Results 1 to 92 of 92
  1. #1
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524

    New question here. Is the Plus market settling out to 2.6-2.8" tires?

    I keep seeing more and more stuff indicating that the industry is heading toward settling plus sizes out to 2.6-2.8" range.

    First Stan's decided to not bring the Major MK3 rim to market, as they deem there isn't enough need for anything wider than i35.

    Then I heard Maxxis was axing the 27.5 x 3 HRII.

    And Now Maxxis doesn't have any 3" tires in their 2019 catalog..............
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NZPeterG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    584
    Yes the bigger Bike Brand's are moving to 29"◊2.6" for 2019 and 2020.
    They see people asking for less rubber.


    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    469
    Yea, my LBS told me 27.5x3.0 are so ten minutes ago...Get your 3.0ís before they are gone......
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    440
    My 2 cents is there are plenty of other companies making 29 and 27.5 by 3in tires or plus tires. Maxxis has a specific following and I wouldn't look at them a measurement of tires. If that was the case, no one would be running anything larger than 2.5in. Maxxis is the last to change. Just look at the product line against Bontrager, specialized or any other. There is no progression for Maxxis. If you looked at past years of Maxxis and removed the year, you would me hard pressed to determine the actual year.

    Again ... All my option, but I don't see Maxxis as pushing anything forward. It's more like the Apple iPhone. Sure it's a good product, but always behind the current tech. They will let someone else figure out the new sexy stuff and them adopt it later. People will think it's the best ever because it says Maxxis on the sidewall. Look at how people are falling all over the Recon 29x2.6. Yawn ... Bontrager and specialized have had 29x2.6 similar tires for years.

    Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by MUSTCLIME View Post
    Yea, my LBS told me 27.5x3.0 are so ten minutes ago...Get your 3.0ís before they are gone......
    Haha .... 27.5 will also be dead in a few years because it's a marketing gimmick

    Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,322
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    I keep seeing more and more stuff indicating that the industry is heading toward settling plus sizes out to 2.6-2.8" range.

    First Stan's decided to not bring the Major MK3 rim to market, as they deem there isn't enough need for anything wider than i35.

    Then I heard Maxxis was axing the 27.5 x 3 HRII.

    And Now Maxxis doesn't have any 3" tires in their 2019 catalog..............
    I did not know this?!...

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by gundrted View Post
    Bontrager and specialized have had 29x2.6 similar tires for years.
    What are you talking about? Bontrager just released 29x2.6 tires earlier this year, and Specialized released them just over a year ago.

    I'm not a Maxxis fan either, but they were pretty close behind others getting 29x2.6 tires to market. Personally, I still like my tires bigger, 3.0 to 3.25.

  8. #8
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524
    I'm glad we have Bonty and other tire manufactures with options. I was glad to see Bonty expand their 29+ line, I'm actually moving back to a 29+ SS and that's part of the reason I am.

    However I'm also building up a geared bike and was going to run 27.5x3.0 on it and really have no desire to run 27.5x2.8 on it due to the shorter overall tire diameter. There are a couple 2.8 tires that have decent height, but most are SHORT!! Bonty doesn't have a 27.5x3.0 tire either, all 2.8s. I'll likely try out B+ with some cheaper wheels before really committing to that size though.

    My other option with this bike would be 29x2.6 rear and 29 2.6-2.8 front.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CCSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    286
    Iím with Bikeny - I love my Crux and Bulldozer 29x3.25s for uncanny rigid SS suspension, rollover and traction. Iíd be really really sad if they went away.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    Well, thanks for the heads up on this, will have to purchase a couple of the 29x3" DHR2 & DHF then I honestly would have thought the 29x3" market was where it was at in terms of 29+, never would suspect Maxxis would discontinue that size
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Well, thanks for the heads up on this, will have to purchase a couple of the 29x3" DHR2 & DHF then I honestly would have thought the 29x3" market was where it was at in terms of 29+, never would suspect Maxxis would discontinue that size
    Yeah, if this is right I'm going to need to stock up on the 29x3.0 DHF's.

  12. #12
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524
    I've put an email into Maxxis asking if they are dropping 29x3 all together. I'll let you guys know what they say.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  13. #13
    Make America Bike Again
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,430
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    What are you talking about? Bontrager just released 29x2.6 tires earlier this year, and Specialized released them just over a year ago.

    I'm not a Maxxis fan either, but they were pretty close behind others getting 29x2.6 tires to market. Personally, I still like my tires bigger, 3.0 to 3.25.
    Quote Originally Posted by gundrted View Post
    My 2 cents is there are plenty of other companies making 29 and 27.5 by 3in tires or plus tires. Maxxis has a specific following and I wouldn't look at them a measurement of tires. If that was the case, no one would be running anything larger than 2.5in. Maxxis is the last to change. Just look at the product line against Bontrager, specialized or any other. There is no progression for Maxxis. If you looked at past years of Maxxis and removed the year, you would me hard pressed to determine the actual year.

    Again ... All my option, but I don't see Maxxis as pushing anything forward. It's more like the Apple iPhone. Sure it's a good product, but always behind the current tech. They will let someone else figure out the new sexy stuff and them adopt it later. People will think it's the best ever because it says Maxxis on the sidewall. Look at how people are falling all over the Recon 29x2.6. Yawn ... Bontrager and specialized have had 29x2.6 similar tires for years.

    Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk
    Maxxis probably discontinued the 3.0 line because they are not in the business of making flimsy single-ply paper sidewalled tires. They like to make thicker, solid, squared off tires and not rounded, floppy ones. I would not be surprised at all if their 2.8 grips better than a competitor's 3.0.

  14. #14
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Not that I plan to take my +bikes to RedHead Rampage or anything, but will be running 3.0/3.25's for the foreseeable future.
    My +bike is not a freeride or DH thus, I have no need or desire to own a two ply tire and lend Creedence to the anti+ crowd that claim +bikes are too heavy.
    On the bright side, two ply tires don't require inflation and therefore cannot go flat.

    Maxxis can keep their load range F tires and some folks will buy em and enjoy em.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  15. #15
    I live to bike
    Reputation: Jwiffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,277
    I hope not. I really like 3.0.
    Stop in at Element Sports. www.elementsport.com
    Get Out! Have Fun!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,506
    please tell me RedHead Rampage is an autocorrect ! :-)~

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,322
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    please tell me RedHead Rampage is an autocorrect ! :-)~
    Just donít google it!

  18. #18
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    I've put an email into Maxxis asking if they are dropping 29x3 all together. I'll let you guys know what they say.
    I could see them nixing the DH 3.0 tire....just seems too big for that segment to me, imo. I don't see them removing the Chronicle 3.0 though, its been out for 5 years now...and seems to have "traction" in the bikepacking world, which is a growing market for bikes right now. This could change again next year, but reviews seems good for that Maxxis 29 x 3.
    17 Stache 29+
    17 Moto Ti gravel
    14 GT Zaskar 100 9r
    15 Moto NT fat & 27.5+

  19. #19
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,141
    Where and when is the RedHead Rampage?
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    323
    That Redhead Rampage is when your redhead wife finds out you bought another bike and it was $6000 dollars. There is also the Blond and Brunett Rampage which are equally as dangerous.

    I think there will be a 3.0 market for a long time, especially in the hard tail market.

  21. #21
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Where and when is the RedHead Rampage?
    Not here, but it is on Pinterest...lol!

    https://www.pinterest.com/chezzy2/re...mpage/?lp=true
    17 Stache 29+
    17 Moto Ti gravel
    14 GT Zaskar 100 9r
    15 Moto NT fat & 27.5+

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,229
    I own and love my 29+ bike with 3" tires, but I think 2.6"-2.8" tires are going to work better for a wider market segment. So if you are a major manufacturer you'll focus on that. Even as a 29+ fan I would use a 2.6" tire more often for my day to day rides vs. 3" tire.

    That said I do enjoy a full 3" wide tire for some rides. I don't care if every tire brand sells them as long as I have a few choices to pick from.

    On my trail bike I've been running the same brand/model of tire for something like 8yrs. I don't need a ton of choices as long as I have one or three I really like.

    I'm hopeful we'll still have a few 29 x 3" wide tires that rock on the market. Sales will be concentrated on those reduced options making them more viable for the manufacturers and we'll settle in a balance point where products and riders who want them make sense.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  23. #23
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    please tell me RedHead Rampage is an autocorrect ! :-)~
    Webster's>Humor>Sarcasm.... (Sourced through auto incorrect)

    And the other responses to that crack in the thread are a laugh too!


    Quote Originally Posted by NH Mtbiker View Post
    I could see them nixing the DH 3.0 tire....just seems too big for that segment to me, imo. I don't see them removing the Chronicle 3.0 though, its been out for 5 years now...and seems to have "traction" in the bikepacking world, which is a growing market for bikes right now. This could change again next year, but reviews seems good for that Maxxis 29 x 3.
    Chronicles?? PFFT! I have a pair that I abhor thus were replaced with something that didn't embarrass Sarge to be seen wearing in public! XD
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,229
    I should add that I think "Plus" stops at a true width 2.8" tire. By the time you get down to 2.6" tires it's a lot more like a standard 2.4" tire than a 3" tire.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  25. #25
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I should add that I think "Plus" stops at a true width 2.8" tire. By the time you get down to 2.6" tires it's a lot more like a standard 2.4" tire than a 3" tire.
    Agreed!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  26. #26
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Sarge has Nobby Nic 3.0's that measure 2.88 and 2.91, the Wildcat is wearing his Crux 3.25's measuring in at 3.1.

    Of all things, Duro actually came close with 8 psi. Might stretch some if I max out the pressure.

    The tire makers lose my interest with anything under 2.8 and I try to avoid 2.8. Again, the dictatorship is trying to tell us what fatness is acceptable for our +bikes, go figure.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    Agree with VikB, PLUS starts at 2.8", anything smaller than that is somewhere closer to normal as such. Also agree that 2.8" will probably work for a wider market, but still think that there's a good market for 29x3" at least.

    Have you ridden a Chronicle? I think if you had you'd know that it's the most spectacular tyre at nothing, it lacks aggressive knobs for traction, rolls like crap for the knobs it has and self steers like a mofo, it's a passable rear for something of a decent weight, but there are others that roll much better, even with a more aggressive pattern. Personally I'd like to see a 3" Rekon or Forekaster, hoping the 2.8" Rekons at least come to fruition.

    Quote Originally Posted by NH Mtbiker View Post
    I could see them nixing the DH 3.0 tire....just seems too big for that segment to me, imo. I don't see them removing the Chronicle 3.0 though, its been out for 5 years now...and seems to have "traction" in the bikepacking world, which is a growing market for bikes right now. This could change again next year, but reviews seems good for that Maxxis 29 x 3.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  28. #28
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Agree with VikB, PLUS starts at 2.8", anything smaller than that is somewhere closer to normal as such. Also agree that 2.8" will probably work for a wider market, but still think that there's a good market for 29x3" at least.

    Have you ridden a Chronicle? I think if you had you'd know that it's the most spectacular tyre at nothing, it lacks aggressive knobs for traction, rolls like crap for the knobs it has and self steers like a mofo, it's a passable rear for something of a decent weight, but there are others that roll much better, even with a more aggressive pattern. Personally I'd like to see a 3" Rekon or Forekaster, hoping the 2.8" Rekons at least come to fruition.
    Werd!!!

    Chronicle is a soccer mom van spare tire in disguise!
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  29. #29
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Agree with VikB, PLUS starts at 2.8", anything smaller than that is somewhere closer to normal as such. Also agree that 2.8" will probably work for a wider market, but still think that there's a good market for 29x3" at least.

    Have you ridden a Chronicle? I think if you had you'd know that it's the most spectacular tyre at nothing, it lacks aggressive knobs for traction, rolls like crap for the knobs it has and self steers like a mofo, it's a passable rear for something of a decent weight, but there are others that roll much better, even with a more aggressive pattern. Personally I'd like to see a 3" Rekon or Forekaster, hoping the 2.8" Rekons at least come to fruition.
    Only pointing out that it works for some on light duty singletrack, gravel, pavement...bikepacking only. By no means do I think of it as a trail tire, but still, Maxxis keeps it in its lineup over other 3.0 tires....go figure. Still waiting for a really good, true 2.8 aggressive tire, like to the Rekon.
    17 Stache 29+
    17 Moto Ti gravel
    14 GT Zaskar 100 9r
    15 Moto NT fat & 27.5+

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JokerSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    73
    [QUOTE=BansheeRun
    Chronicles?? PFFT! I have a pair that I abhor thus were replaced with something that didn't embarrass Sarge to be seen wearing in public! XD[/QUOTE]

    If those are 29x3, Send those my way, Iíll make good use of them. Iíve been using them for a few years and they have always worked well.

  31. #31
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Sorry, they are 27.5.

    They are fine as a townie tire tho'
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CCSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    286
    Gotta admit that the Chronicle was the first 29x3 that was actually durable. I shredded 120 tpi knards, DWs, Vee Trax Fattys. The Chronicle was a welcome tire for the time.

    Now itís Duro Crux 3.25 for the win!

  33. #33
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by CCSS View Post
    Gotta admit that the Chronicle was the first 29x3 that was actually durable. I shredded 120 tpi knards, DWs, Vee Trax Fattys. The Chronicle was a welcome tire for the time.

    Now itís Duro Crux 3.25 for the win!
    The Crux is very hard to source in the USA. unicycle.com lists em in 29 tho.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JokerSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    Sorry, they are 27.5.

    They are fine as a townie tire tho'
    Work fine On NC single track too.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    326
    Tires are very subjective to the individual, almost like a saddle. I liked my Chron (rear) it worked liked it should for me and where I ride.
    I also donít get why anyone would go smaller than 3.0. A little experiment I did over the summer was running 2.6s. All things were the same except tire size, 3.0 to 2.6. It definitely felt faster climbing and not as confident going down due to the smaller contact patch. But after loading my ride up on Strava the times were not faster.
    As far as the market settling on a smaller tire maybe 2.8 but you're giving up some width with little weight savings. I don't think 29x3.0 in general will ever be discontinued anytime soon. The Trek Stache is one of the top (if not the top) selling model Trek ever produced. At the very least they will continue to produce true 29+ tires and I'm sure the stock levels of Maxxis will be there for a while.
    Last edited by Scotto; 2 Weeks Ago at 04:31 PM. Reason: more info
    Ride it, donít write about it!

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    366
    I'm happy with my Stache and 29+....

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  37. #37
    Waiting for Godot
    Reputation: OilcanRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,054
    It's more like the 2.2" crowd has moved up to 2.6-2.8" than the 3-4" group has moved down....

    I am still waiting on 29x4"...... better all the way around than 29x3"

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Personally I'd like to see a 3" Rekon or Forekaster, hoping the 2.8" Rekons at least come to fruition.
    Fruition? They've been out for some time; I'm running one on the front of my EX8. I just hope they stick around long enough for me to wear this bike out!

    My .02$ is that it's easy to "over tire" in plus sizes, and I hope that riders and manufacturers (the market, I guess) will eventually agree that narrow/aggressive is good (Minion) and that plus-size/less-agressive is good (Rekon+) but that plus-size/aggressive is just wasteful and turns your bike into a POS that bogs you down and climbs like crap.

    That said, I do like a 3.0 NN for winter and mud...sorta turns my plus bike into a neo-fat bike for December-March. Then, it's back to Rekon/Ikon 2.8s for a sensible blend of traction, smooth ride, reasonable rolling resistance.
    Last edited by MikeInPA; 1 Week Ago at 07:44 AM. Reason: adding text

  39. #39
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeInPA View Post
    Fruition? They've been out for some time; I'm running one on the front of my EX8. I just hope they stick around long enough for me to wear this bike out!

    My .02$ is that it's easy to "over tire" in plus sizes, and I hope that riders and manufacturers (the market, I guess) will eventually agree that narrow/aggressive is good (Minion) and that plus-size/less-agressive is good (Rekon+) but that plus-size/aggressive is just wasteful and turns your bike into a POS that bogs you down and climbs like crap.

    That said, I do like a 3.0 NN for winter and mud...sorta turns my plus bike into a neo-fat bike for December-March. Then, it's back to Rekon/Ikon 2.8s for a sensible blend of traction, smooth ride, reasonable rolling resistance.
    I think LyNx was meaning in the 29" size.

    And I disagree on plus size/aggressive being wasteful. They can help you flat out rip on the DHs, although I think it needs to be ran with a faster rolling rear (most of the time) to balance out.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  40. #40
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,153
    I didn't read the entire thread but the title got me to post. IMO...
    • 2.8" and wider is "Plus"
    • 2.6" and narrower is "Plus/Minus" or "Babyfat" or simply "wider tires" or whatever else people want to call it -- but doesn't quite reach "Plus" status

    Does anyone make a 2.7"? If so, yikes! What would that be? "Limbo?"
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  41. #41
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524
    I honestly think 2.5-2.6 will become the normal tire size. Then we'll hopefully have 2.8-3.0 for plus tires.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    Yes, I was referring to the 29x2.8" that I saw floating around the great WWW, been running B+ Rekons for going on 3 years now.

    Absolutely agree, not everyone wants to, or likes to run suspension, so when we're on our rigids tackling the same terrain as guys on 150mm> travel bikes, a DHF on the front makes a whole lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    I think LyNx was meaning in the 29" size.

    And I disagree on plus size/aggressive being wasteful. They can help you flat out rip on the DHs, although I think it needs to be ran with a faster rolling rear (most of the time) to balance out.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    I honestly think 2.5-2.6 will become the normal tire size. Then we'll hopefully have 2.8-3.0 for plus tires.
    At the risk of mucking into something I know very little about, aren't the usable tires simply dictated by the width of a rim? Or would there be a difference between a 2.8 tire and a 2.8+ tire? Sorry in advance for my ignorance.

  44. #44
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    At the risk of mucking into something I know very little about, aren't the usable tires simply dictated by the width of a rim? Or would there be a difference between a 2.8 tire and a 2.8+ tire? Sorry in advance for my ignorance.
    Pretty much yes, width of rim and frame/fork clearance. 2.8 tire is the same no matter what you call it, I think most of us just don't want them to cap the sizing off at 2.8.

    LyNx, I thought you were referring to this elusive creature-
    Is the Plus market settling out to 2.6-2.8" tires?-rekon-2.8.jpg
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  45. #45
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    At the risk of mucking into something I know very little about, aren't the usable tires simply dictated by the width of a rim? Or would there be a difference between a 2.8 tire and a 2.8+ tire? Sorry in advance for my ignorance.
    2.8 being shorthand for 2.8+.

    The current trend being many tires offered in 2.6 as of late is concerning some of the +community. I believe it is an effort to get peeps with non+ into a fatter tire with the bike they already own as well as catering to the peeps that want fat but not >2.8 fat.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    323
    Can most regular 29ers fit a 2.6 inch tire on the rear?

    Can most regular 29er forks fit a 2.8?

    If so, that would be a pretty good way to get near-Plus size. I thought that is how 2.6 came about, "Let's make a tire bigger, but have it still fit on a regular 29er".

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    220
    I think I still want 3.0 tires on my Fuse Hard tail, used in the desert only

    I am now riding mainly 2.8/2,6 here in the PNW on fullies. I think it might actually be helping in the mud compared to the nobby nic 3.0 we were using on the front (Rekon 2.8 back). Though the real concern is wet shiny roots here and the only solution seems to be keeping rear pressure as low as it can go. sucks that the Maxxis plus tires dont come in Maxx grip, from what I can source.

  48. #48
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandman29 View Post
    Can most regular 29ers fit a 2.6 inch tire on the rear?

    Can most regular 29er forks fit a 2.8?

    If so, that would be a pretty good way to get near-Plus size. I thought that is how 2.6 came about, "Let's make a tire bigger, but have it still fit on a regular 29er".
    Please define "regular 29er," including year of manufacture. Thanks.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CCSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Absolutely agree, not everyone wants to, or likes to run suspension, so when we're on our rigids tackling the same terrain as guys on 150mm> travel bikes, a DHF on the front makes a whole lot of sense.
    Yes!

  50. #50
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandman29 View Post
    Can most regular 29ers fit a 2.6 inch tire on the rear?

    Can most regular 29er forks fit a 2.8?

    If so, that would be a pretty good way to get near-Plus size. I thought that is how 2.6 came about, "Let's make a tire bigger, but have it still fit on a regular 29er".
    That is bike specific as many older 29'ers were very narrow in the rear. With larger clearance frames, a 2.6 may well make the trail.
    Experimentation is in order...

    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Yes, I was referring to the 29x2.8" that I saw floating around the great WWW, been running B+ Rekons for going on 3 years now.

    Absolutely agree, not everyone wants to, or likes to run suspension, so when we're on our rigids tackling the same terrain as guys on 150mm> travel bikes, a DHF on the front makes a whole lot of sense.
    I have both hardtail and full squish +bikes and demand 3.0/3.25's on both of em cause I bought +bikes and that's what +bikes wear! XD
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    IYHO that is Yeah I enjoy my Unit setup 29+, but dealing with the un-damped rebound is the main issue, soft enough to give a plush ride, not hard enough to not bottom on faster, harder hits, then you have to find the compromise in between to stop bottoming and keep rebound in check.

    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    I have both hardtail and full squish +bikes and demand 3.0/3.25's on both of em cause I bought +bikes and that's what +bikes wear! XD
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  52. #52
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    IYHO that is Yeah I enjoy my Unit setup 29+, but dealing with the un-damped rebound is the main issue, soft enough to give a plush ride, not hard enough to not bottom on faster, harder hits, then you have to find the compromise in between to stop bottoming and keep rebound in check.
    lol

    All in good fun!

    With what I have subjected my +bikes to over the last couple years... While I have tried a couple 2.8 tires, I was immediately wanting to turn around and swap the 3.0's back on. The tire adjustment routine is based on terrain at hand and how aggressive a ride is on tap. It has been an interesting road traveled, indeed. Yus, I get trialsy on each and every ride cause it is all about the playtime!
    Will I stop doing so, not till the daisies have been well established 6' above me!

    Either way, staying in the 3+ zone is where I am.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    Maxxis probably discontinued the 3.0 line because they are not in the business of making flimsy single-ply paper sidewalled tires. They like to make thicker, solid, squared off tires and not rounded, floppy ones. I would not be surprised at all if their 2.8 grips better than a competitor's 3.0.
    They make a 29 x 2.8" ? (rhetorical)

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    27
    Recently switched from a 27.5x2.8 hardtail to a 29x3 rigid. Located in the PNW. Initial impressions seem pretty solid with no intentions of going back to 27.5 wheels! I really like the 29 wheels and 3" with low psi can surprisingly handle most of the local singletrack I hit with front suspension. Will likely add a front squish fork and will be curious how this eats up wet roots, rocks, etc with 3" tires.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    My ideal bike would be a 29+ "rigid" with an old time HeadShok, just want something to help with the un-damped rebound and roots on off camber fast DHs to help stop the front end skittering across the camber

    Quote Originally Posted by loren90 View Post
    Recently switched from a 27.5x2.8 hardtail to a 29x3 rigid. Located in the PNW. Initial impressions seem pretty solid with no intentions of going back to 27.5 wheels! I really like the 29 wheels and 3" with low psi can surprisingly handle most of the local singletrack I hit with front suspension. Will likely add a front squish fork and will be curious how this eats up wet roots, rocks, etc with 3" tires.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    My ideal bike would be a 29+ "rigid" with an old time HeadShok, just want something to help with the un-damped rebound and roots on off camber fast DHs to help stop the front end skittering across the camber
    That's an interesting idea! I've thought about a Lauf to take the edge off the bigger hits, but it's also undamped.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Scotto View Post
    The Trek Stache is one of the top (if not the top) selling model Trek ever produced.
    Is this sourced from check? Just curious. Pretty huge if true. The non-Trek shops around NJ pretend 29+ doesn't even exist, even though we have very Stache-friendly terrain.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    326
    Not directly from trek but from a very reliable source.
    Ride it, donít write about it!

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    I am long time moto guy that got back into mountain biking a year ago. I bought a Canyon Spectral that came with 27.5x2.6 DHF up front and a 2.6 Rekon on the back. I ride pretty aggressively and I switched the rear out for a 2.6 DHR which suited my riding better. I ended up selling the Spectral and getting an Ibis HD4 which came with 2.6 DHFs front and rear. I ruined 2 back tires in the first month and ended up going down to 2.5WTs after doing some research. The 2.5WTs are a little heavier and I had multiple people tell me they were tougher. I stuck with a DHF up front and switched to an Aggressor in the back because it was available in the DD casing and I was sick of spending money on tires. I will say that after riding 2.6s (prior to ruining them) I was intrigued by 2.8s and wanted to give them a try but the limiting factor on plus size tires seem to the durability for riding hard in rocky terrain. It doesn't seem that Maxxis really didn't design the 2.6 around being pushed hard and I have to assume that their actual "plus" offering wouldn't either?

    I am tempted to try some WTB touch casing 2.6s next as I did like the the extra volume.

  60. #60
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,524
    FYI- So far no reply from Maxxis
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    7
    All the trails around me are very rocky and I have 3.0 Specialized Purgatory Grid tires and absolutely love them. I don't think I would ever go smaller. I have a hardtail Fuse and I ride it hard and aggressive on all trails and have had zero issues with the tires being not durable. I would recommend you try the 2.8s. I have good luck with Maxxis on my single speed 29er, although they are a much smaller tire, 2.35 maybe

  62. #62
    Asswipe
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,147
    3.0 or GTFO.

    I'm stocking up on 50mm rims and 3" tires. I have zero interest in 2.8 anything on my plus bike.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  63. #63
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandman29 View Post
    That Redhead Rampage is when your redhead wife finds out you bought another bike and it was $6000 dollars. There is also the Blond and Brunett Rampage which are equally as dangerous
    you've obviously never p!ssed a redhead off
    always mad and usually drunk......

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flatland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    74

  65. #65
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by flatland View Post
    Looks to be. Although plenty of em floating around online under 70 bucks! Maxxis would be well served to offer one 29 x 3 tire to cater to the plus crowd.....either a bigger knob Ikon or Rekon would sell imo. wtf Maxxis!
    17 Stache 29+
    17 Moto Ti gravel
    14 GT Zaskar 100 9r
    15 Moto NT fat & 27.5+

  66. #66
    Asswipe
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,147
    Quote Originally Posted by flatland View Post
    So the Chronicle is gone?
    Of all the 3" Maxxis tires the Chronicle will be missed the least. I'm pretty bummed that they discontinued the Minion though, especially the DHF. It's the best 3" tire I've ridden. I also love the DHR but if I'm honest it's overkill for my local terrain.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    Yeah, I'm pretty surprised Maxxis has bailed completely on 3" tyres, really thought they'd at least keep the DHF and introduce a Rekon or Ikon in 3" for the 29ers

    Quote Originally Posted by NH Mtbiker View Post
    Looks to be. Although plenty of em floating around online under 70 bucks! Maxxis would be well served to offer one 29 x 3 tire to cater to the plus crowd.....either a bigger knob Ikon or Rekon would sell imo. wtf Maxxis!
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    306

    Is the Plus market settling out to 2.6-2.8" tires?

    A plus version of the Ardent Race would be nice.

  69. #69
    Make America Bike Again
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,430
    Part of the problem may be that 3.0's with boost rims are not compatible with other frames/forks in someone's bike stable. Much easier to just do 2.6 or possibly 2.8 if it fits in the fork, and then you can switch wheelsets between bikes without an issue. And honestly, do you really think any 3.0 tire is way better for grip and rollover than a solid 2.8 choice? I have two different Maxxis DHF 2.5 tires that actually grip a bit better than my WTB Ranger 2.8, so wider doesn't always mean better at everything.

    If a 3.0 either won't fit in a standard fork, or the axles are too big to switch out over to another bike, then unless you have gobs of money to throw at the problem, you have to live with one wheelset for one bike. It's not necessarily that 3.0 is bad in itself, it's a practical problem due to a likely fork/axle incompatibility issue with one's other bikes.
    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: quod Belgiae, quod Celtae, et quod Aquitainae.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    508
    ,,,,, the industry is heading toward settling plus sizes out to 2.6-2.8" range. .....

    there is no movement fom the industry

    they are saying
    -- the great bikes we just sold you are shitty,
    buy the great bikes coming out now
    -- the great bikes we just sold you are realy shitty,
    buy the realy great bikes coming out next week

    Do you have any more easy question?
    I mean a new question, one with value
    your old question is garbage like your old 2 wheeler

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    WTF are you on about, WTF is a "boost rim"??? There is NO SUCH THING . WTB called and wants it's marketing material from 2014 back on why plus

    So, surprise, surprise a 2.5" DHF, probably 3c MaxxTerra, grips better than a 2.8" Ranger, stop the press and let's get this bit of scientific data out there, this is empirical evidence that wider tyres are a waste of your time Get back to us when you've tried a 2.8" DHF against your 2.5" DHF or even a 3.0" DHF, of course using the same casing and compound.

    Once again such dribble

    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    Part of the problem may be that 3.0's with boost rims are not compatible with other frames/forks in someone's bike stable. Much easier to just do 2.6 or possibly 2.8 if it fits in the fork, and then you can switch wheelsets between bikes without an issue. And honestly, do you really think any 3.0 tire is way better for grip and rollover than a solid 2.8 choice? I have two different Maxxis DHF 2.5 tires that actually grip a bit better than my WTB Ranger 2.8, so wider doesn't always mean better at everything.

    If a 3.0 either won't fit in a standard fork, or the axles are too big to switch out over to another bike, then unless you have gobs of money to throw at the problem, you have to live with one wheelset for one bike. It's not necessarily that 3.0 is bad in itself, it's a practical problem due to a likely fork/axle incompatibility issue with one's other bikes.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post

    If a 3.0 either won't fit in a standard fork, or the axles are too big to switch out over to another bike, then unless you have gobs of money to throw at the problem, you have to live with one wheelset for one bike. It's not necessarily that 3.0 is bad in itself, it's a practical problem due to a likely fork/axle incompatibility issue with one's other bikes.
    My 29x3.0 tire fits easily in a standard Lyrik and a standard fox 34 fork...won't fit my current frame but forks don't seem to be an issue.

  73. #73
    I have Flat Pedal shame.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    WTF are you on about, WTF is a "boost rim"??? There is NO SUCH THING . WTB called and wants it's marketing material from 2014 back on why plus

    So, surprise, surprise a 2.5" DHF, probably 3c MaxxTerra, grips better than a 2.8" Ranger, stop the press and let's get this bit of scientific data out there, this is empirical evidence that wider tyres are a waste of your time Get back to us when you've tried a 2.8" DHF against your 2.5" DHF or even a 3.0" DHF, of course using the same casing and compound.

    Once again such dribble
    Hakuna your tatas, lol
    We don't ride to add days to our life, we ride to add life to the days we have left here.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    I've put an email into Maxxis asking if they are dropping 29x3 all together. I'll let you guys know what they say.
    You guys are killing me. I just got 29+ wheels for my fatty last year. I have two sets of McFlys, a set of Chupas and now ordered a DHF in fear that is may not be available for long.

    BTW, Merlin has them for less than $60/ea. My single tire was approx $65 shipped to the US.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,990
    fahk no more dhf 3.0??? that is a rigid riders dream front tire right there when riding loose chunky leaf covered sh!t (my go to winter tire)... Gonna go hunt one down right now so i have a backup...

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: croatiansensation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    WTF are you on about, WTF is a "boost rim"??? There is NO SUCH THING . WTB called and wants it's marketing material from 2014 back on why plus

    So, surprise, surprise a 2.5" DHF, probably 3c MaxxTerra, grips better than a 2.8" Ranger, stop the press and let's get this bit of scientific data out there, this is empirical evidence that wider tyres are a waste of your time Get back to us when you've tried a 2.8" DHF against your 2.5" DHF or even a 3.0" DHF, of course using the same casing and compound.

    Once again such dribble

    Hahahaha! A little rage-y, but nicely said, Lynx.

  77. #77
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,250
    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2 View Post
    My 29x3.0 tire fits easily in a standard Lyrik and a standard fox 34 fork...won't fit my current frame but forks don't seem to be an issue.
    I haven't found a single 3.0 tire (and I've tried a pile of them) that rubs the brake arch of my boost Reba, and that's not even a fork that was meant to run plus tires.

    All my friends ride on Fox 34's, and have no issues either.

    The only 3.0 tire I've found that I've unmounted was a 29x3.0 XR4, and while it *DID FIT* under the arch of my Reba, it had like 3mm of clearance. It's just a dang tall tire.

    I've seen a Trek Full Stache in person, with a new 29+ Yari and a Pike on it, and they clear the XR4 no problems.

    True, there's a lot of fork out there like X-Fusion, DVO, and and such that don't have a roomy brake arch, but most RS forks with 32mm or larger stanchions, all Fox 34s and 36s, and of course the Manitou forks will handle 3.0 tires.


    Quote Originally Posted by max-a-mill View Post
    fahk no more dhf 3.0??? that is a rigid riders dream front tire right there when riding loose chunky leaf covered sh!t (my go to winter tire)... Gonna go hunt one down right now so i have a backup...
    In the 50 miles I had the above-mentioned XR4 mounted, I was very impressed and feel like it would be a good replacement should Maxxis truly discontinue the 3.0 DHF.
    Donít modify the trail to match your skills, modify your skills to match the trails.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,214
    What if you added some lightweight oil to your tire, that might work for damping

    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    My ideal bike would be a 29+ "rigid" with an old time HeadShok, just want something to help with the un-damped rebound and roots on off camber fast DHs to help stop the front end skittering across the camber
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4
    So I've been reading through here and yet to see if anything is confirmed regarding the issue. On the Maxxis website it lists the Chronicle, DHF and DHR II 29x3.0 as available. Is it confirmed they are stopping production? I've yet to read anywhere on here that that is in fact the case. I was just wondering if this is an absolute fact cause if it is I'd like to grab some tread whilst I still can, lol

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    Think we're all guessing that if they're not listed in their catalog, then they won't be available Kind of logical thinking to me, so better go stock up

    https://forums.mtbr.com/wheels-tires...g-1092997.html

    Quote Originally Posted by brewclymbr View Post
    So I've been reading through here and yet to see if anything is confirmed regarding the issue. On the Maxxis website it lists the Chronicle, DHF and DHR II 29x3.0 as available. Is it confirmed they are stopping production? I've yet to read anywhere on here that that is in fact the case. I was just wondering if this is an absolute fact cause if it is I'd like to grab some tread whilst I still can, lol
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JokerSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    73
    The catalog just lists the tires under a generic FAT/PLUS category. There is no rim size listed for any of the tires, like 27.5 or 29, that I can see. Are we just assuming that they are discontinuing the 29+ tires and then just keeping the 27.5, or perhaps expanding the Ikon and Rekon to 29+?

    Are the available rim sizes listed somewhere else in the catalog?
    RideMFRide

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by JokerSC View Post
    The catalog just lists the tires under a generic FAT/PLUS category. There is no rim size listed for any of the tires, like 27.5 or 29, that I can see. Are we just assuming that they are discontinuing the 29+ tires and then just keeping the 27.5, or perhaps expanding the Ikon and Rekon to 29+?

    Are the available rim sizes listed somewhere else in the catalog?
    If you go to the end of the catalog it lists all of the available sizes...

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JokerSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    If you go to the end of the catalog it lists all of the available sizes...
    Thanks! Oh well, looks like Maxxis is out then for 29+. Someone else will fill the void. Bontrager already has a pretty solid offering in that size to support their Stache line, and thats not going to change anytime soon, so thats where my money will get spent. Too bad, I always liked Maxxis tires, but its not like they are irreplaceable.
    RideMFRide

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Think we're all guessing that if they're not listed in their catalog, then they won't be available Kind of logical thinking to me, so better go stock up

    https://forums.mtbr.com/wheels-tires...g-1092997.html
    Wow!! Ok, well thanks for the quick response and yeah, that makes total sense. Didn't even occur to me to check out their 2019 catalog and somehow I missed the link. Good thing it wasn't a tree.

  85. #85
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,710
    Since this is all rather well hashed out already, I'll just add some historical context, but I think 33red is pretty much spot on.

    My recent discovery is that many (most?) brands *Plus* bikes are capped at 2.6 or 2.8 volume in back, diameter's irrelevant.

    Just as the road end of things discovers fatter is better, and stops limiting frame clearance to a 23mm tire, the mtb side of things goes, oh wait, that's a great freaking idea.

    I got really tired of trying to fit an "OMG it's so FAT", 25 mm tire on a road bike only to have it rub on the fork, brake bridge or chainstays. Seriously people, SERIOUSLY?

    Clearance weighs nothing, and costs nothing more to create.

    So why, would a manufacturer make a frame in a given range that's known to include (in this case) a 3" tire, but not let their frame take it. It truly boggles the mind.

    I'd almost assign it Nanny Brand status, "oh, we know best, you'll never want to go fatter than what we think is cool this month"....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    326
    Pretty much spot on. To do 29+ the right way a Super Boost rear should be used. Running a crank with a flipped chainring gives an almost perfect chai line. I think this makes big companies a bit couscous as SB157 is kind of unheard except for DH.
    Custom builders have been using this on 29+ frames for a while.
    Ride it, donít write about it!

  87. #87
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Since this is all rather well hashed out already, I'll just add some historical context, but I think 33red is pretty much spot on.

    My recent discovery is that many (most?) brands *Plus* bikes are capped at 2.6 or 2.8 volume in back, diameter's irrelevant.

    Just as the road end of things discovers fatter is better, and stops limiting frame clearance to a 23mm tire, the mtb side of things goes, oh wait, that's a great freaking idea.

    I got really tired of trying to fit an "OMG it's so FAT", 25 mm tire on a road bike only to have it rub on the fork, brake bridge or chainstays. Seriously people, SERIOUSLY?

    Clearance weighs nothing, and costs nothing more to create.

    So why, would a manufacturer make a frame in a given range that's known to include (in this case) a 3" tire, but not let their frame take it. It truly boggles the mind.

    I'd almost assign it Nanny Brand status, "oh, we know best, you'll never want to go fatter than what we think is cool this month"....
    This is precisely why I am very cautiously observant to many aspects of a perspective bike prior to hiring it to serve as "my bike". Geo, tire clearance and a few other issues are taken into account. If 3.0/3.25 doesn't fit with adequate clearance, deal breaker. Maxxis isn't the only company that makes quality tires and I only install DH tires on DH bikes so therefore have no interest in boat anchor tires that are heavier than a 4.8 and narrower than a 3.0.

    The industry is getting into the "we're gonna dictate what + is and shove it down your throat" attitude. Surely, this is being influenced by some sales that are involving peeps installing 2.6 on a minus bike cause they can do it with 2mm clearance to spare.

    Scotto, there was no mention of going away from 73mm BB's to augment the 157mm asshole, uh axle! With 148 and an 83mm BB shell in conjunction, 3.0/3.25 works dandy. Hell, we could go 3.8 (assuming clearance present) and change nothing other than tires. How many more hub widths to we actually need? Again, the industry is trying hard to drum up sales.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  88. #88
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,710
    Yeah, not feeling the need for yet MoreBoost.

    My gen 1 Krampus did just fine with 135, and my new purple version with GnotBoost works too. Why I need a wider rear spacing is lost on me.

    But I just build 'em and ride 'em, I don't stare at screens all day designing them, so maybe I'm really missing that nirvana that the industry keeps promising is right over the next rise....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  89. #89
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    The next move will be hubs in 2mm increments for God knows what reason other than job security for the folks at Park Tool and all the other bicycle tool makers.

    Does 7mm make a difference when it comes to QR and thru axle fat bike hubs? As if 177/197 is a true requirement to have 12mm thru axle vs. 170/190.
    Just another example of absurdity.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,403
    You do realise the extra 7mm in your examples are the extra length in the end caps to accommodate slotted drop outs to make inserting the wheel easier (3.5mm on either side), as compared to just flat drop outs where you need to align the hub with the drop out holes with no slots, right? Just like 150 and 157 is the same thing, not 2 different axle standards, just one for slotted drop outs, the other not

    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    The next move will be hubs in 2mm increments for God knows what reason other than job security for the folks at Park Tool and all the other bicycle tool makers.

    Does 7mm make a difference when it comes to QR and thru axle fat bike hubs? As if 177/197 is a true requirement to have 12mm thru axle vs. 170/190.
    Just another example of absurdity.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  91. #91
    Rippin da fAt
    Reputation: BansheeRune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,189
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    You do realise the extra 7mm in your examples are the extra length in the end caps to accommodate slotted drop outs to make inserting the wheel easier (3.5mm on either side), as compared to just flat drop outs where you need to align the hub with the drop out holes with no slots, right? Just like 150 and 157 is the same thing, not 2 different axle standards, just one for slotted drop outs, the other not
    The only issue would be aligning the rotor with the caliper. And now we are either dealing with dropout spacing on frames. All we do with hubs for the most part is change end caps to accommodate 7mm. Does it make setting a wheel in any easier, meh.
    Get fAt, Stay fAt, Ride fAt
    Doctor recommended...

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by BansheeRune View Post
    The only issue would be aligning the rotor with the caliper. And now we are either dealing with dropout spacing on frames. All we do with hubs for the most part is change end caps to accommodate 7mm. Does it make setting a wheel in any easier, meh.
    I have no idea what you're getting at. The extra 7mm of a 142mm hub vs a 135mm hub is just extra end cap length that goes into the frame to make getting the wheel back into the frame easier. And yes, it certainly does make it easier. There was a 135mm thru axle standard very briefly, but it went away quickly because it was a PITA to get the wheel back into the frame. Cassette and disc spacing is exactly the same between 135 & 142 (and also 141 & 148, 150 & 157, 170 & 177, 190 & 197).

Similar Threads

  1. Non plus tires on a plus / 29 platform? Plus noob
    By BadgerOne in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-10-2017, 04:16 AM
  2. 26er/650b/29er debate finally settling down?
    By GnarBrahWyo in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-21-2015, 09:28 PM
  3. Settling road vs mountain external BB (Shimano)
    By hatake in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-01-2015, 06:15 AM
  4. I'm settling on the Spec FSR Pro, but...
    By MTDirtGirl in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-17-2005, 01:00 PM

Members who have read this thread: 407

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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.