Which frame? Nukeproof Scout 290 vs. Scout 275...

[Nubster]

Looking at building an more aggressive hardtail and the Nukeproof Scout has caught my attention. There's two options with slightly different geo numbers between the two...I am quite clueless when it comes to reading and understanding the affect of many of the numbers so I was hoping someone could help decipher what I might expect from each frame.

Both seem to be essentially the same with these differences:

290 - Effective Top Tube....671.1
275 - Effective Top Tube....662.3

290 - Wheelbase....1226.6
275 - Wheelbase....1215.8

290 - Chainstay....440
275 - Chainstay....435

290 - Bottom Bracket Drop....-70
275 - Bottom Bracket Drop....-50

290 - Fork....130mm
275 - Fork....140mm

From what I can tell...both frames will take 27.5 wheels up to 2.8" which is what I'm probably going to run with. Not sure if the 275 will take 29" wheel though. I have an email into Nukeproof to find out. I'd like a frame that could run both to have some options but it's not a deal killer if I can't, if the 275 geo is better for my riding.

290...




275...

[kpdemello]

Wouldn't mind someone else chiming in but, from my limited knowledge, it looks like the 275 has shorter chainstays and a smaller wheel base so it should in theory be more nimble and easier to maneuver. The 290 however having a larger wheelbase should be a bit more stable in big stuff.

However the differences are only about 1cm so it's not going to be a huge, noticeable difference, I suspect. I'm thinking it depends on what you want to ride. If you are riding aggressive stuff, maybe go with the 290 frame. If less aggressive, and more flowy/windy stuff, go with the 275.

But i'd like to hear someone else's perspective.

[Sparticus]

I'll just add that after owning a bike that could accommodate both 29" wheels and 27.5+ wheels and riding it for a solid year, I came to believe that frames are optimized for one or the other. In the case of my Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol, while both wheels were fun in different ways, I found that steering felt just a little wonky while my 27.5x3" tires were aboard (compared to 29x2.6" tires).

I wonder if this has to do with trail (this kind of trail, not this kind of trail) or other aspects of steering geometry that I don't understand very well. Anyway if the Scout 275 will accommodate the wheels & tires you want to use, I'd get that frame. Regarding frame dimensions & geometry, everything will be dialed for that wheel size, right down to BB height. My expectation is that handling will be optimized.

On the other hand, if you want to run 29" wheels, get the 29" frame. Personally I won't buy another bike that's made to accept both wheel sizes. IMO there's no need; one size or the other will prevail as your favorite anyway.
=sParty

[Nubster]

Yeah...neither frame is available anywhere so I guess it doesn't matter in this case...but still good info to know for the future.

[kpdemello]

Looks like chain reaction cycles has some, depending on your size and color choices

[Nubster]

I can find the red ones but I don't like the color. No black anywhere that I can find. Need XL.

[targnik]

I'm the proud owner of a '17 Nukeproof Scout 290 & it's my favorite bike I've owned to date ^^

Concur with others sentiments, the smaller 275 will likely be more poppy/playful (depending on tires you run).

The 290 is still super fun though.

Mine doesn't have boost spacing, so a true 2.4 tire is about as big as I could run out back.

FYI - I run a 140mm fork on my 290 & it's perfect! Slackened it out a little more + extra forgiveness up front on an AM HT is a bonus.

Currently it's Winter down here & I'm running a Butcher 2.6 up front & a Wild AM 2.35 out back. Bike feels super jacked in this config.

If I'm feeling (or racing) a little more trail/xc, I chuck on a 2.35 Hans Dampf & Panaracer Rampage 2.35. The nature of the bike changes totally.

My frame can easily take a 170mm dropper post, so keep this in mind (possibly 180mm).

I'll likely upgrade my non boost 140mm fork, for a MRP Ribbon boost @140mm -by years end. Clearances are tight w/ a 2.6 tire on a 15x100 fork >.<

Go with what you feel you'll enjoy more... A 275 with wide rims & true 2.6 tires would be wicked!


'Born to ride!'

[scottzg]

If one wanted to translate the differences in to on-trail experience, the 29er will favor a wheels-on-the-ground riding style even more than the wheel size suggests. If you plan on running 2.8s that may not be an issue because plus tires don't feel too great being lofted and smashed around anyway.

[hambocairns]

How does the cushioning compare between the 27.5x2.6 and the 29x2.35 (as the bikes are shipped)?

I'm 6'5" and I ride a 650b hardtail (Giant Talon) and I prefer a wheels on the ground type of ride.

[ocnLogan]

How does the cushioning compare between the 27.5x2.6 and the 29x2.35 (as the bikes are shipped)?

I'm 6'5" and I ride a 650b hardtail (Giant Talon) and I prefer a wheels on the ground type of ride.

As luck would have it, I created a thread asking this exact question, for the same exact bikes not all that long ago.

https://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-p...h-1091918.html

The short version, is that the 2.6in 27.5+ tire has ~16% more air volume than the 2.35in 29'er. So, in theory, the 27.5+ tire should be a bit cushier.

Here is the math, if you want to fact check/play around with other tire sizes, etc.

2.6in wide 27.5 tire: 27.5 * (2.6/2)^2 = 46.475
2.35in wide 29 tire: 29 * (2.35/2)^2 = 40.03

(46.475- 40.03)/40.03 = 0.161.

However, the plus tire also has a slightly smaller diameter, so it may not quite roll over rocks/roots as well as the 29'er... but then again, the 27.5+ tire may actually roll over things a bit easier, as it should be running at lower pressure, and should conform to the same rocks/roots easier. It also depends on the exact tires, and a bunch of other things.

Myself, I think the math above is likely a roughly accurate descriptor. I'd expect the plus tire to ride a bit cushier, because of the larger air volume, which allows for lower pressure.

WHEW sorry, that was a lot. Hopefully it makes sense though .

[hambocairns]

Wow comprehensive!

I'm leaning more towards the 29er now, especially as I can upgrade to a 29x2.5 later on.

[sennaster]

Having owned and sold a 290 frame i can say that with such an extreme BB drop ( -70 ) it would be nearly unridable if you tried to run 27.5+ wheels.

I had a lot of pedal strikes. Even on some super mellow trails i would hit pedals in the dirt if i was pedaling through some corners with 29x2.4. I can’t imagine making it lower.

[ocnLogan]

Having owned and sold a 290 frame i can say that with such an extreme BB drop ( -70 ) it would be nearly unridable if you tried to run 27.5+ wheels.

I had a lot of pedal strikes. Even on some super mellow trails i would hit pedals in the dirt if i was pedaling through some corners with 29x2.4. I can’t imagine making it lower.

Yeah, I think he was talking about buying the 275 model if he wanted to go plus sized. The 290 has 20mm more BB drop (-70mm vs -50mm), as you say, would probably be problematic with 27.5+ wheels/tires.

What size cranks did you have on it?

I'm still not decided on 29 or 27.5+, but I'm leaning towards 27.5+ for the extra cushion at the moment.

[sennaster]

Yeah, I think he was talking about buying the 275 model if he wanted to go plus sized. The 290 has 20mm more BB drop (-70mm vs -50mm), as you say, would probably be problematic with 27.5+ wheels/tires.

What size cranks did you have on it?

I'm still not decided on 29 or 27.5+, but I'm leaning towards 27.5+ for the extra cushion at the moment.

170s.

I swapped all those parts to a Kona Big Honzo with a 55mm drop and have been happier. I’ve only run it with 29s, but have some 27.5+ wheels out for delivery right now. I’ve only ridden 27.5+ once, but it was on a full squish. I think it’ll make for a fun hardtail and this will differentiate it from my main FS bike even more.

[ocnLogan]

170s.

I swapped all those parts to a Kona Big Honzo with a 55mm drop and have been happier. I’ve only run it with 29s, but have some 27.5+ wheels out for delivery right now. I’ve only ridden 27.5+ once, but it was on a full squish. I think it’ll make for a fun hardtail and this will differentiate it from my main FS bike even more.

Thanks for the info. The scout is spec'd with 170's, which is a bit shorter than the more common 175, which was why I asked. I'm more suprised/interested to hear that you had that many even with the recommended length crankset on there.

Sounds like even if you're wanting to ride 29 in wheels/tires, the 275 frame may be the better choice. As -50mm of drop is more manageable for pedal strikes.

[sennaster]

Thanks for the info. The scout is spec'd with 170's, which is a bit shorter than the more common 175, which was why I asked. I'm more suprised/interested to hear that you had that many even with the recommended length crankset on there.

Sounds like even if you're wanting to ride 29 in wheels/tires, the 275 frame may be the better choice. As -50mm of drop is more manageable for pedal strikes.

-70 is extremely low compared to most everything similar, maybe they don’t have rocks in the UK?

I asked the US importer if 29s would fit on the 275 and his only response was “why does everyone keep asking me that?” I almost ordered the 275, but wasn’t sure if they’d fit. The chainstay length would indicate yes, but the slack seat tube angle could potentially interfere and i couldn’t find anyone to confirm.



They fit on my Big Honzo, with a short CS, but it’s SA is also steeper, so more room there

[SlowRoller1]

Does anyone here tried 29er -> 275 frame? I think 29x2.3 is ok and there is good clearance, if chainstays are too stiff. I dont have this frame, but i thinking to buy it.

[Nubster]

I lost track of this thread. After not being able to find a frame to order I ended up, and quite happily I'll add, with a Norco Torrent HT. It's been a phenomenal bike and I absolutely love it.

[wiciman]

I can confirm that the 2018 Scout 275 rear triangle does indeed accommodate 29" wheels. No problems what so ever with clearance running 2.35 tyres.

Does anyone here tried 29er -> 275 frame? I think 29x2.3 is ok and there is good clearance, if chainstays are too stiff. I dont have this frame, but i thinking to buy it.

[TB7]

I've following this thread & am torn between the Scout 290 & 275 frame to swap for my Timberjack. Do you think there's enough room to clear a 2.6 29er tire on the 275? Can you post images or list tire clearance measurements with the 29x2.35 tire? Thanks.

[seat_boy]

What makes you want to change from the Timberjack to the Nukeproof?

I've following this thread & am torn between the Scout 290 & 275 frame to swap for my Timberjack. Do you think there's enough room to clear a 2.6 29er tire on the 275? Can you post images or list tire clearance measurements with the 29x2.35 tire? Thanks.

[TB7]

What makes you want to change from the Timberjack to the Nukeproof?

Timberjack has been pretty sweet. I’ve run both 27.5+ & 29er wheelsets & both have advantages/disadvantages but really can’t go too wrong either way. I’ve spent the last few months dialing in the geo & am currently running the TJ with a 140 fork and -1.5 angleset. While it does make for some nice aggressive geometry, it’s a bit outside what the TJ was built for/around so the smart play long term would seem to be building up a frame designed around that amount of travel and slack geo. I would assume that with the Scout 290s -70 bb drop, running 27.5+ wheels (with a diameter of +/- 28.5 inches) would be pedal strike mayhem; especially with 175 cranks. The -55 bb drop on the 275 would be the sweet spot but only if it would fit a 29x2.6 & 27.5+ tire. Just my $.02 given my time on the TJ anyway...

[madpanda]

I can confirm that the 2018 Scout 275 rear triangle does indeed accommodate 29" wheels. No problems what so ever with clearance running 2.35 tyres.

I am soo Freaking glad to hear this, I had a spesh fuse that game me hell for pedal strike and I got a marley hoping to fit 29's and they don't. how wide are your rims for your 29s?

[Trinimon]

I'm in the same boat and this thread helped greatly with the decision making. Anyone know the frame weight of the Scout 275? I can't seem to find the weight mentioned anywhere. Thanks!

[wiciman]

I am soo Freaking glad to hear this, I had a spesh fuse that game me hell for pedal strike and I got a marley hoping to fit 29's and they don't. how wide are your rims for your 29s?

I run RaceFace AR27 rims which I believe (but are not sure of) have an ID of 25mm.

[freyrida]

I have a quick Q (and nowhere to put it elsewhere), I have the scout 2020 650b version, any good tire combo recommendation for winterly conditions (no ice fireroads), possibly 650+ tires? They do fit don’t they?
Thx

[Renatomachado]

Does anyone ride a scout 275 with 27,5 wheels but a 29 fork (140mm)?
Wont it be too slack?

A 29 fork with 140mm equals a 27,5 fork with 170mm.

[crembz]

Does anyone ride a scout 275 with 27,5 wheels but a 29 fork (140mm)?
Wont it be too slack?

A 29 fork with 140mm equals a 27,5 fork with 170mm.

I run a 130mm 29er front (wheel and fork) on the '19 scout 275 and it's definitely rideable, great on the descent and don't loose much on the climb.

From my measurements the A2C is 20mm greater for the same travel between 650b and 29er ... e.g. 120mm 29er = 540mm A2C, 120mm 650b = 520mm A2C. The difference in tyre height/diameter is roughly 10mm. RS typically has a 5mm shorter A2C than Fox so changing brands also makes a difference.

GMBN ran a 170mm scout in megavalanche, so it's doable depending on what you're chasing.

Also if anyone is interested, the rear triangle of the '19 275 scout does not fit a 29x2.6" Spec Eliminator. The tyre fouls against the little dropper cable tab. I'd suggest a skinnier 29" tyre would work.