And there are a lot of lesser know custom builders out there who can build a compatible frame for less than $1500. And made in the good old USA too.
    Last edited by senor_mikey; 09-11-2014 at 11:41 PM.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kyttyra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    211
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o
    Just pick up some worn Knards for free to low cost and keep riding them. They'll get slicker by the mile.

    They roll fine on pavement when new so you won't hate life as you "break them in" to slickness.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB Pilot View Post
    Panaracer FatBNimble 27.5/29x3.0 $60
    That's great news, 29+ and 27.5+ versions! And a good price too!

    Any idea when they will be available?

  125. #125
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Whoah. That one's new to me.

    So this is at least the 3rd 27.5+ tire I've seen, yet there really is no true 27.5+ bike to run them on. Do the tire makers assume that all the fat bikers are going to buy 27.5 wheels to run these on? Or is this the rare example of the tire makers being ahead of the coming trend?
    B+, or 27.5+, will likely fit into most current 29"er hard tails and some FS 29"ers. That is the entire point behind it. Use "plus" sized 27.5" rubber, a new wheelset, and use your current 29"er.

    That said, I don't doubt some frame builders will be doing "specific" B+ frames and forks, but that wasn't the point behind the idea at all. (And yes- I have that from the source.)
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Whoah. That one's new to me.

    So this is at least the 3rd 27.5+ tire I've seen, yet there really is no true 27.5+ bike to run them on. Do the tire makers assume that all the fat bikers are going to buy 27.5 wheels to run these on? Or is this the rare example of the tire makers being ahead of the coming trend?
    Rocky Mountain confirmed that a version of the Sherpa will see production in 2015

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: funnyjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    672

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    B+, or 27.5+, will likely fit into most current 29"er hard tails and some FS 29"ers. That is the entire point behind it. Use "plus" sized 27.5" rubber, a new wheelset, and use your current 29"er.

    That said, I don't doubt some frame builders will be doing "specific" B+ frames and forks, but that wasn't the point behind the idea at all. (And yes- I have that from the source.)
    Id like to think this but most crop of HT or FS 29er frames will likely not clear 3.0 tire size as they have difficulty even with 2.4 at times. I'm sure though there's the odd frame that will allow for 3.0 clearance.

  128. #128
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by funnyjr View Post
    Id like to think this but most crop of HT or FS 29er frames will likely not clear 3.0 tire size as they have difficulty even with 2.4 at times. I'm sure though there's the odd frame that will allow for 3.0 clearance.
    It has fit into all the frames I've tried it in so far, (only four, but still...), and it will fit all current sus forks for 29"ers. Keeping in mind that the overall diameter is less than a full on 29"er, (28 9/16ths on a Blunt 35 rim), and that the actual width of the Trailblazer on a Blunt 35 is slightly over 2.6" I think that indeed it will work on may more frames than you might think.

    If any other manufacturers do a tire over 2.7-2.8" in the 584ISO bead diameter, then I think you have a very valid point.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504
    Ted,
    What frames have you put the TrailBlazer in?
    I've just gotten a set and will be trying it in a Niner Air 9 as soon as I get the axles and rotors swapped out.
    My 27.5 wheels use the Derby rims with an inside width of 35mm

    WTB Trailblazer 2.8

    I was kinda hoping to get a list going for frames that this tire fits with the rim used

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    B+, or 27.5+, will likely fit into most current 29"er hard tails and some FS 29"ers. That is the entire point behind it. Use "plus" sized 27.5" rubber, a new wheelset, and use your current 29"er.

    That said, I don't doubt some frame builders will be doing "specific" B+ frames and forks, but that wasn't the point behind the idea at all. (And yes- I have that from the source.)
    Right, but you're referring to the Trailblazer, a claimed 2.8 tire that measures out much narrower. If the FatBnimble and the Vee Trax 3.0 tires fit into most 29ers, I'll be shocked. I think you are letting one tire speak for the entire B+ concept. It's not like WTB is way out front of Vee Trax or Panaracer. I understand WTB's intentions. We'll have to see how many frames their Scrapper wheel set and Trailblazer tire fit into. Part of what people think about when they hear + sized bikes is fattish rims. Sounds like riders will have to drop to a 35mm rim, and lower, to fit the Trailblazer into "most" 29er frames. And a true 3.0 tire not at all. What I would consider a true 27.5 plus bike doesn't exist yet. Yet the tires are being announced. Obviously these are all labels, and whatever floats a rider's boat, and it would sure be great if I could fit a true 3.0 tire on a 40-50mm 650b rim in my already owned 29er, but that ain't happening. I'd even take a true 2.8.

  131. #131
    craigsj
    Guest
    As much BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by the companies that try to profit and the bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it, it still remains that the tire/rim does not come close to an actual 29er in rolling diameter, nor does it make a compelling argument against a tire of identical width mounted on a 29er rim of 35-40mm width (or even 50mm width). This fraudulent "B+" format is in no way a substitute or replacement for a 29er wheel nor does it offer anything that isn't done better with a 29er rim and the same dimension tire. You'd think people who understood the value of large wheels would know better.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,155
    I'm with stupid^

    The whole point of the krampus was 29" wheels with oversized rubber, but not too big. Everybody declares how much traction there is and how well it rolls. So the counterpoint is to...go smaller? It's great that it fits in so many 29er frames, but just like 650b is a compromise between 26 and 29, what's the point of half fat on a half size wheel?

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    48
    Well, one can have too much traction (self-steer).

    Also, a wheel this tall might cause problems with FS rigs, and you might run into toe overlap on smaller sizes.
    And wheelbase will be understandably 'train-like'.

    But I think you have a point. After all, there 140mm travel niners. If you reduce travel by 20mm and increase max tyre size to 3"... that might be perfect AM machine.
    Gobs of traction everywhere except loose sand, no self-steer, tyres will gobble small stuff and suspension will deal with big hits. And due to relatively short travel it would still be quite pedalable... but 'you must be THIS-> tall to ride this bike'

    Fortunately I am ~6ft.
    Lesser people will likely have to deal with B+ wheels.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    One issue with traction and tire size that folks overlook is that with a wide tire your run low pressures which pushes each knob into the ground with less force relative to the same knob pattern on a skinny 2.4" tire.

    So some surfaces you get more traction from a 3" tire and some you get less. Just depends on the situation and how important it is for the knobs to dig into the ground.

    Also consider that if you go to a very aggressively knobbed wide tire to get more traction with less ground pressure you now end up with a very heavy tire to roll.

    I love my 29+ rig, but it's a mistake to assume wide tire = more traction all the time.

    There are pros and cons to each option.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    As much BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by the companies that try to profit and the bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it, it still remains that the tire/rim does not come close to an actual 29er in rolling diameter, nor does it make a compelling argument against a tire of identical width mounted on a 29er rim of 35-40mm width (or even 50mm width). This fraudulent "B+" format is in no way a substitute or replacement for a 29er wheel nor does it offer anything that isn't done better with a 29er rim and the same dimension tire. You'd think people who understood the value of large wheels would know better.
    I'm not sure why you are so anti B+. I'm not seeing all the 'BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by companies that try to profit and bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it'. WTB has barely even mentioned this tire, It just recently go put on their website, and it'e not even on their special 'New 2015 Tires' page. Pretty much the only place to find information on this stuff is right here, on MTBR.

    Believe it or not, 29+ does have limitations. A true 27.5+ tire will have some advantages over a 29+ tire in same situations. Just like a 29+ tire will have some advantages over a 27.5+ tire in some situations. To state that a 29+ tire does everything better is just false. If larger wheels are always better, why are you not riding 36" wheels?

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    I'm with stupid^

    The whole point of the krampus was 29" wheels with oversized rubber, but not too big. Everybody declares how much traction there is and how well it rolls. So the counterpoint is to...go smaller? It's great that it fits in so many 29er frames, but just like 650b is a compromise between 26 and 29, what's the point of half fat on a half size wheel?
    The problem with your statement is that not everyone declares 29+ as perfect. Yes, it has awesome traction, yes it holds momentum great, but it's not perfect, it's also a compromise. They are heavy, they take more effort to accelerate, etc.

    The point of 27.5+is to get the rollover of a 29er with the traction and bump eating properties of 29+, but in a lighter more maneuverable package.

  137. #137
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    I'm not sure why you are so anti B+. I'm not seeing all the 'BS that is spewed over this "B+" format by companies that try to profit and bloggers who try to generate ad revenue from pumping it'. WTB has barely even mentioned this tire, It just recently go put on their website, and it'e not even on their special 'New 2015 Tires' page. Pretty much the only place to find information on this stuff is right here, on MTBR.
    I'm anti-dishonesty, not anti-B+. B+, though, is a slightly bigger tire on a massively larger rim, not a new format. Also, there's this pretense that it works out to be close to a 29er when it does not. The shortfall is nearly the same as the difference between 26 and 650B itself which, in another context, is considered massive. Very selective double standards here.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Believe it or not, 29+ does have limitations. A true 27.5+ tire will have some advantages over a 29+ tire in same situations. Just like a 29+ tire will have some advantages over a 27.5+ tire in some situations. To state that a 29+ tire does everything better is just false. If larger wheels are always better, why are you not riding 36" wheels?
    It would be interesting to enumerate those differences rather than to just suggest that they matter.

    Having not ridden a 36" wheeled bike there could be a lot of reasons, but I don't have interest because there is no infrastructure to support that wheel size. I have stated previously that I would have preferred the industry invest in a larger than 29er wheel size rather than on the 650B fool's gold that it has. I suspect 36" is too big but you are thinking right.

    Let's approach this another way. How many riders do you think will consider a "performance upgrade" for their new 650B bikes by swapping their wheels out for 26ers? NONE. Why, then, will B+ appeal to 29er riders as a "performance upgrade"? Same downgrade in wheel size, same adverse consequences on BB height. Funny how one would matter so greatly while the other one not at all. It's just about the buzz.

    Frankly, if you wanted a + format swap out for existing frames, you should make a 26+ format that fits into 650B frames. Makes more sense and the diameter *would* match them. Big wheel suck anyway, right?

  138. #138
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    The point of 27.5+is to get the rollover of a 29er with the traction and bump eating properties of 29+, but in a lighter more maneuverable package.
    This is complete nonsense that reads like the marketing BS of 650B itself.

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This is complete nonsense that reads like the marketing BS of 650B itself.
    Please explain why this is nonsense. I really wish you would actually explain some of your ideas instead of just insulting people, maybe someone would actually learn something!

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I'm anti-dishonesty, not anti-B+. B+, though, is a slightly bigger tire on a massively larger rim, not a new format. Also, there's this pretense that it works out to be close to a 29er when it does not. The shortfall is nearly the same as the difference between 26 and 650B itself which, in another context, is considered massive. Very selective double standards here.


    It would be interesting to enumerate those differences rather than to just suggest that they matter.

    Having not ridden a 36" wheeled bike there could be a lot of reasons, but I don't have interest because there is no infrastructure to support that wheel size. I have stated previously that I would have preferred the industry invest in a larger than 29er wheel size rather than on the 650B fool's gold that it has. I suspect 36" is too big but you are thinking right.

    Let's approach this another way. How many riders do you think will consider a "performance upgrade" for their new 650B bikes by swapping their wheels out for 26ers? NONE. Why, then, will B+ appeal to 29er riders as a "performance upgrade"? Same downgrade in wheel size, same adverse consequences on BB height. Funny how one would matter so greatly while the other one not at all. It's just about the buzz.

    Frankly, if you wanted a + format swap out for existing frames, you should make a 26+ format that fits into 650B frames. Makes more sense and the diameter *would* match them. Big wheel suck anyway, right?
    Have you even ridden 29+ tires? Have you even considered that some trails might be better suited to different tire sizes? Oh wait, you just bought the most expensive 50mm wide 29er rims to try out, but you think they are clownishly big and offer no performance advantages.

    I have ridden 29ers extensively over the last 10 years, and 29+ over the past 2 years. The extra diameter and weight of the 29+ works great in some situations, but not all. On tight twisty technical singletrack with constant direction changes and accelerations, they are just too big. Too much effort is required get them back up to speed every time.

    And your 27.5 to 26+ argument actually makes sense. If I was ridding 27.5 and liked the ride but wanted more comfort and traction, 26+ would be a great option. In fact, 26+ actually exists, again thanks to Surly.

    And why are you inferring that I think big wheels suck? I have never said anything even remotely close to that.

  141. #141
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Please explain why this is nonsense. I really wish you would actually explain some of your ideas instead of just insulting people, maybe someone would actually learn something!
    The point of 27.5+is to get the rollover of a 29er with the traction and bump eating properties of 29+, but in a lighter more maneuverable package.
    1. How do you know what the point of 27.5+ is?
    2. 27.5+ does not get the rollover of 29 since it is an inch smaller in diameter.
    3. The difference in weight between 27.5+ and 29+ is the same as between 27.5 and 29, a few percent.
    4. 27.5+ will almost certainly be heavier and more sluggish than conventional 29ers.
    5. 27.5+ does not inherently offer a "more maneuverable package". Bicycles are maneuverable, wheels are parts.

    Not only did you claim to know what you can't, everything you said is classic 650B propaganda. Take away the "+" and we've heard it before.

    27.5+ is 29+ only 38mm smaller in diameter. That's it, no magic, just like 650B generally.

    The point of B+ is that it's 650B and that means it must be better in some people's minds. 650B is too small to be a drop in on 29er frames. We all knew that going in but now we're supposed to pretend otherwise.

  142. #142
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Have you even ridden 29+ tires? Have you even considered that some trails might be better suited to different tire sizes? Oh wait, you just bought the most expensive 50mm wide 29er rims to try out, but you think they are clownishly big and offer no performance advantages.
    Are you choking on the fact that I bought the "most expensive" 50mm rims? Does it make you angry? I'll be sure to post pics for you.

    Of course, everything else you said is dishonest and intentionally misleading. What a surprise.

    What I said was that "better" was an unjustified value judgement, that B+ would be a better size match if it chose a smaller rim and larger casing, that's it's not at all clear that a 50mm is a compelling advantage for a 65mm tire, and that there's no reason a 35mm rim would not work just fine in that application. I did say they are clownishly big but that's my favorite part.

    Regarding my purchase, I intend to do my testing, not just run my mouth like so many here do. I am convinced that 50mm won't suck or I wouldn't have invested. Furthermore, I have tested a cheaper 50mm rim already with 29+ but it blows. I would have preferred a somewhat smaller rim and said so. Frankly, if I had it to do again I wouldn't, I would simply wait for the Ibis rims to come available. Ultimately I believe I will view the big rims as nothing more than a liability at the tire sizes I'm interested in. They will look good, though.

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    1. How do you know what the point of 27.5+ is?
    2. 27.5+ does not get the rollover of 29 since it is an inch smaller in diameter.
    3. The difference in weight between 27.5+ and 29+ is the same as between 27.5 and 29, a few percent.
    4. 27.5+ will almost certainly be heavier and more sluggish than conventional 29ers.
    5. 27.5+ does not inherently offer a "more maneuverable package". Bicycles are maneuverable, wheels are parts.

    Not only did you claim to know what you can't, everything you said is classic 650B propaganda. Take away the "+" and we've heard it before.

    27.5+ is 29+ only 38mm smaller in diameter. That's it, no magic, just like 650B generally.

    The point of B+ is that it's 650B and that means it must be better in some people's minds. 650B is too small to be a drop in on 29er frames. We all knew that going in but now we're supposed to pretend otherwise.
    1. I know the point of 27.5+ because I actually read and comprehend stuff. Written by the people who had a hand in creating it.
    2. 27.5+ will have the same rollover as a smaller 29er tire, as the diameter is the same.
    3. The difference in weight will depend on a lot of factors, stating it will be a few percent is false. In general, tire weights between the same model in the 2 sizes are 50 to 100g for non '+' tires. The weight difference between '+' models will be even more. Not too many rims to compare, but looking at the Hugo and Blunt 35, about 40g per rim. Shorter spokes will cut some weight as well. So you are looking at at least 150g per wheel, more than a few percent.
    4. Why will 27.5+ be heavier than conventional 29er? Even if it is, there will be performance advantages that will be worth the extra weight FOR SOME RIDERS.
    5. 27.5+ will most certainly be more maneuverable than 29+ all else being equal.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Are you choking on the fact that I bought the "most expensive" 50mm rims? Does it make you angry? I'll be sure to post pics for you.

    Of course, everything else you said is dishonest and intentionally misleading. What a surprise.

    What I said was that "better" was an unjustified value judgement, that B+ would be a better size match if it chose a smaller rim and larger casing, that's it's not at all clear that a 50mm is a compelling advantage for a 65mm tire, and that there's no reason a 35mm rim would not work just fine in that application. I did say they are clownishly big but that's my favorite part.

    Regarding my purchase, I intend to do my testing, not just run my mouth like so many here do. I am convinced that 50mm won't suck or I wouldn't have invested. Furthermore, I have tested a cheaper 50mm rim already with 29+ but it blows. I would have preferred a somewhat smaller rim and said so. Frankly, if I had it to do again I wouldn't, I would simply wait for the Ibis rims to come available. Ultimately I believe I will view the big rims as nothing more than a liability at the tire sizes I'm interested in. They will look good, though.
    Why would I care about what rims you bought, except to point out that you think they offer no advantage yet spent big money on them. I just bought virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost, I'll be sure to post pics for you.

    Please explain what was dishonest and intentionally misleading about what I said.

  145. #145
    Big wheels keep on rollin
    Reputation: senor_mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This is complete nonsense that reads like the marketing BS of 650B itself.
    these WTB 2.8" tires certainly makes sense to me and most others I have talked to about it. They offer a clear advantage for loose sandy condition like we have in the So Cal area. I certainly am going to get a set myself.

    Perhaps your opinion is best kept to yourself if you don't have anything positive to contribute?

  146. #146
    craigsj
    Guest
    1. Sure thing, I believe you.
    2. For some 29er tire that you get to pick. 29er tires that are 28", a CX tire.
    3. The difference in size between 650B and 29 is 5-6%. That will be the weight difference as well. Again, you cherry pick data to suit you.
    4. Because + tires are heavier than 29er tires, especially when you are picking sub-2" 29er tires for the rollover comparison!
    5. No they won't. Wheels aren't maneuverable, bicycles are. Maneuverability is a function of wheelbase mostly. Prove that B+ results in a shorter wheelbase, especially when you claim the diameter is the same.

    Like typical MTBR posters, you make up data to suit your opinions and you don't understand the issues as well as you think.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    Why would I care about what rims you bought, except to point out that you think they offer no advantage yet spent big money on them. I just bought virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost, I'll be sure to post pics for you.
    Indeed, why should you? And why would you comment on the cost? And why do you think they represent "big money" to me?

    I'm sure, though, you got virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost. You are better than me in every way, right? I bet you talked personally with the people who made my rims, too, and they assured you that the comments you are making about my purchase are accurate and not misleading in any way!

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    Please explain what was dishonest and intentionally misleading about what I said.
    I've done that already, you're just in denial.

    Here's another way to look at the questionable value of 50mm rims. A wider rim produces a wider casing but that alone means nothing other than more clearance is required. On smaller tires the extra wide rim results in little or no performance benefit, a tire must be large enough before the benefit is there. Problem is that clearance becomes an issue before that pays off (on conventional trail bikes). All the wide rim does is cause clearance issues before it becomes a win.

    Of course, this is subjective but based on commonly accepted rim widths today it is absolutely the case. B+ tire widths could be implemented with a larger casing on a 40mm rim and still have a wide rim by today's standards. They would be a better size match, have better rollover, and support lower pressures. Wouldn't look as cool, though. Sorry, but this has not been thought through by competent engineers.

    On a bike designed for clearance this is not an issue, but that's not the case for me and my specific purchase NOR is it the case for a format that is specifically intended as a retrofit for existing frames. I'm not saying 50mm is universally a bad size, just that it isn't the smart choice for the intended application.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    1. Sure thing, I believe you.
    2. For some 29er tire that you get to pick. 29er tires that are 28", a CX tire.
    3. The difference in size between 650B and 29 is 5-6%. That will be the weight difference as well. Again, you cherry pick data to suit you.
    4. Because + tires are heavier than 29er tires, especially when you are picking sub-2" 29er tires for the rollover comparison!
    5. No they won't. Wheels aren't maneuverable, bicycles are. Maneuverability is a function of wheelbase mostly. Prove that B+ results in a shorter wheelbase, especially when you claim the diameter is the same.

    Like typical MTBR posters, you make up data to suit your opinions and you don't understand the issues as well as you think.


    Indeed, why should you? And why would you comment on the cost? And why do you think they represent "big money" to me?

    I'm sure, though, you got virtually the same rims for a fraction of the cost. You are better than me in every way, right? I bet you talked personally with the people who made my rims, too, and they assured you that the comments you are making about my purchase are accurate and not misleading in any way!


    I've done that already, you're just in denial.

    Here's another way to look at the questionable value of 50mm rims. A wider rim produces a wider casing but that alone means nothing other than more clearance is required. On smaller tires the extra wide rim results in little or no performance benefit, a tire must be large enough before the benefit is there. Problem is that clearance becomes an issue before that pays off (on conventional trail bikes). All the wide rim does is cause clearance issues before it becomes a win.

    Of course, this is subjective but based on commonly accepted rim widths today it is absolutely the case. B+ tire widths could be implemented with a larger casing on a 40mm rim and still have a wide rim by today's standards. They would be a better size match, have better rollover, and support lower pressures. Wouldn't look as cool, though. Sorry, but this has not been thought through by competent engineers.

    On a bike designed for clearance this is not an issue, but that's not the case for me and my specific purchase NOR is it the case for a format that is specifically intended as a retrofit for existing frames. I'm not saying 50mm is universally a bad size, just that it isn't the smart choice for the intended application.
    You seem to have reading comprehension problems, so I am going to try to explain this stuff really clearly.

    The diameter difference that you are so concerned about all depends on what you are comparing it to. Nobody ever said this WTB 27.5x2.8 tire would be the same diameter as the fattest 29er tires out there. Not everyone rides 29x2.4 tires on 35mm rims. Most people ride 2.1 to 2.2 tires on smaller rims. The WTB tire is the same diameter as a small/medium size 29er tire on what you call a 'commonly accepted rim width'. I know that because I have measured them myself.

    The weight difference between 29+ and 27+ will not be your theoretical 5-6%. There is not much out to compare right now, but I will take the only current published information that is available to compare 29+ to 27.5+. The only tire that is available in both formats is the Vee Trax Fatty(the 27.5 version is actually wider as well). The lightest 29+ version weighs 920g, the lightest 27.5 version weighs 800g. The only plus size rim with information available in both sizes is the Hugo. The 29er version weighs 622g, the 27.5 version weighs 585g. So if we use real math to add rim + tire weight, we get a 29+ weight of 1542, and a 27.5+ weight of 1385g. Then we use more math to figure out that the 29+ is 11.3% heavier than 27.5+. Obviously, all setups will not have the same weight difference, but that's all we have right now.

    You are mixing up your 29er and 29+ arguments on number 5. I said 27.5+ will be more maneuverable than 29+. The handling and maneuverability of a bike does not depend mostly on wheelbase, that is a false and misleading statement. There are tons of variables that go into that equation. Wheelbase is certainly one of them, but so are wheel weight, wheel diameter, head tube angle, seat tube angle, etc.

    You are the only one here making up data. Not once have you supported anything you have said with personal experience or actual data.

    The rest of your argument makes no sense and contains a whole bunch or theories and arguments based on nothing.

    You seem to be under the impression that B+ was created to fit into existing frames. The WTB Trailblazer was designed to fit into existing frames, that is correct. The whole format was not. That's why the other tires will be bigger, and there will be new frames designed to fit them.

  148. #148
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    The diameter difference that you are so concerned about all depends on what you are comparing it to. Nobody ever said this WTB 27.5x2.8 tire would be the same diameter as the fattest 29er tires out there. Not everyone rides 29x2.4 tires on 35mm rims. Most people ride 2.1 to 2.2 tires on smaller rims. The WTB tire is the same diameter as a small/medium size 29er tire on what you call a 'commonly accepted rim width'. I know that because I have measured them myself.
    Why would anyone consider upgrading to B+ if they are satisfied with small/medium size 29er tires? Why wouldn't they try the "fattest 29er tires out there" first? It makes utterly no sense to compare B+ to narrower 29er tires except that it supports your narrative.

    2.1-2.2 29er tires are larger than the WTB anyway. You have to go sub-2.0" to match and those are hard to find. The WTB tire is barely larger than the largest 650B tires to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    The weight difference between 29+ and 27+ will not be your theoretical 5-6%.
    It will and it does for conventional sizes. You can make up whatever non-verifiable numbers you want, but there's no reason for a weight difference beyond the size difference itself.

    BTW, say a wheel set weighs about 3500g. That wouldn't be outside of normal. 5-6% of that is about 100g per wheel and that's what it should be roughly speaking. Furthermore, that will become 2% of the entire bike and 0.3% of the bike+rider. BFD. No one would care about this if it weren't so important to tell us how great 650B is.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You are mixing up your 29er and 29+ arguments on number 5. I said 27.5+ will be more maneuverable than 29+. The handling and maneuverability of a bike does not depend mostly on wheelbase, that is a false and misleading statement. There are tons of variables that go into that equation. Wheelbase is certainly one of them, but so are wheel weight, wheel diameter, head tube angle, seat tube angle, etc.
    Ignoring the absurdity of suggesting that seat tube angle affects maneuverability, you clearly are a shallow thinker in this area. Wheel weight and diameter don't, in fact, affect this despite common belief and head tube angle isn't dictated by wheel format. By far, the greatest dimension that wheel size impacts is wheelbase (then CS length). You must prove that B+ will result in meaningful reductions here or your assertion is worthless. Maneuverability is just another wardrum that the small-wheeled crowd beats.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Not once have you supported anything you have said with personal experience or actual data.
    What actual data would you like me to make up? I don't brag about my personal conquests, they are meaningless to the forums. I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You seem to be under the impression that B+ was created to fit into existing frames. The WTB Trailblazer was designed to fit into existing frames, that is correct. The whole format was not. That's why the other tires will be bigger, and there will be new frames designed to fit them.
    I thought you talked to the guys who created B+? Who were they exactly and can we get a notarized statement?

    Why bother comparing B+ to 29 at all if the format isn't retrofit? Frankly, we all know the retrofit concept is flawed because the rim is too small.

    Incidently, I'm not opposed to B+, I'm opposed to calling the WTB a new format simply because it's mount on an enormous rim. It's barely bigger than an Ardent 2.4. True 3.0 or 3.25" fine, but those aren't fitting into 29er frames so comparing them to 29ers is meaningless.

    Still, you have to try abnormally hard to justify B+ over 29+, the most compelling argument traditionally being long travel suspensions which aren't applicable (at this time). Bigger wheels work better.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.
    Funny stuff! You have provided exactly zero verifiable data. Myself and others have actually provided verifiable data, but you claim we are lying.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Why would anyone consider upgrading to B+ if they are satisfied with small/medium size 29er tires? Why wouldn't they try the "fattest 29er tires out there" first? It makes utterly no sense to compare B+ to narrower 29er tires except that it supports your narrative.

    2.1-2.2 29er tires are larger than the WTB anyway. You have to go sub-2.0" to match and those are hard to find. The WTB tire is barely larger than the largest 650B tires to begin with.


    It will and it does for conventional sizes. You can make up whatever non-verifiable numbers you want, but there's no reason for a weight difference beyond the size difference itself.

    BTW, say a wheel set weighs about 3500g. That wouldn't be outside of normal. 5-6% of that is about 100g per wheel and that's what it should be roughly speaking. Furthermore, that will become 2% of the entire bike and 0.3% of the bike+rider. BFD. No one would care about this if it weren't so important to tell us how great 650B is.


    Ignoring the absurdity of suggesting that seat tube angle affects maneuverability, you clearly are a shallow thinker in this area. Wheel weight and diameter don't, in fact, affect this despite common belief and head tube angle isn't dictated by wheel format. By far, the greatest dimension that wheel size impacts is wheelbase (then CS length). You must prove that B+ will result in meaningful reductions here or your assertion is worthless. Maneuverability is just another wardrum that the small-wheeled crowd beats.


    What actual data would you like me to make up? I don't brag about my personal conquests, they are meaningless to the forums. I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.


    I thought you talked to the guys who created B+? Who were they exactly and can we get a notarized statement?

    Why bother comparing B+ to 29 at all if the format isn't retrofit? Frankly, we all know the retrofit concept is flawed because the rim is too small.

    Incidently, I'm not opposed to B+, I'm opposed to calling the WTB a new format simply because it's mount on an enormous rim. It's barely bigger than an Ardent 2.4. True 3.0 or 3.25" fine, but those aren't fitting into 29er frames so comparing them to 29ers is meaningless.

    Still, you have to try abnormally hard to justify B+ over 29+, the most compelling argument traditionally being long travel suspensions which aren't applicable (at this time). Bigger wheels work better.
    You, sir, have elevated the art of spewing sh!t to a whole new level of awesomeness. I bow at your sh!t spewing feet. You should be crowned the King of MTBR sh!t spewing. There are plenty of people on MTBR who spew sh!t, but their sh!t spewing pales in comparison to the mighty craigsj. Your 2282 posts should be required reading for all MTBR wanna-be sh!t spewers. That last post of yours has so much sh!t spewing it's impossible to even begin a rebuttal. That post should go into the sh!t spewing hall of fame for all to read and admire. I'm not sure how you refined your sh!t spewing to the level you are currently spewing sh!t, but you should really consider holding a sh!t spewing seminar so others can learn how to spew sh!t as well as you. Or maybe the world is not ready for that level of sh!t spewing from multiple sh!t spewers, the interwebs may just implode if confronted with that quantity and quality of spewed sh!t.

    Thanks for the entertainment

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504

    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Why would anyone consider upgrading to B+ if they are satisfied with small/medium size 29er tires? Why wouldn't they try the "fattest 29er tires out there" first? It makes utterly no sense to compare B+ to narrower 29er tires except that it supports your narrative.

    2.1-2.2 29er tires are larger than the WTB anyway. You have to go sub-2.0" to match and those are hard to find. The WTB tire is barely larger than the largest 650B tires to begin with.


    It will and it does for conventional sizes. You can make up whatever non-verifiable numbers you want, but there's no reason for a weight difference beyond the size difference itself.

    BTW, say a wheel set weighs about 3500g. That wouldn't be outside of normal. 5-6% of that is about 100g per wheel and that's what it should be roughly speaking. Furthermore, that will become 2% of the entire bike and 0.3% of the bike+rider. BFD. No one would care about this if it weren't so important to tell us how great 650B is.


    Ignoring the absurdity of suggesting that seat tube angle affects maneuverability, you clearly are a shallow thinker in this area. Wheel weight and diameter don't, in fact, affect this despite common belief and head tube angle isn't dictated by wheel format. By far, the greatest dimension that wheel size impacts is wheelbase (then CS length). You must prove that B+ will result in meaningful reductions here or your assertion is worthless. Maneuverability is just another wardrum that the small-wheeled crowd beats.


    What actual data would you like me to make up? I don't brag about my personal conquests, they are meaningless to the forums. I stick with verifiable data of which there is little so far.


    I thought you talked to the guys who created B+? Who were they exactly and can we get a notarized statement?

    Why bother comparing B+ to 29 at all if the format isn't retrofit? Frankly, we all know the retrofit concept is flawed because the rim is too small.

    Incidently, I'm not opposed to B+, I'm opposed to calling the WTB a new format simply because it's mount on an enormous rim. It's barely bigger than an Ardent 2.4. True 3.0 or 3.25" fine, but those aren't fitting into 29er frames so comparing them to 29ers is meaningless.

    Still, you have to try abnormally hard to justify B+ over 29+, the most compelling argument traditionally being long travel suspensions which aren't applicable (at this time). Bigger wheels work better.
    ....
    You, sir, have elevated the art of spewing sh!t to a whole new level of awesomeness. I bow at your sh!t spewing feet. You should be crowned the King of MTBR sh!t spewing. There are plenty of people on MTBR who spew sh!t, but their sh!t spewing pales in comparison to the mighty craigsj. Your 2282 posts should be required reading for all MTBR wanna-be sh!t spewers. That last post of yours has so much sh!t spewing it's impossible to even begin a rebuttal. That post should go into the sh!t spewing hall of fame for all to read and admire. I'm not sure how you refined your sh!t spewing to the level you are currently spewing sh!t, but you should really consider holding a sh!t spewing seminar so others can learn how to spew sh!t as well as you. Or maybe the world is not ready for that level of sh!t spewing from multiple sh!t spewers, the interwebs may just implode if confronted with that quantity and quality of spewed sh!t.

    Thanks for the entertainment
    Awesome !!
    Two Thumbs Up

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post

    "A wider rim produces a wider casing but that alone means nothing other than more clearance is required.
    On smaller tires the extra wide rim results in little or no performance benefit, a tire must be large enough before the benefit is there. "
    Out of the many very entertaining statements you have made over the last couple of days.. This one is a true gem Thank You

    You do have plenty of enthusiasm. Gotta give you that.
    Yes craig... Yes !!! ..a smaller tire on a wider rim can have desirable effects for some situations..
    depending on the carcass construction it can better support and stiffen the sidewall,
    it can change the profile of the tread, it can change the angles of deflection, it can change the shape/size/depth of the contact patch, etc...
    and, there will always be compromises too.

    The point is for gearheads like us there are ways we can "tune" a tire for a desired effect just like a motorbuilder tunes an engine with cam timing, or fuel mapping, or whatever....
    tire choice, rim choice, and pressure are the tools. There isn't a single formula that will always work every time because there is such a large amount of variables to deal with.
    no two tires measure the same way. even within the same brand and model the variations are pretty wide.
    MFG's, mechanic's, engineer's, etc.. are not liars because their measurements come out different then yours. It just would'nt be worth the expense to reduce that variation to thousands of an inch

    Maybe, it would be nice if a tire size was only referred to by the ERD, profile height, and width.
    Honestly, I don't really care if two tires are both "labled" the same 29" diameter and neither really are 29"... I do care that they are different from each other.
    Thats a good thing it gives me more choices. I still need to have it my hands to see if it might work for what I want.
    In in any kind of tuning/racing/tweekin' there have never been shortcuts to that.

  153. #153
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    From DirtRag Interbike roundup:

    Surly finally has samples of the awaited 29x3.0 Dirt Wizard tire. The tread pattern is changed from the 26x2.75 that comes stock on the Instigator, beefing up the cornering knobs, and almost eliminating the small intermediate knobs. Prices and TPI counts will be similar to the Knard, but there was talk about offering a TPI count between the current heavy and sturdy 27TPI wire bead and the light and fragile 120TPI model with the folding bead. We are still going to have to wait until spring at the earliest for these tires, but we should have the 29+ offerings from Maxxis and Vee Tire in-house soon to play with in the meantime.

  154. #154
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Funny stuff! You have provided exactly zero verifiable data. Myself and others have actually provided verifiable data, but you claim we are lying.
    I would rather provide no data than made up data. What verifiable data have you provided?

    I do know from the recent WTB "review" that the WTB tire has a casing size of 165mm. I also know from that review that the rolling diameter is 20mm less than an Ikon 2.35 on a 35mm 29er rim. I know the Ikon dimensions because I've measured them and they're verifiable. The Ikon has a 150mm casing size. I measured that as well.

    I also know the casing size of the Knard is 185mm. I know that because I measured it and it's verifiable. It has a casing 20mm larger than the WTB.

    You know what else I know? The Geax Goma has a casing size of 160mm. Although it's a 29er, it's the same weight as the WTB and measures 64mm wide unstretched on a Dually rim. You can add 2mm or so to match the WTB rim. The Goma has a 63mm tread width vs. 60mm for the WTB and is a full inch larger in diameter. All that is verifiable as well since you can buy those readily.

    So you see, bikeny, I do measure things and I know how to run a calculator. I don't fall for the nonsense that 650B wheels as just as big as 29ers and are a lot lighter. I'm onto the game.

    It is interesting that the Goma is very close to the same size tire as the WTB despite being labeled a 2.4. On a 50mm rim it will measure 2.6 unstretched and perhaps 2.7 after use. It also has a more proportional tread. The WTB listed as a B+ 2.8 tire is a fraud.

  155. #155
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You, sir, have elevated the art of spewing sh!t to a whole new level of awesomeness. ...
    This is what I expect from posters like you. Temper tantrums.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The WTB listed as a B+ 2.8 tire is a fraud.
    Why are you so angry?
    And, who other then you gives a rats a zzzz...


    And by the way, it's not a game or conspiracy.

  157. #157
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,096
    Small point here regarding BB height when running 27.5+ on a 29er: If you run the 3" tire the way it's generally intended to be used, you'll be running lower pressure. So there will be more "tire sag" when the rider is on the bike. And the fat tires actually lend themselves to riding slower stuff where a higher bottom bracket is usually more desirable.

    Not an absolute deal killer, but I do believe the BB is going to end up .5 to .6 lower with the lower pressures and rider weight on the bike.

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyinmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post

    You know what else I know? The Geax Goma has a casing size of 160mm. Although it's a 29er, it's the same weight as the WTB and measures 64mm wide unstretched on a Dually rim. You can add 2mm or so to match the WTB rim. The Goma has a 63mm tread width vs. 60mm for the WTB and is a full inch larger in diameter. All that is verifiable as well since you can buy those readily.

    So you see, bikeny, I do measure things and I know how to run a calculator. I don't fall for the nonsense that 650B wheels as just as big as 29ers and are a lot lighter. I'm onto the game.

    Maybe' just maybe...
    WTB has designed and produced a tire that enhances different characteristics then what the Goma does
    They were not trying to design or market a tire to compete with the Goma.
    Much less design a tire that fits on a 650B rim and is the same size as -whatever- tire you want to measure
    it is a mute point.... with no practical or useful knowledge
    They designed a tire to fit on a 29er bike and have specific characteristics
    It has nothing to do with what a traditional 29er tire measures out to or how any other 29er tire performs

    others have provided measurements of the Trailblazer on a specific rim.. not you.
    You measure another tire that has nothing to with ++ tires or their intended function

    Arguing that there is some kind of conspiracy because the Trailblazer is less then 2.8" wide or less then 29" tall is ridiculous. it has nothing to do with the intended use of the tire or with the subject of this thread.

    if you want to express these kind of conspiracy theories... Please, please, start your own thread
    that would be the appropriate way to further your opinion.

  159. #159
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by flyinmike View Post
    Please, please, start your own thread .
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.
    +1 - take the B+ stuff to another thread.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  161. #161
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,774
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.
    +2!!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  162. #162
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    From DirtRag Interbike roundup:

    Surly finally has samples of the awaited 29x3.0 Dirt Wizard tire. The tread pattern is changed from the 26x2.75 that comes stock on the Instigator, beefing up the cornering knobs, and almost eliminating the small intermediate knobs. Prices and TPI counts will be similar to the Knard, but there was talk about offering a TPI count between the current heavy and sturdy 27TPI wire bead and the light and fragile 120TPI model with the folding bead. We are still going to have to wait until spring at the earliest for these tires, but we should have the 29+ offerings from Maxxis and Vee Tire in-house soon to play with in the meantime.
    Reposting some 29+ news since it seems to have been lost in the argument.

    Sounds like the mythical Dirt Wizard 29+ is still a ways off.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Also, if the video from Panaracer at Interbike is to be believed, the Fat B Nimble 29x3 tire will be available this fall. The announced pricing is also great, $60 for the folding version, less for the wire bead.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019

    Move to Fat Bike forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    This! Believe it or not, some of us are actually following this thread to learn about - you guessed it - 29+ tire choices.

    I don't know how we got off on B+ much less the crap storm of insults and conspiracy theories. Please start another thread.
    You are absolutely correct, this discussion should be elsewhere. The question is where? There is a thread in the 29er components forum that discusses some of this stuff too. Unless a new 'Plus size tire' forum gets created, I propose moving it too the 'Fat Bike' forum. There is actually already a thread there about the WTB Trailblazer. Maybe craigsj won't be able to find it

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    You are absolutely correct, this discussion should be elsewhere. The question is where?
    650B forum. They need some new stuff to talk about now that 650B is old hat and accepted widely across the bike industry.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    Sounds like the mythical Dirt Wizard 29+ is still a ways off.
    Tragic. Dirt Wizard 29+ you are dead to me.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  167. #167
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Maybe craigsj won't be able to find it
    STFU applies to you too, bikeny, not just me. You want to keep taking shots at me, you will continue to get them back.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Tragic. Dirt Wizard 29+ you are dead to me.
    No kidding, this tire was announced over a year ago and still nothing. Major bummer. Spring? There will be at least 5-6 29+ tires by then it seems like.

  169. #169
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,774
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    No kidding, this tire was announced over a year ago and still nothing. Major bummer. Spring? There will be at least 5-6 29+ tires by then it seems like.
    Agreed, I'm about ready to go back to fat. At least in that world they have real tire choices that can actually be PURCHASED!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    There will be at least 5-6 29+ tires by then it seems like.
    There should be, but I have learned not to assume anything when it comes to 29+ rubber. Companies like to talk about it, but there are clearly some challenges to actually producing the tires.

    Knards work well enough for me that I can wait and I'll buy another 120tpi set of Knards if I have to since they will get used even if I have a more aggressive knobby set of tires.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    I've started a B+ thread. So please take all the B+ OT posts there where the interested parties can enjoy them and let's leave this thread on topic about 29+.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-650b/650b-tires-931412.html
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  172. #172
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I've started a B+ thread. So please take all the B+ OT posts there where the interested parties can enjoy them and let's leave this thread on topic about 29+.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-650b/650b-tires-931412.html
    Thanks for that, vikb!

  173. #173
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    Was googling for info on the Chronicle and found this in a Pinkbike article from back in March (Taipei show report):

    The other option is the Chronicle (above left), a 29'' x 3'' tire that fits into the small but growing 29er+ category that isn't quite full-on fat bike in size. It will be available in two versions: a dual compound, 120 TPI model that features Maxxis' mid-weight EXO casing; and a 60 TPI version that eschews the EXO casing but still gets the dual compound rubber treatment. Word is that both the Mammoth and the Chronicle will be available to the public this coming September.
    Would be nice if these actually show up this month, but given the dearth of info from IB I seriously doubt they will.

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,188
    I'm really looking forward to the Maxxis release. Hope more will follow suit. I've given up hope on the DW, like I gave up on RH rims earlier this year. Gotta get a new Flow EX front wheel built, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I've started a B+ thread. So please take all the B+ OT posts there where the interested parties can enjoy them and let's leave this thread on topic about 29+.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-650b/650b-tires-931412.html
    Seems their lover's quarrel is more appropriate for PM's, or IRL meet up.

  175. #175
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/09/17/...ike-tire-more/

    3 new 29x3.0 tires offered from Vee? Had not heard about these until now.

  176. #176
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    EB14: Vee Tire Co Takes the Crown w/ New MTB Line, Updates Mission Fat Bike Tire, More

    3 new 29x3.0 tires offered from Vee? Had not heard about these until now.
    According to the comments, that might be a typo since the tires in the photo show 29 x 2.3 sizing

  177. #177
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    Ah - didn't see the comments. I thought it was too good to be true since the rest of the article was talking about enduro racing & such.

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    Was googling for info on the Chronicle and found this in a Pinkbike article from back in March (Taipei show report):



    Would be nice if these actually show up this month, but given the dearth of info from IB I seriously doubt they will.
    Post 118 of this thread. Someone asked Maxxis at Interbike, and they said December.

  179. #179
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,774
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Post 118 of this thread. Someone asked Maxxis at Interbike, and they said December.
    Post #53 Mike C said ETA on the Bonty would also be Dec. So with the exception of maybe the Panaracer, pretty much will be 2015 before anything else is available (except the Vee Trax).
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783
    I think we should all have a gentlemen's agreement that we don't post any ETAs. Just product info and when a tire is actually available for sale. The ETAs = "lies all lies!"
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  181. #181
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,774
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I think we should all have a gentlemen's agreement that we don't post any ETAs. Just product info and when a tire is actually available for sale. The ETAs = "lies all lies!"
    Sounds good to me.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  182. #182
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,074

    29+ tire choices

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I think we should all have a gentlemen's agreement that we don't post any ETAs. Just product info and when a tire is actually available for sale. The ETAs = "lies all lies!"
    So true!

    I guess I will probably end up going Knard then. Don't think I want to wait until Dec (or beyond) for a Chronicle. The Krampus is all built up and I am just waiting for Krampus-worthy rubber (he looks kind of like a wet cat with the tiny 2.0 tires that are mounted as placeholders while I was working on the build).

  183. #183
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!
    Go and ask Schwalbe for it.
    They refused a blank check to start making the 29x2.35" ones when they had the tooling ready for it. After that it took them years to come up with the idea by themselves.
    Such 3.0 Supermoto's would be marvellous I'm sure though. Commuting, beach racing, and sandy trail riding. 2.35 does that well even in 26".
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    231
    We mounted some 2.35 Big Apples on Rabbit Holes at the shop and they measured 2.5 with the calipers. Mounted really easy and looked BA. Didn't get a chance to see how they ride though.

  185. #185
    ECR
    ECR is offline
    carfree
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!
    I'm in!

    Already have 2.35 Super Motos mounted on Derby Rims for my next 29+ build, but I'd prefer 3" tires.

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sasquatch rides a SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,565
    Those who have used any 29+ tire other than the Knard, how is tubeless setup? I'm hoping that the Chronicle, Bontrager, or Panaracer offerings are a bit more tubeless friendly than the Knards are.

  187. #187
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    I'm running Maxxis tubeless ready on Stans Flow EX and I was amazed at how easy it is to set the bead. Just used a floor pump, I've mounted three tires so far. That's why I'm holding out for the Chronicles for my Krampus, it looks as if they'll work great on Rabbit Holes. If money wasn't a little tight I'd run some 2.5" Maxxis Minions on my Krampus but new tyres for this bike are perpetually 6 months away so I stay on the Knards.

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    Ive run knards and vee traxx fattys both on duallys. Tubless with the duallys is a PITA. The vee tire setup tubeless better on the dually then the knard. I now have a set of nextie jungle fox carbon wheels and am running a knard out front and the vee In the back. Both setup tubeless very easy on this wheelset. One strip of tape to cover the wholes and the rims did the rest. They both seated with a very solid pop over the bead locking hump. I did have to use a compressor as the rim bed has a 12mm deep channel and I couldnt get the tires startrd with my crappy floor pump.

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    I just setup a pair of 1 year old well used 120 Knards on Jungle Fox rims as well. Initial fit was really loose, so I installed them with a tube first to get the beads seated. Then unseated one bead, removed tube, and installed tubeless valve. I then had to pull the loose bead up onto the shelf all the way around, but once I did that, they aired right up with a floor pump. They even held air surprisingly well without sealant. I did, of course, add Stan's sealant through the valve before riding. Only one ride so far, but all good!

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    I have some 29x2.3 Geax tattoos on my Karate Monkey commuter. Fit on Velocity P-35'S the seem to work well for the pave and some dirt on the way home. Similar to the tread design as a hookworm.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Trail_Blazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,162
    Maxxis Ardent 2.4 / 2.2

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by kyttyra View Post
    I wonder whether some manufacturer will bring out a 29+ slick tyre. Or would that be too niche within a niche O.o

    A 3" Super Moto or equivalent could be fun (and mean terrible things to my wallet)!
    The Super Moto isn't 'slick'

    Kojaks are the best combination of fast & fun & comfortable street/city/urban trail tire I have ever used. A 29+ Kojak could be really fast, and really cush.

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    231
    What kind of puncture protection are we talking about? If we're talking city riding we're talking staples, glass, and other trash. I'm happy with my 2.0 Big Bens on my Cross Check. No flats in 2000 miles.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    273
    The Kojak has a puncture protection belt. I've had one pinch flat and one ripped sidewall in 15 months - both on rocky singletrack, not exactly the intended use. No street punctures.

    The Kojak is an incredible tire for hybrid multi-use bikes. It would be a blast in bigger and wider sizes, but I think the market is way too small - because everyone who looks at them says: " those look dangerous without treads".

    Using google, you can find posts by recumbent riders who have 3000+ punctureless miles on their Kojaks. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular on bikes that people have re-purposed for the street. The thought of a 29+ Kojak makes me smile. Silky fast with no road chatter.
    Last edited by TooSteep; 09-30-2014 at 08:06 PM.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    244

    29+ tire choices

    So has anyone tried a 2.5 inch minion or 2.4 inch ardent an a rabbit hole and rode it in the wet? Looking for options for oregon this winter


    "The trick, and oh, what a trick it is, is to remain consciously blind to the danger that surrounds you, and simultaneously hyper-aware of every hard bit of pavement or sharp bit of metal that enters your air space. This is the Zen koan of riding your bicycle on the road." Robot, Red Kite Prayer - rkp.com - October 20, 2011

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by TooSteep View Post
    The Kojak has a puncture protection belt. I've had one pinch flat and one ripped sidewall in 15 months - both on rocky singletrack, not exactly the intended use. No street punctures.

    The Kojak is an incredible tire for hybrid multi-use bikes. It would be a blast in bigger and wider sizes, but I think the market is way too small - because everyone who looks at them says: " those look dangerous without treads".

    Using google, you can find posts by recumbent riders who have 3000+ punctureless miles on their Kojaks. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular on bikes that people have re-purposed for the street. The thought of a 29+ Kojak makes me smile. Silky fast with no road chatter.
    I am a big fan of the Kojak as well. I have the 700x35s on my road bike and love them, so comfy. I think the chances of seeing a 29+ version is beyond slim though, or any 29+ slick for that matter. Just get the Supermotos, 29er Hookworm or the above mentioned Geax Tatoo and mount them on 50mm rims, that should be pretty phat!

  197. #197
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TooSteep View Post
    The Kojak is an incredible tire for hybrid multi-use bikes. It would be a blast in bigger and wider sizes...
    It's not clear how differentiated a Kojak in larger sizes would be from a Big Apple. Both have puncture protection that the Super Moto lacks. Not sure how important that is in large, low pressure situations. I think the Big Apple has heavier sidewalls but that's expected for the size.

    A Kojak is fast for a touring tire but not for a road tire and I don't see a 35mm smoothie as good for multi-surface use. I fail to see the purpose in a 3" wide smoothie other than style. Is the riding experience really going to be better than a Super Moto? It would look better for sure, but a Super Moto would look pretty big on 50mm rims.

    For hard surfaces/road I'd prefer something faster. For looser surfaces I'd prefer something grippier and larger. The Kojak is good for covering distance on hard surfaces relatively problem-free and faster than any Marathon. I like the Kojak, too, but it has its place and that place isn't 29+.

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    The geax tattoo comes in at 58mm wide x 52 mm high on the Velocity P-35 rims. It has a knurled casing with some inverse tread. Runs fast on the pave, does very well in the dirt except in the wet. It has a double ply casing and edge to edge tread. Beefy and great with lower pressure off road. I put it on my commutified Karate Monkey when I want to get 12 pave and 8 miles of dirt on the commute home.

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    ... The Kojak is good for covering distance on hard surfaces relatively problem-free and faster than any Marathon. ....
    Fast, problem-free and comfortable. Covering smooth roads, chip-seal, crushed gravel and hard dry dirt. Some combination of lighter, faster, more comfortable and more durable than the other options. Hmmm ... sounds to me like the realm of 29+

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,783


    Surly DW 29+ tire update - sort of.

    Dirt Wizard 29+ and My Yearly Rant About How We Ain?t Perfect | Blog | Surly Bikes

    Mostly just an explanation why you won't see it for a good long time.

    FWIW - I feel for Surly and their odd ball projects. It ain't easy to do something new and wacky. So thanks for trying.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tire Choices for SHEN 100
    By Dadefatsax in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-13-2013, 08:59 PM
  2. The One rear tire choices
    By ikarus189 in forum Canfield
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-01-2013, 05:07 AM
  3. Tire choices
    By Saucyjack in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 09:39 AM
  4. Geezus there are a lot of tire choices now
    By cleon in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-29-2011, 10:47 PM
  5. Lost in XC tire choices!!!!!
    By Rhezuss in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 12:00 PM

Members who have read this thread: 239

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.