Buyer's Regret with 27.5- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 62 of 62
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174

    Buyer's Regret with 27.5

    I may be alone but I bought a new bike with 27.5" wheels. I like the bike overall but I find that I am faster on my 29er. I ride both and switch between them. I bought the 27.5 (Banshee Spitfire/140mm) for more aggressive downhills compared to my 120mm Trek Fuel EX. I like the robustness of the Banshee but I feel the tires get hung up more on roots and rocks when climbing and on flat areas.

    Anyone else have this issue? I'm 6'1" so the 29er would probably have made more sense for me. I am starting to think that I might wan't a longer travel 29er instead (140mm to 150mm). I would be lucky to get half of the price I paid for my bike, though, and it is only a few months old. I am wondering if moving up in tire width might make a difference. I have stock 27.5x2.35" tires. I'm pretty sure I could fit a 2.6 tire. Would that help?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,436
    Nope. I almost find the complete opposite. The 29ers do roll over rocks and roots on most occasions, but while rolling on flats or not to rocky or rooted trails, I mostly have to brake so I don't ram other riders ahead. I ride both, but prefer 27.5 and feel they are faster in most conditions

    You may want to try different tires. I use a WTB Trail Boss 2.4 on the rear and a Schwalbe Hans Dampf 2.35 on the front.
    EXODUX Jeff

  3. #3
    flailer
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    118
    wider wheels and wider tires made a huge difference on my Rune. I am running a 2.6 on the front with a 35mm inside wide wheel and a 2.5 WT on the back with a 30mm inside width wheel.
    '20 Banshee Titan 29er
    '16 Banshee Rune
    '91 Specialized Allez Epic Carbon

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,091
    I found that, on my 27.5 Yeti SB5, "brunch ride" - 160 fork, the tire combo that worked best for me was 2.6" Nobby Nics front and back. That's in the Wasatch and Moab. I set a whole bunch of climbing PR's on that set up.

    Actually, the only PR that still stands on the Yeti is with 27.5x2.6" Rocket Rons and a very light wheelset - ended up being impractical, but very fast.

    But, I feel your pain. I bought a Trance 29 and broke every other one of those PR's - about a dozen of them - within a year. Plus, cleaned downhills I never did on the Yeti.
    Haven't ridden the Yeti since, but I do have a nice spare for visitors!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    I am wondering if moving up in tire width might make a difference. I have stock 27.5x2.35" tires. I'm pretty sure I could fit a 2.6 tire. Would that help?
    That's what I would do. It's not so much a wider tire, but a taller tire that really helps smaller wheels roll through chunk.

    FWIW - I have 275er FS and 29er FS bikes. They definitely have a different ride feel, but it's not like one is markedly superior just due to the wheel size. I prefer 29ers at the moment, but if I had to ride the 275er for the rest of my MTB career it wouldn't bother me.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: natas1321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    557
    I prefer a 27.5 and have been on them for a couple of years now and enjoy climbing but rarely find myself limited or getting hung up due to tire size.

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    821
    Put a 29 up front and mullet the bike.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    I found that, on my 27.5 Yeti SB5, "brunch ride" - 160 fork, the tire combo that worked best for me was 2.6" Nobby Nics front and back. That's in the Wasatch and Moab. I set a whole bunch of climbing PR's on that set up.

    Actually, the only PR that still stands on the Yeti is with 27.5x2.6" Rocket Rons and a very light wheelset - ended up being impractical, but very fast.

    But, I feel your pain. I bought a Trance 29 and broke every other one of those PR's - about a dozen of them - within a year. Plus, cleaned downhills I never did on the Yeti.
    Haven't ridden the Yeti since, but I do have a nice spare for visitors!
    Haha, Strava. I made the mistake of loading Strava because some friends were using it. Now I feel like I have to care about my times. I don’t feel slower on the 27.5 but Stava shows that I am faster on the 29er. Maybe I should not pay attention and just enjoy the ride.

    Anyway, I think I’ll try wider tires. I figure that they might help getting over rocks and roots by being able to run a bit less tire pressure. My wheels are 30mm so I don’t know if a 2.6 would be too wide. I might try 2.6 in the front and 2.4 or 2.5 in the rear.

    For what it is worth, I like the bike. I am not criticizing the bike, I just don’t know if it was the best choice for the riding that I do.

  9. #9
    Hitching a ride
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,184
    On 27.5 2.6", I followed a friend of mine on 29 2.4" on a relatively long downhill where he coasted the entire way. I decided to do a test where I coasted too and observed if I gained on him or was left behind. As far as I could tell, we were identical speeds. He weighs about 10lbs more than me fwiw. If I did a little, and I mean a minuscule, amount of pumping, I'd close the gap rapidly.

    I think a lot of the "feel" of the 29 being faster is because the wheels have a higher inertia and the bike carries speed more. Notice I said the bike, not the rider.

    My 27.5 bikes FEEL more lively and fun than my 29 bikes. Yes, I have both.

    So, no, I don't regret them at all. In fact I ride them the most.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    I may be alone but I bought a new bike with 27.5" wheels. I like the bike overall but I find that I am faster on my 29er. I ride both and switch between them. I bought the 27.5 (Banshee Spitfire/140mm) for more aggressive downhills compared to my 120mm Trek Fuel EX. I like the robustness of the Banshee but I feel the tires get hung up more on roots and rocks when climbing and on flat areas.

    Anyone else have this issue? I'm 6'1" so the 29er would probably have made more sense for me. I am starting to think that I might wan't a longer travel 29er instead (140mm to 150mm). I would be lucky to get half of the price I paid for my bike, though, and it is only a few months old. I am wondering if moving up in tire width might make a difference. I have stock 27.5x2.35" tires. I'm pretty sure I could fit a 2.6 tire. Would that help?
    Are your main beefs the getting hung up in roots and rocks? If so, bigger wheels will help in that regard. They may role a bit slower but should clear stuff better. But you may have to ride the bike like a smaller wheeled bike - work to get it over things. 29ers can plough over things and "dull" the trail.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    857
    I do not care how fast I am---I ride for fun like most folks-----so for me I'd discount any perceived speed differential. I also do not think a 29er is your wheel size by your height---lots of tall folks ride both bikes and remember all of us rode 26 forever w/o complaining about wheel size. I think your issue is technique and the 27.5 is pointing it out-----most all of us need to work on this in some respect or other---and your probably are in with us.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bacon Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    I find the difference in 27.5 vs 29 to be minimal. If I am having an issue with a section of a trail, its me and not the wheel size. Geometry is going to have a bigger influence than tire size

    Also your suspension could be absorbing to much energy during your climbs, causing you to stall out over roots, instead of popping over the root, the suspension is compressing and robbing your forward motion

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Thanks guys. Any thoughts on switching the stock Schwalbe Hans Dampf 2.35 for Maxxis DHF 2.5 or 2.6? I have 30mm rims.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    Haha, Strava..
    That's actually a very fair criticism, and riding should be for fun. I ride with my 28 year old son, who is a massive 39 years younger than me. Nothing is more rewarding and fun than that. My motivation is to ride with him as fast and for as long as I'm able. I've even mastered "heaving" - dry or otherwise - without stopping Odd, I dress left but heave right.... anyway picking out gear (based on climb times) that can make that happen is worth the trouble to collect the data.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    That's actually a very fair criticism, and riding should be for fun. I ride with my 28 year old son, who is a massive 39 years younger than me. Nothing is more rewarding and fun than that. My motivation is to ride with him as fast and for as long as I'm able. I've even mastered "heaving" - dry or otherwise - without stopping Odd, I dress left but heave right.... anyway picking out gear (based on climb times) that can make that happen is worth the trouble to collect the data.
    Yeah, I still use it. I just try not to ride with strava results in mind too much. If I ride and don’t set any personal records, I don’t sweat it. I just notice my times tend to be about 5 percent faster overall on my other bike.

  16. #16
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,120
    OP...

    What's the enemy of good?

    Very similar situation. My 150/135 275 is built up with burly 2.6" tires, including a rear DHRII with the new EXO+. It's a rugged build that I use for back country type riding. Riding where traction and tough tires are needed. I ride it where its slick and wet. Its an aluminum bike that's not afraid of scratches and dings.

    The 275 is the mule.

    The 29 is more the race horse.

    The 29 is a shorter travel, slack new fangled plastic, light wonder bike. Built up lighter with faster tires that favor speed rather than grip. I like climbing tech as much as descending and on the more rugged, slick trails the 275 set up works much better. On the "manicured" trails the 29 smokes the 275 for out right speed.

    Would the 275 be better if it were a 29? With running such burly tires I'm thinking it might be too much of a good thing. Not sure. But as long as I have both bikes dialed and each is well suited to its intended use, think I'll keep it as is.


    What's the enemy of good?



    Better.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    108
    I don't have fun on a bike if I don't race the clock going down, against myself and now against every one with strava.

    it's a desease, an addiction, don't get caught in it.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    Thanks guys. Any thoughts on switching the stock Schwalbe Hans Dampf 2.35 for Maxxis DHF 2.5 or 2.6? I have 30mm rims.
    30mm inner width rims will run 2.6 no probs, the problem is if your fork and frame can support it.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,160
    Regret? Not me. I don't measure fun with a stopwatch. I'm digging my 2.6 set up.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    I may be alone but I bought a new bike with 27.5" wheels. I like the bike overall but I find that I am faster on my 29er. I ride both and switch between them. I bought the 27.5 (Banshee Spitfire/140mm) for more aggressive downhills compared to my 120mm Trek Fuel EX. I like the robustness of the Banshee but I feel the tires get hung up more on roots and rocks when climbing and on flat areas.

    Anyone else have this issue? I'm 6'1" so the 29er would probably have made more sense for me. I am starting to think that I might wan't a longer travel 29er instead (140mm to 150mm). I would be lucky to get half of the price I paid for my bike, though, and it is only a few months old. I am wondering if moving up in tire width might make a difference. I have stock 27.5x2.35" tires. I'm pretty sure I could fit a 2.6 tire. Would that help?
    As a general rule taller people do better on 29ers, and smaller on 27.5s. And also smaller people on smooth XC terrain go faster on 29ers. But it's not a hard and fast rule.

    Who knows where mullet bikes will fit in? Maybe style of riding? Truth is everything works pretty well these days and the only thing I wouldn't recommend is a 29er for a small female doing general trail riding.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,736
    I'm guessing you have buyers remorse because you believed the marketing that told you 650b had good rollover. Maybe you also believed 27.5" was the actual size when in reality it's 26.99. I don't work for Sram so we can round up to 27". The difference in attack angle is only .5" so if you found 26" to hang up 650b is going to feel very similar. If you wanted bigger wheel rollover when you bought a 650b I would have buyers remorse too. Sounds like you want 29, and bought the whole perfect middle child marketing BS. Don't feel bad, so did everyone else including me. Ever wonder why there's no more rollover and speed marketing for 650b? They've milked that cow. The industry has put 650b on the back burner and is focusing on 29'ers. I would say you are a good example of how effective marketing can be. You bought a 650b, now you're going to buy a 29'er. Maybe they'll market mullet's next year digging up the best of both worlds marketing campaign?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Fortunately, I already have a 29er so I don’t need to buy one. I do like the bike but I do think the 29er has benefits. If I could do it again, I’d buy a 29er with 140-150mm of travel. Oh well. I’m just going to enjoy the bike for now. It does handle well down hill and off jumps. I would take a huge loss if I sold it so I’ll just accept it. I am curious as to how the bigger tires might handle.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    I ordered new tires to try out. 2.6” for the front and 2.5 for the rear.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,005
    You stated that you’re getting hung up on rocks and roots while climbing and on flats so I assume it’s happening when you are pedaling. Correct?

    Could your experience have anything to do with the Banshee suspension design? I believe they are supposed to get firmer when pedaling (pedal induced anti-squat) so maybe this is partially what you are experiencing?

    29ers have better rollover... but you may be feeling the combined effects of less rollover AND suspension design.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fredcook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    632
    I don't think it's accurate to compare 27.5 and 29 on tire size alone. With few exceptions, a 27.5 and 29 bike also comes with a different frame, geo, ratios, etc. And in some cases, different purpose. It's not always apples to apples. Do we buy cars based only on tire size? If you like a smaller tires, it's going to be on a sedan. If you like larger tires, it's going to be on a truck. Tire size is only a part of why one vehicle is better suited for whatever situation than the other.

    I prefer 27.5, and used to think that 29" wheels just don't work as good for what I typically ride. But I've learned it's not 100% the wheel size. It's the bike's overall design. For what and how I like to ride, the geometry of a 27.5" trail bike suits me better. Wheel size is just a part of the equation.
    You didn't quit riding because you're old, you're old because you quit riding.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by mnigro View Post
    You stated that you’re getting hung up on rocks and roots while climbing and on flats so I assume it’s happening when you are pedaling. Correct?

    Could your experience have anything to do with the Banshee suspension design? I believe they are supposed to get firmer when pedaling (pedal induced anti-squat) so maybe this is partially what you are experiencing?

    29ers have better rollover... but you may be feeling the combined effects of less rollover AND suspension design.
    Maybe. I notice it at low speeds.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,029
    I dunno man...I have a Spitfire and a Evil Following. The Spitfire is the bike I use at bike parks and for shuttling. So far...I have yet to feel like it needs bigger wheels. I rode it at Mammoth last month...and there is nothing but rocks there. I have it on the low setting too. Bike rails. I could totally live with it as my only bike.

    Oh...I am running "2.6" tires on 29mm IW rims. Specialized Eliminator up front and a Michelin Force AM in the back. I would also double check your suspension setup too.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    372
    Banshee Spitfire is a great bike and you're set well to start with. I noted someone suggested earlier to Mullet the bike, and with the adjustment available on Banshee's you're more likely to get it to suit.

    Bigger tyres help at the front but you do lose out on some steering precision and feel. And of course depending on your fork, tyre clearance may be an issue.

    Depending on your fork you could change your air shaft and put more travel up front. It'll slacken off the bike a touch making the angle of attack the wheel and your mass meets obstacles at different = smoothing out some of the trail.

    I've overforked all my bikes for this very reason: Banshee Prime at 160mm front for example.

    I'm a similar height 1.93 / 6'4" in freedom units and have both FS 29 and FS 27.5. The longer travel bike is smaller wheeled and they're both great in their own way.

    Personally, I'd enjoy them for their differences and character.

    Are there any other elements of set up and ride which is making you feel unhappy with the Spitfire? Suspension settings and choice can be quite critical.

    Good luck!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by RS VR6 View Post
    I dunno man...I have a Spitfire and a Evil Following. The Spitfire is the bike I use at bike parks and for shuttling. So far...I have yet to feel like it needs bigger wheels. I rode it at Mammoth last month...and there is nothing but rocks there. I have it on the low setting too. Bike rails. I could totally live with it as my only bike.

    Oh...I am running "2.6" tires on 29mm IW rims. Specialized Eliminator up front and a Michelin Force AM in the back. I would also double check your suspension setup too.
    Thanks. I think some of it is getting used to the feel of it. I have been riding 29ers for about 10 years. I have the 2.6 for the front and 2.5 for the rear arriving shortly. Maybe those will make a difference.

    Regarding a mullet, it’s a Rockshox Pike with boost. It has room for width but not height. It rides okay so I wouldn’t go that route anyway.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,029
    I'd give it some time to get used to the bike. The shock tune is different from the 120mm that's on your Fex. The Spitfire feels like a completely different bike than my Following. The Spitty is smoother over hard hits than my 120mm Following. Take some time to dial in you suspension. IMO...wheel size isn't the big difference people make it out to be. Frame geo, suspension adjustment, tires are all more important than the wheel size you ride.

  31. #31
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,642
    27.5 for me, rocks

    on any particular ride, there may be 4 or 5 spots I'd say 'gee if I had a 29'er I'd roll thru this easier'...sure...but on the same ride there are a thousand tight turns and loving the smaller 27.5 to pick thru it. otherwise it rolls over everything else the same...dumped my 29'er years ago and haven't looked back
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    Thanks guys. Any thoughts on switching the stock Schwalbe Hans Dampf 2.35 for Maxxis DHF 2.5 or 2.6? I have 30mm rims.
    Sorry it sounds like I'm late to reply to this, but I am happily running DHF / DHR2 2.6 combo on my Troy for about a year and a half now after switching from 2.3 hans dampf front and back. I'm sort of in a similar boat to you - I'm a taller guy 6'2" and would probably be better overall on a 29er. But I got a couldn't-pass-up deal on my 27.5. Bumping up from 2.3 to 2.6, I felt, livened up the bike and definitely helped the roll-over capability. That's on 29mm internal rims (stans flow mk3)

    I think you will enjoy your new tires.

  33. #33
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    I ordered new tires to try out. 2.6” for the front and 2.5 for the rear.

    That's a good choice. I find Maxxis 2.6" tires to be "puffy" - super supple and great but when really weighting and pushing the bike they fold and get loosey goosey. A 2.5 out back, while not offering the same small bump cush, nor nice roll, they can be pushed a lot harder.

    But...

    Maxxis recently added the EXO+ to their 2.6 tires and I replaced my rear 2.5 Minion with a 2.6 EXO +. Works well. A happy medium between the feel of a 2.5 and an EXO 2.6. Not the best RR but grippy and can be run at lower pressures to get that nice small bump cush.

  34. #34
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,706
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    27.5 for me, rocks

    on any particular ride, there may be 4 or 5 spots I'd say 'gee if I had a 29'er I'd roll thru this easier'...sure...but on the same ride there are a thousand tight turns and loving the smaller 27.5 to pick thru it. otherwise it rolls over everything else the same...dumped my 29'er years ago and haven't looked back
    +1

    I'm quite content with my Evil Calling and Santa Cruz Nomad. My suspension is well tuned and I have no problems with compromised "roll over"

    I have no gripes with the new generation 29ers, but feel absolutely no urge to switch platforms.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    26
    Sometimes it's a mental thing, especially going from 29" where you feel more confident rolling over things. I went from 29" to 27.5" and found myself (mentally) slightly hesitating over things that I shot over on my 29er. Once I got used to the 27.5 I found I was just as fast and if not more so.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    7
    I just bought a 2020 Trek Roscoe 7, 27.5 x 2.8 and absolutely love it. I am new to mountain biking come from a motocross background. The wider plus tire seems to help quite a bit on confidence. Maybe installing a bash guard would give you more confidence in getting over some of those larger obstacles. I also added some more psi in the air fork to be a little more stiff which I felt held as well. Finding a large obstacle and sessioning on it is a good practice as well so when you come across something like it while out riding doesn’t slow you down. Good luck and ride on!

  37. #37
    Maxxis cult follower
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,837
    I'm guessing you have buyers remorse because you believed the marketing that told you 650b had good rollover. Maybe you also believed 27.5" was the actual size when in reality it's 26.99. I don't work for Sram so we can round up to 27".

    I've had 27.5 x 2.1, 2.35, 2.5, 2.6 tires, none of them measured under 27 inches, I have no idea what you are talking about. They all measured between 27.3 to 27.8 inches (I originally thought the 27.5 x 2.6 was 28.2 inches but that was not a direct measurement, it was an extrapolation from the difference in the fork arch measurement between two different tires).



    The difference in attack angle is only .5" so if you found 26" to hang up 650b is going to feel very similar.

    A 26 x 1.95 tire is smaller than 26 inches, it's 25.5 inches. That's because it's not really a mountain bike tire, it's basically a hybrid tire that only has about a 1/2 inch of casing and then 'some' tread on the top. If you go to a real 26 x 2.1 or 2.25 tire, it will jump up to 26.2 to 26.3 inches, it will jump up from 25.5 inches immediately, because they have a real mountain bike casing of 1+ inches. The casing diameter is the main difference. No 27.5 mountain bike tires have a casing that's only 1/2 inch in diameter, that's not a mountain bike tire to begin with so that's not a fair argument.



    If you wanted bigger wheel rollover when you bought a 650b I would have buyers remorse too. Sounds like you want 29, and bought the whole perfect middle child marketing BS. Don't feel bad, so did everyone else including me. Ever wonder why there's no more rollover and speed marketing for 650b? They've milked that cow. The industry has put 650b on the back burner and is focusing on 29'ers. I would say you are a good example of how effective marketing can be. You bought a 650b, now you're going to buy a 29'er. Maybe they'll market mullet's next year digging up the best of both worlds marketing campaign?

    27.5's were invented to satisfy a large segment of the MTB population that wanted a FUN, tossable bike like the 26" but with better rollover. 27.5's also are a sanctuary for that endangered species known as the hardtail. A 27.5 hardtail retains the purist performance and connected feel of yesteryear's 26" XC bike, with better geometry, forks, tires, and clearance. That is not a marketing campaign, it's the truth.
    We ALL have something to learn here. Post helpful solutions instead of flaming for your own sadistic need.

  38. #38
    shredthögnar
    Reputation: bike_futurist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    74
    I dont buy the whole "29er is fast and boring race thing". For me rolling effortlesly over square roots and edges is fast AND feels fun also

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by bike_futurist View Post
    I dont buy the whole "29er is fast and boring race thing". For me rolling effortlesly over square roots and edges is fast AND feels fun also
    I agree. I love my 29er. I rode my Banshee last night and had a lot of fun on it. I did hit a series of square rocks 3 the shaped like cinder blocks on a small rise with each of the big rocks about 3 feet apart) that stopped my momentum at one point where I would have made it with my 29er. If I had reacted quicker and gotten my front wheel up I would have been able to get through. That was on me really.

    Anyway, I am coming around to the bike. It handles tight turns a bit better than my Fuel EX. I have wider tires being delivered today but I won't have time to mount them until next week.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I'm guessing you have buyers remorse because you believed the marketing that told you 650b had good rollover. Maybe you also believed 27.5" was the actual size when in reality it's 26.99. I don't work for Sram so we can round up to 27".

    I've had 27.5 x 2.1, 2.35, 2.5, 2.6 tires, none of them measured under 27 inches, I have no idea what you are talking about. They all measured between 27.3 to 27.8 inches (I originally thought the 27.5 x 2.6 was 28.2 inches but that was not a direct measurement, it was an extrapolation from the difference in the fork arch measurement between two different tires).



    The difference in attack angle is only .5" so if you found 26" to hang up 650b is going to feel very similar.

    A 26 x 1.95 tire is smaller than 26 inches, it's 25.5 inches. That's because it's not really a mountain bike tire, it's basically a hybrid tire that only has about a 1/2 inch of casing and then 'some' tread on the top. If you go to a real 26 x 2.1 or 2.25 tire, it will jump up to 26.2 to 26.3 inches, it will jump up from 25.5 inches immediately, because they have a real mountain bike casing of 1+ inches. The casing diameter is the main difference. No 27.5 mountain bike tires have a casing that's only 1/2 inch in diameter, that's not a mountain bike tire to begin with so that's not a fair argument.



    If you wanted bigger wheel rollover when you bought a 650b I would have buyers remorse too. Sounds like you want 29, and bought the whole perfect middle child marketing BS. Don't feel bad, so did everyone else including me. Ever wonder why there's no more rollover and speed marketing for 650b? They've milked that cow. The industry has put 650b on the back burner and is focusing on 29'ers. I would say you are a good example of how effective marketing can be. You bought a 650b, now you're going to buy a 29'er. Maybe they'll market mullet's next year digging up the best of both worlds marketing campaign?

    27.5's were invented to satisfy a large segment of the MTB population that wanted a FUN, tossable bike like the 26" but with better rollover. 27.5's also are a sanctuary for that endangered species known as the hardtail. A 27.5 hardtail retains the purist performance and connected feel of yesteryear's 26" XC bike, with better geometry, forks, tires, and clearance. That is not a marketing campaign, it's the truth.
    good info

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    30
    It's way more than just the wheel size. It's geo, suspension kinematics, tire size, etc. It's also way more about the rider, the rider's skill, and riding style than just "the bike". I know fast dudes who are fast on both wheel sizes, and slow dudes who are slow on both.

    I like the 27.5 because it rewards a more physical riding style, forces better technique, and absolutely rails corners and jumps. Ride the kind of bike that compliments your riding style and feels the most fun!

    FWIW, I find that I'm faster climbing technical stuff on the smaller wheels. It just feels easier to pick smart lines and lift the front wheel up over stuff.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by bike_futurist View Post
    I dont buy the whole "29er is fast and boring race thing". For me rolling effortlesly over square roots and edges is fast AND feels fun also
    Yes, fun is relative. What I don't find fun is how so many new trails are smooth machine built, and older trails have been sanitized with braided go arounds everywhere. Its just so ironic that in the era of big wheels, and very capable bikes, we are seeing so many areas dumbed down.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    442
    I’ve got both. The smoother the trail the more I like the 27.5. The more roots and rocks the better the 29er feels. It usually takes me a ride or two get used to it and then it’s not a big deal. I do seem to stuff the front wheel on the 27.5 a bit more on spots where the 29 just rolls. I’m 6’3”. Long term plans for the 27.5 are to get some wider rims and run a tall 2.4. Should be the perfect compromise.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: armii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    784
    if it will fit, the frame and fork will be fine with it.

  45. #45
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,901
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    I'm guessing you have buyers remorse because you believed the marketing that told you 650b had good rollover. Maybe you also believed 27.5" was the actual size when in reality it's 26.99. I don't work for Sram so we can round up to 27".
    If 559mm ISO Bead Seat Diameter is being called "26", and 622mm ISO BSD is being called "29", then 584mm ISO BSD (650b) would be "27.19"

    650b is 39.68% of the way between 26er and 29er.

    I guess "27.2" just did not have the same appeal.

    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    The difference in attack angle is only .5".....
    Not sure what this means. Angles are not measured in inches.
    Last edited by kapusta; 3 Weeks Ago at 06:11 AM.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,436
    Funny, my bike with Knight enduro wheels mounted with Schwalbe 2.35 Hans Dampf tires, measure 28".
    I'm not a believer that 29ers are faster all around. Sure they are faster in some conditions and 27.5 are faster in some conditions, hell, 26ers are faster in some conditions.
    Ride what you like best, don't believe the hype, ride what suits you best.
    EXODUX Jeff

  47. #47
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    good info
    No, it’s not. Not at all...

    “The difference in attack angle is only .5" so if you found 26" to hang up 650b is going to feel very similar.”

    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    A 26 x 1.95 tire is smaller than 26 inches, it's 25.5 inches. That's because it's not really a mountain bike tire, it's basically a hybrid tire that only has about a 1/2 inch of casing and then 'some' tread on the top. If you go to a real 26 x 2.1 or 2.25 tire, it will jump up to 26.2 to 26.3 inches, it will jump up from 25.5 inches immediately, because they have a real mountain bike casing of 1+ inches. The casing diameter is the main difference. No 27.5 mountain bike tires have a casing that's only 1/2 inch in diameter, that's not a mountain bike tire to begin with so that's not a fair argument.
    First of all, why are you bringing up 1.95” wide tires. WTF?

    Second, a 26x1.95 that measures 1.95” wide comes out to 25.9” in diameter.
    This chart here is super accurate, but you need to actually measure the width of the tire not use what it says on the side wall. Been using this for years.
    https://www.bikecalc.com/wheel_size_math
    I have many original gum wall tires from the late 80’s to early 90’s and even the smallest 1.95” wide have casing over 1.5”. No idea what 1.95” mtb tire had only a 1/2” casing. Maybe you care to share?

    Regardless, the rollover difference of 27.5” vs a 26” is only .5” or 12mm so not sure why you claim that what slimat99 said is not a fair argument. What he said is 100% accurate.

    The reason 26” tires are called that is because a 2” wide tire (common size bitd) on a 559mm rim measures out to 26”. For reference a 2” wide tire on a 584mm rim measures 27” and a 2” wide tire on a 622mm rim measures 28.5”. (28.5” diameter is just a little less than what a 27.5x2.8” measures out to so that size is basically a 29er as well)

    So a 26” is one inch smaller that a 27.5 which is 1.5” smaller in diameter than a 29er. Divide the difference in half and you get the rollover difference between sizes.


    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    27.5's were invented to satisfy a large segment of the MTB population that wanted a FUN, tossable bike like the 26" but with better rollover.
    Again, just 12mm difference in rollover between a 26” and not a significant difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    27.5's also are a sanctuary for that endangered species known as the hardtail.
    That is really funny. Have you actually looked at hardtails that are currently available?
    Most of the “new” 27.5ers are actually 29er frames with high volume 27.5” tires that measure the same diameter as a 29x2.1” tire. Take a look at the new guy on this thread who just bought a trek Roscoe with 27.5x2.8” tires. That is a 29er frame with high volume tires to get the same diameter as a 29x2.1 to get the minimum clearance to fit the frame. The new specialized fuze 27.5” is the same thing, it’s a 29er in disguise.

    The 27.5” hardtail hardly exists anymore and is nothing of a “sanctuary” for the hardtail as almost all hardtails are 29ers. Just think XC. Ain’t no one racing on a 27.5” hardtail xc bike yet hardtail xc bikes are very common and in no way “endangered”. The 27.5” hardtail and more and more the 27.5 full sus is very much an “endangered species” though.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPA Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    Haha, Strava. I made the mistake of loading Strava because some friends were using it. Now I feel like I have to care about my times. I don’t feel slower on the 27.5 but Stava shows that I am faster on the 29er. Maybe I should not pay attention and just enjoy the ride.
    Yep...When I got a 29er I was faster on everything, and had less fun...there are now lots of fun 29ers, but I love my new 5010...super fun bike and I don't watch the clock because I'm too busy enjoying the ride..
    Riding: '91 Carbon Epic Stumpjumper w/1" Slicks and a Rack on the Back

  49. #49
    Coffee Drinker
    Reputation: Taildragger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by IPA Rider View Post
    Yep...When I got a 29er I was faster on everything, and had less fun...there are now lots of fun 29ers, but I love my new 5010...super fun bike and I don't watch the clock because I'm too busy enjoying the ride..
    My sentiments exactly! Are we twins?

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AF2NR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by IPA Rider View Post
    Yep...When I got a 29er I was faster on everything, and had less fun...there are now lots of fun 29ers, but I love my new 5010...super fun bike and I don't watch the clock because I'm too busy enjoying the ride..
    +2, same boat for me!
    So many trails, so little time.

    2019 Santa Cruz 5010 C S, 140/130

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    If 559mm ISO Bead Seat Diameter is being called "26", and 622mm ISO BSD is being called "29", then 584mm ISO BSD (650b) would be "27.19"

    650b is 39.68% of the way between 26er and 29er.

    I guess "27.2" just did not have the same appeal.


    Not sure what this means. Angles are not measured in inches.
    559mm-584mm= 25mm. 25.4mm=1"

    There's technically less than one full inch difference between what we call 26" and 27.5" rims.

    There's no sense in talking about rim and tire size because volume varies so much even when comparing the same sizes to each other. Attack angle is just what people say. Have you heard it referred to as something different? Angle of attack maybe? At any rate, I'm sure you know it's the radius that matters so we half the rim size.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post

    The 27.5” hardtail hardly exists anymore and is nothing of a “sanctuary” for the hardtail as almost all hardtails are 29ers. Just think XC. Ain’t no one racing on a 27.5” hardtail xc bike yet hardtail xc bikes are very common and in no way “endangered”.
    Yeah for real. Basically no XC hardtails are 27.5 and while there are some aggressive 27.5 that aren't plus they are hardly the norm. I mean there are the Chromag Samurai, Stylus and Wideangle, Ragley Piglet, Blue Pig and Marley, Cotic Soul and BFE and BTR offers most of their bikes in a 27.5 option but for each of those companies they have more models of 29 then 27.5.
    Ragley Big Wig, Sunday Soundwave (BMX), Nashbar CXSS (workout)

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I'm guessing you have buyers remorse because you believed the marketing that told you 650b had good rollover. Maybe you also believed 27.5" was the actual size when in reality it's 26.99. I don't work for Sram so we can round up to 27".

    I've had 27.5 x 2.1, 2.35, 2.5, 2.6 tires, none of them measured under 27 inches, I have no idea what you are talking about. They all measured between 27.3 to 27.8 inches (I originally thought the 27.5 x 2.6 was 28.2 inches but that was not a direct measurement, it was an extrapolation from the difference in the fork arch measurement between two different tires).



    The difference in attack angle is only .5" so if you found 26" to hang up 650b is going to feel very similar.

    A 26 x 1.95 tire is smaller than 26 inches, it's 25.5 inches. That's because it's not really a mountain bike tire, it's basically a hybrid tire that only has about a 1/2 inch of casing and then 'some' tread on the top. If you go to a real 26 x 2.1 or 2.25 tire, it will jump up to 26.2 to 26.3 inches, it will jump up from 25.5 inches immediately, because they have a real mountain bike casing of 1+ inches. The casing diameter is the main difference. No 27.5 mountain bike tires have a casing that's only 1/2 inch in diameter, that's not a mountain bike tire to begin with so that's not a fair argument.



    If you wanted bigger wheel rollover when you bought a 650b I would have buyers remorse too. Sounds like you want 29, and bought the whole perfect middle child marketing BS. Don't feel bad, so did everyone else including me. Ever wonder why there's no more rollover and speed marketing for 650b? They've milked that cow. The industry has put 650b on the back burner and is focusing on 29'ers. I would say you are a good example of how effective marketing can be. You bought a 650b, now you're going to buy a 29'er. Maybe they'll market mullet's next year digging up the best of both worlds marketing campaign?

    27.5's were invented to satisfy a large segment of the MTB population that wanted a FUN, tossable bike like the 26" but with better rollover. 27.5's also are a sanctuary for that endangered species known as the hardtail. A 27.5 hardtail retains the purist performance and connected feel of yesteryear's 26" XC bike, with better geometry, forks, tires, and clearance. That is not a marketing campaign, it's the truth.
    I'm glad you find 650b to roll better for you. I've been riding bikes with HA's south of 66 going back to 06 so I wasn't impressed with 650b's rollover that just so happened to come along with slacker HA's. Not sure what the formula is but my guess is 1 degree of HA has as much or more impact on front attack angle than 1" of wheel size. I'm not bashing 650b, it's what I ride, but I'm not trying to act like it was some kind of game changer. Regardless of our opinions, the facts are there's only 1" difference in rim size between 26 and 27.5. Of course marketing the actual differences wouldn't have had the same impact as 27.5 which just so happens to sit perfectly in the middle of the 26 vs 29 war.

    I encourage you to look at actual numbers, and factor in geo. There's no need to get in a tizzy over wheel size. It's just a number. A number that doesn't mean nearly as much to how a bike handles as people seem to think. Ride a 29'er with a 70 HA and a 26'er with a 65 HA and tell me which one maintains speed through chunk better.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,236
    Interesting points. I must admit, lately I've noticed how my 29er just mows over trail to such an extent that it doesn't seem quite as engaging.

    I've improved a lot as a rider and that's part of it but I'm going a lot faster overall as a rider and a big part of it is the capability of my Foxy 29.

    Would be fun to hop on a 27.5" again and compare back to back.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    6
    I am 6’1”, 190lbs, 53 years old and don’t care how fast I’m going. I prefer 27.5 because I can move the bike around a lot easier. On a 29 it was easier to get over/up some silly technical stuff but I hated the feeling of having the bike dictate the line instead of me. In the end though I got my current ride because it was available and a really good deal.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    174
    I can’t wait until next year when they come out with the 31ers.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,435
    I use Strava to track mileage and elevation gains on rides. It helps to be able to send the routes to friends when needed as well. I don't buy the "I'm faster on this bike because Strava says so" argument. There are too many variables involved. Some days you feel good and push yourself more, maybe there was wind to push you or maybe there was a headwind. Maybe you're riding with faster friends vs solo. That being said, if your sole purpose is to go faster, I think 29ers are faster for most people.

    I usually have both and generally pick a bike based on where I'm riding that day. I like 27.5 bikes in Sedona and Hurricane but prefer the 29er if I know I'm going to be climbing a lot as in Crested Butte, some ares of Oregon, etc. I will say I picked up the 160/145 travel Ripmo in July and I'm more impressed every time I ride it. Taking it to Phil's World in Cortez, CO tomorrow, another area I usually stick to a 27.5 so I'll be interested to see how it goes.
    Carpe Diem!!

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justwan naride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    687
    I spent last weekend testing my 27.5 slack hardtail with a borrowed 29" fork and wheel. I definitely noticed the increased rollover and stability that 29ers are known for. On the roughest, steep, loose & bumpy trails I felt safer. Strava says I was faster too.

    On the other hand, I felt more like a passenger, and bike felt like it grew half a size (can't explain why but it honestly felt that way). On the mellower trails I was faster again, but there was less trail feel.

    So there are positives and negatives, depending on what you want from your bike. I like feeling the trail, that's why I ride hardtails. I rarely race, and I'm not really competitive by nature. I did enjoy some of the extra stability though, it was really helpfull when I was out of my depth.

    Something else I've noticed before, but never see it mentioned, is that a heavier tyre will add stability and momentum to your ride, regardless of wheelsize. I first noticed when in an emergency I had to mount a 1250gr tyre on the front of my old twitchy XC 26er. Its steering calmed down significantly and I was able to carry speed more easily over series of obstacles.

    That's why I decided to make a few changes in order to find a happy middle ground. My plan is to get a wide front rim and a 1000-1100gr 2.6 tyre. Compared to the 750-900gr 2.3-2.4s I usually use as a front this will add some rollover and stability at speed.

  59. #59
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Dung Hopper View Post
    I can’t wait until next year when they come out with the 31ers.
    I'm thinking you'll get the hang of each bike personality traits and finesse the differences in the way you ride, climb, hop and plow through or pop over things.
    Dumb it all down so the fractions of an inch, mm, frame geo and engineering hoopla are left in the wind.
    IMO- Your answers are on the trail and it's Drivers Ed just like any of us as we learn a new bike as it's characteristics.

    The trails and experience speak to you through bike feedback. It's kinesis and you'll do good to quickly focus on how each bike differs by variations in strengths and technique, and not thinking which is right or wrong.
    Have fun with it and btw,, you have the right idea playing with various tires.
    bachman must spread some Reputation around before giving it to himself again. :madman:


  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    352
    I'm 50 6'3"~ and currently riding a 2018 Trance adv 2 (XL Frame) 27.5 w/ Maxxis 2.6"DHF front and Aggressor 2.5" Rear... I'm well pleased with this bike... if I'm honest I give exactly zero f's about being fast... I only care about having fun.. (and not crashing... quoting my dr. when I asked about if I can still mtb with my arthritis "well sure.. just don't crash" )

    This bike is fun and I can move about on the bike easily... which is good as I have arthritis in back /neck /knees/ hands..etc you get the idea..

    I rode the 29 Trance as well... I preferred the 27.5 and I don't regret the choice at all.. even at 6'3" ... to some extent given my age and other factors I appreciate the ease of moving around on the bike more than I would appreciate the "fastness" ..rollover....etc of the 29er.

    if your bike can fit it try the 2.6... I had 2.35 High Roller II's before.. I much prefer the 2.6 DHF /2.5 Aggressor combo.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,658
    There are no general rules like taller people do better with taller wheels, that's nonsense.

    Taller wheels carve a big radius than smaller wheels, so they tend to track better in a straight line and have marginally better obstacle "bridging", but to be honest, terrain is so variable in mountain biking that the benefits of one wheel size are a detriment in a different scenario.

    In reality, what you choose should be based on what you ride. I have 29 and 27.5 bikes, I prefer the 27.5 for tech, chunder, riding things that make me nervous. I have ridden long travel 29ers in these same conditions and at times they are fine for going straight, but I'd take 27.5 over a 29er for anything other than XC or flow.

    In flow, depending on the tightness of the turns, a 29er can be too big and long, like this past weekend when I rode Standford Rock on Lake Tahoe. So yeah, 27.5 rules.

    If you're struggling with climbing on a 27.5 Banshee Spitfire vs a Trek Fuel EX, that probably has more to do with suspension and geo, ie get a 29er with travel and geo like the Spitfire and you'd have the same complaints.

    That ^ said, who wants to ride a Fuel EX on a downhill? I ride a 36# full coil 27.5 enduro bike up and downhill, it's heavy, it's not the best bike for climbing, but on the down it is the schizzle!
    Guerilla Gravity Shred Dogg
    Fezzari Signal Peak (For Sale)
    Pivot Shuttle (wife's)

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    118
    I used to ride 27.5 x 2.5 with minion/aggressor combo, was great for downhill and technical but made me hate climbing.
    I have since switched to 27.5 x 2.6 ardent race and now the bike is just so much more livelier and feels nicer for climbing, I think the 2.6 is a taller tire too so rollover is great.
    The only tradeoff for me is it carries more speed so I have to adjust on turns since more speed + less traction makes tendency to skid more, but nothing you won't adapt to eventually.

Similar Threads

  1. Buyers beware!!! Scam sites
    By magixuser in forum Where are the Best Deals?
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-08-2011, 10:28 AM
  2. Buyers and sellers,
    By dvo1 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 03:22 PM
  3. Buyers remorse already?
    By st-rider in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-11-2011, 08:11 AM
  4. Indy Fab Buyers Beware!
    By jonfrieds in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 04-06-2011, 09:55 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-17-2011, 01:05 PM

Members who have read this thread: 448

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.