Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nubster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,569

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

    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...

    Which frame? Nukeproof Scout 290 vs. Scout 275...-scout-290.jpg


    275...

    Which frame? Nukeproof Scout 290 vs. Scout 275...-scout-2275.jpg
    Kona Big Unit SS
    Kona Private Jake SSCX
    DiamondBack Release 3
    Norco Torrent HT 7.1

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    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.

  3. #3
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,262
    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
    disciplesofdirt.org

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

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nubster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,569
    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.
    Kona Big Unit SS
    Kona Private Jake SSCX
    DiamondBack Release 3
    Norco Torrent HT 7.1

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Looks like chain reaction cycles has some, depending on your size and color choices

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nubster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,569
    I can find the red ones but I don't like the color. No black anywhere that I can find. Need XL.
    Kona Big Unit SS
    Kona Private Jake SSCX
    DiamondBack Release 3
    Norco Torrent HT 7.1

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,730
    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!'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  8. #8
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,230
    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.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    300
    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.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by hambocairns View Post
    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 .

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    300
    Wow comprehensive!

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

  12. #12
    loud hubs save lives
    Reputation: sennaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    686

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

    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 canít imagine making it lower.


  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by sennaster View Post
    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 canít 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.

  14. #14
    loud hubs save lives
    Reputation: sennaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by ocnLogan View Post
    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. Iíve only run it with 29s, but have some 27.5+ wheels out for delivery right now. Iíve only ridden 27.5+ once, but it was on a full squish. I think itíll make for a fun hardtail and this will differentiate it from my main FS bike even more.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by sennaster View Post
    170s.

    I swapped all those parts to a Kona Big Honzo with a 55mm drop and have been happier. Iíve only run it with 29s, but have some 27.5+ wheels out for delivery right now. Iíve only ridden 27.5+ once, but it was on a full squish. I think itíll 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.

  16. #16
    loud hubs save lives
    Reputation: sennaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    686

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocnLogan View Post
    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 donít have rocks in the UK?

    I asked the US importer if 29s would fit on the 275 and his only response was ďwhy does everyone keep asking me that?Ē I almost ordered the 275, but wasnít sure if theyíd fit. The chainstay length would indicate yes, but the slack seat tube angle could potentially interfere and i couldnít find anyone to confirm.



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

Similar Threads

  1. Nukeproof Scout 290 Comp
    By targnik in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 04-23-2018, 05:51 PM
  2. 2017 Nukeproof 290 Scout... Thoughts?
    By targnik in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-11-2017, 01:45 AM
  3. Nukeproof Scout 290?
    By Travis Bickle in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-13-2015, 01:37 PM
  4. Nukeproof Scout 290
    By Travis Bickle in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-05-2015, 10:24 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2012, 07:47 AM

Members who have read this thread: 92

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.