Results 1 to 49 of 49
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11

    27.5 x 3.8 VS 29 x 3.0 for dirt use

    I have a 2017 Fatboy Expert Carbon which obviously has 26" wheels. When I bought it I only planned to use this bike in the snow so I swapped out the 26x4.0 Ground Control's for Bud/Lou 4.8's (which are awesome in the snow)

    I am interested in a new wheelset for use during the winter when I am in AZ and UT on some primitive roads that are loose and sandy, and probably some 4wd roads here in CO during the summer.

    Initially I planned to purchase a 29x3.0 setup but recently have been reading about 27.5 x 3.8's. From the overall diameter measurements I've been finding it appears that 29x3.0 and 27.5x3.8 should be similar diameter to my 26" Bud and Lou combo. Of course these measurements are from different sources so I'm not sure how accurate they are. Since the OE 4.0's are smaller in diameter than my current Bud/Lou's I can definitely go a little smaller than the Bud/Lou setup if needed.

    Aside from sizing my real question is what makes the most sense for my described riding. It sounds like the 27.5x3.8's roll pretty fast on gravel and dirt although I'm not sure how they compare to 29+. Common sense tells me that 29+ will be faster with less flotation on the soft stuff. I would like to hear from people who have ridden both setups on dirt and get their opinions as to the best all around setup for me. Also I'm not doing any racing with this bike, this is all about fun.

    I should add that I also have a Bluto with 120mm travel.
    Last edited by Projected; 12-09-2018 at 12:58 PM.

  2. #2
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Projected View Post
    I am interested in a new wheelset for use during the winter when I am in AZ and UT on some primitive roads that are loose and sandy, and probably some 4wd roads here in CO during the summer.

    Initially I planned to purchase a 29x3.0 setup but recently have been reading about 27.5 x 3.8's. From the overall diameter measurements I've been finding it appears that 29x3.0 and 27.5x3.8 should be similar diameter to my 26" Bud and Lou combo.
    I am a HUGE 27.5x3.8/4 fan. I ride it year round, except for the 15~20 winter rides that necessitate studs.

    post this same question in the plus bike forum, and they will say 29x3 0WNz aLL!

    Quote Originally Posted by Projected View Post
    I would like to hear from people who have ridden both setups on dirt and get there opinions as to the best all around setup for me. Also I'm not doing any racing with this bike, this is all about fun.
    i am all about fun, 100% of the time! well, 99.837%. when i am on the toilet in the morning, i am all business...

    in all seriousness, i had a stache 29x3 tired bike, and i did not get along with it. it did not match my style or the conditions/places i ride, so off she went.

    Quote Originally Posted by Projected View Post
    Common sense tells me that 29+ will be faster with less flotation on the soft stuff.
    tsk tsk my boy, this is the internet, common sense has no place here!

  3. #3
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,346
    29x3.0
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    39
    I own and ride both. I didn't fall in love with B-fat. Speaking only for myself, they floated only marginally better than 29x3.0, they felt slow and heavy. All that said perhaps it was just the tire I chose, Minion FBF front and rear. This all in bikepacking usage. I know this thread is about B-fat vs 29x3 but for my own curiosity I weighed the rear wheel of both the B-fat and 26x4. B-fat build is Mulefut 50 rims, sapim race spokes, brass nips and the afore mentioned FBF. 26x4 was My Other Brother Darryl rim, sapim race spokes, alloy nips, Husker Du tire. No cassette or rotor on either and B-fat tubeless, 26x4 tubed. Both have Bitex fat 12x197 hubs. Already forgot the actual #'s but the B-fat was 5 oz. (142 grams) heavier.

    Winter has come and all 3 wheelsets now reside on my wall waiting for spring while I ride my Dillinger 5/Wrathchild studdded combo. I'll probably give the B-fat another try in spring.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,961
    I have both sizes and use both depending on where and what I'm riding( which is New England).
    50mm carbon 27.5 rims with Hodags: gets used on my hard tail more because of the cush factor. Also used when it's wet or soft for traction and float.

    38mm carbon 29 rims with Bontrager Chuapa XR2. Use these more on my F/S bike...and on the hardtail when it's smoother stuff. When it's dry...these things rule.

    Tire choice and rim width make a huge difference.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
    I am a HUGE 27.5x3.8/4 fan. I ride it year round, except for the 15~20 winter rides that necessitate studs.

    post this same question in the plus bike forum, and they will say 29x3 0WNz aLL!



    i am all about fun, 100% of the time! well, 99.837%. when i am on the toilet in the morning, i am all business...

    in all seriousness, i had a stache 29x3 tired bike, and i did not get along with it. it did not match my style or the conditions/places i ride, so off she went.



    tsk tsk my boy, this is the internet, common sense has no place here!
    What bike do you ride ?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,200
    Opposed to running your 26" wheels? I run 26 x 3.8 or 4.0 in the summer with good results. On 80 mm rims.

  8. #8
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,732
    29+ all day long.

    B-Fat is a silly marketing gimmick IMHO, but in this specific case, why carry more weight for less roll over and overall diameter, when the conditions don't even require float?
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  9. #9
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNatureBoy View Post
    What bike do you ride ?
    Lenz Fatillac & Surly Wednesday.

    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    29+ all day long.

    B-Fat is a silly marketing gimmick IMHO, but in this specific case, why carry more weight for less roll over and overall diameter,
    vanhelga 27.5x3.8 is the same OD at 29+. more cush, and currently my favorite 3 season tire. i wish it fit in the back of my fatillac, but it is not even close...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
    I am a HUGE 27.5x3.8/4 fan. I ride it year round, except for the 15~20 winter rides that necessitate studs.

    post this same question in the plus bike forum, and they will say 29x3 0WNz aLL!



    i am all about fun, 100% of the time! well, 99.837%. when i am on the toilet in the morning, i am all business...

    in all seriousness, i had a stache 29x3 tired bike, and i did not get along with it. it did not match my style or the conditions/places i ride, so off she went.



    tsk tsk my boy, this is the internet, common sense has no place here!
    Haha! Thanks Rodney!

    Quote Originally Posted by DougA View Post
    I own and ride both. I didn't fall in love with B-fat. Speaking only for myself, they floated only marginally better than 29x3.0, they felt slow and heavy. All that said perhaps it was just the tire I chose, Minion FBF front and rear. This all in bikepacking usage. I know this thread is about B-fat vs 29x3 but for my own curiosity I weighed the rear wheel of both the B-fat and 26x4. B-fat build is Mulefut 50 rims, sapim race spokes, brass nips and the afore mentioned FBF. 26x4 was My Other Brother Darryl rim, sapim race spokes, alloy nips, Husker Du tire. No cassette or rotor on either and B-fat tubeless, 26x4 tubed. Both have Bitex fat 12x197 hubs. Already forgot the actual #'s but the B-fat was 5 oz. (142 grams) heavier.

    Winter has come and all 3 wheelsets now reside on my wall waiting for spring while I ride my Dillinger 5/Wrathchild studdded combo. I'll probably give the B-fat another try in spring.
    Great insight, thanks Doug!

    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Opposed to running your 26" wheels? I run 26 x 3.8 or 4.0 in the summer with good results. On 80 mm rims.
    Since I will be riding snow and dirt in the winter, sometimes every other weekend , I don't want to be changing tires that often. Especially if they are set up tubeless.

    So I decided I would rather buy another wheel set for dirt riding and my first thought was 29+. Since I'm buying a new wheel set I figured I should explore the 27.5 option as some people seem to really like it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    29+ all day long.

    B-Fat is a silly marketing gimmick IMHO, but in this specific case, why carry more weight for less roll over and overall diameter, when the conditions don't even require float?
    I guess the main reason for looking at the 27.5 is that I "might" want to try riding down some washes, and a specifically a trail behind my parents house in AZ that crosses a few washes. But honestly the 29+ will probably float good enough for the percentage of time I see myself in any real sand. It may not be worth carrying around the weight of the 3.8's everywhere for the once in a while they may help out.

    That is why I wanted to get some opinions on how slow/fast/heavy the 3.8's feel compared to the 29+. Again common sense tells me they don't really compare, but just seeing what people think.

    Quote Originally Posted by the mayor View Post
    I have both sizes and use both depending on where and what I'm riding( which is New England).
    50mm carbon 27.5 rims with Hodags: gets used on my hard tail more because of the cush factor. Also used when it's wet or soft for traction and float.

    38mm carbon 29 rims with Bontrager Chuapa XR2. Use these more on my F/S bike...and on the hardtail when it's smoother stuff. When it's dry...these things rule.

    Tire choice and rim width make a huge difference.
    The 27.5 cush is something to consider on my hard tail. Even though I started on full rigid bikes when I was 14 and rode hard tails with 80mm of travel for many years my summer bike is a 155/160mm Transition Patrol so there may be some adjustment on my end

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11
    .,,

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    617
    29+ is the obvious answer as numerous posters have attested to.

    27.5x3.8 would be a complete waste of money. If you want a 4" tire, there are a gazillion 4" tires that fit on the wheels you already have. For summer use, the Jumbo Jim 26x4 tire is very popular.

    I second the above poster who said that "B-fat" is complete marketing nonsense. If you want a fat bike, ride a fat bike. If you want something with a little more grip that rides like a more conventional mountain bike, then ride a plus bike. "B-fat" is neither.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    29+ is the obvious answer as numerous posters have attested to.

    27.5x3.8 would be a complete waste of money. If you want a 4" tire, there are a gazillion 4" tires that fit on the wheels you already have. For summer use, the Jumbo Jim 26x4 tire is very popular.

    I second the above poster who said that "B-fat" is complete marketing nonsense. If you want a fat bike, ride a fat bike. If you want something with a little more grip that rides like a more conventional mountain bike, then ride a plus bike. "B-fat" is neither.
    As I stated above I do not want to change tubeless tires once or twice a month so a 2nd wheel is what I'm looking at. As a result I'm not considering 4.0 tires on my current 26" wheels.

    I also had thoughts of possibly needing more float than 29+ so I thought, considering contact patch size, 27.5x3.8 might roll better and float about the same as a 26x4.0.

    Most likely I'll end up on 29+ but worth getting some opinions since I'm starting from scratch for wheel choice.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    617
    A taller fat wheel and tire combo is just heavier. The knobs on fat bike tires are not as big as the knobs on regular mountain bike or plus tires, and so the available traction on loose surfaces isn't that different. I actually think my 27.5x2.8" plus tires have more grip when leaned than my 26x4.8" fat bike tires on gravely loose over hard (higher ground pressure, larger knobs). In sand, it's no contest; any fat bike tire is going to have much more flotation than a plus tire. On the flat and flowy, once the heavy wheelset is going, it doesn't make much difference. Speeding up and slowing down is where the fat bike tires me out. Making the rim and tire combo taller and heavier for the same width tire is just going to make that situation worse. That's why a 27.5 fat makes no sense. It doesn't do anything 26 fat wasn't already doing, it just requires you to speed up and slow down a greater mass.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    A taller fat wheel and tire combo is just heavier. The knobs on fat bike tires are not as big as the knobs on regular mountain bike or plus tires, and so the available traction on loose surfaces isn't that different. I actually think my 27.5x2.8" plus tires have more grip when leaned than my 26x4.8" fat bike tires on gravely loose over hard (higher ground pressure, larger knobs). In sand, it's no contest; any fat bike tire is going to have much more flotation than a plus tire. On the flat and flowy, once the heavy wheelset is going, it doesn't make much difference. Speeding up and slowing down is where the fat bike tires me out. Making the rim and tire combo taller and heavier for the same width tire is just going to make that situation worse. That's why a 27.5 fat makes no sense. It doesn't do anything 26 fat wasn't already doing, it just requires you to speed up and slow down a greater mass.
    Makes sense.

  16. #16
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,535
    If you can only have one wheelset, make it 27.5 x fat.

    If you're going to keep your 26" set and add another set, 29+ makes the most sense. Fast, efficient, and fun -- a perfect counterpoint to your 26" x slow wheelset.

  17. #17
    donkey
    Reputation: nbrennan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    255
    i own and ride both on a surly ICT. I find the 27.5x3.8 is great for flowing trails without a lot of rocks. When things get super rocky I like being able to fit my tire in tight spots without rubbing my sidewalls up, and I like a slightly higher bb, so I go with the 29+. Most of my riding is in relentlessly rocky areas so the 29+ stay on and the 27.5x3.8 set up sees very little use. I like to use the 27.5+ set up as a studded winter wheelset but I haven't found the money and there doesn't seem to be a good way to stud the hodags that I have.

  18. #18
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    29+ is the obvious answer as numerous posters have attested to.

    27.5x3.8 would be a complete waste of money...

    I second the above poster who said that "B-fat" is complete marketing nonsense. If you want a fat bike, ride a fat bike. If you want something with a little more grip that rides like a more conventional mountain bike, then ride a plus bike. "B-fat" is neither.
    spoken like a true hater...



    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    If you can only have one wheelset, make it 27.5 x fat.

    If you're going to keep your 26" set and add another set, 29+ makes the most sense. Fast, efficient, and fun -- a perfect counterpoint to your 26" x slow wheelset.
    excellent advice. / thread

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    The knobs on fat bike tires are not as big as the knobs on regular mountain bike or plus tires.
    Sorry, that is just patently false. Name me a non-fat tire with knobs as big as a Wrathchild, Vanhelga or Wazia (I'll stop there)?

  20. #20
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,346
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    Sorry, that is just patently false. Name me a non-fat tire with knobs as big as a Wrathchild, Vanhelga or Wazia (I'll stop there)?
    Nate, Bud, Lou, Flowbeist, Dunderbeist
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Nate, Bud, Lou, Flowbeist, Dunderbeist
    Now that's just spiking the ball.

    Heck, the popular XR2/Chupa knobs are not as big as a Knard.
    Last edited by BlueCheesehead; 12-10-2018 at 09:39 AM.

  22. #22
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    If you can only have one wheelset, make it 27.5 x fat.

    If you're going to keep your 26" set and add another set, 29+ makes the most sense. Fast, efficient, and fun -- a perfect counterpoint to your 26" x slow wheelset.
    I think Mike makes the most sense. For what it's worth, I have 26 & 27.5. I really like 27.5 and only put on the 26 to wear thru my tire stock and get a touch extra float in the soft stuff. 27.5 is faster and more nimble for me - but they are close enough that trying something totally difference (a la 29+) is a better spread. Can't help you on the 29+ specifically but the people I see rocking them seem to do pretty good blasting head on thru the chunk.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,267

    27.5 x 3.8 VS 29 x 3.0 for dirt use

    We had these discussions when the 29er came out. It was heavier, slower, gimmick, fad, bla, bla. Same arguments with the 27.5 format.

    Anyway, my advice for dirt only, is to get the 27.5 3.8 format only if you insist on seeing a fat tire under you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    171
    I got one of the last steel Chumba Fat bikes and had it built up 27.5 X 3.8 with 80mm rims. Loads of fun, carves real nice and I'm no slower/faster because of the size.. I have had probably every size wheel over the years and as mikesee mentioned this is my only wheel set for this bike. Great guys at Chumba to deal with BTW.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    190
    IMO I'd go 29+

    Simply because, as others have stated, there isn't as dramatic of a difference between 26 4.0 and 27.5 3.8

    The extra roll-over is what I'd be looking forward to. I run 29 X 3.0 on a fat bike and it's excellent for what it's intended for.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    413
    Missing from this conversation is the rims that go with your tires.

    If you have 27.5 x 3.8 with 80mm rims, you still have a fat bike. A bike which can handle sand or snow.

    For dirt, I run 27.5 x 3.8 with 50mm rims. The weight difference is tiny compared to 29+ and I would love to see some real data showing they roll slower than 29+. Tire choice is always a bigger factor than width anyway. In fact I might be willing to place a bet my 27.5 hodags are faster than 29+ with minions on gravel/hardpack. I do know that every time I've gone out with guys on standard bikes (27.5 or 29) I roll faster than they do when coasting on gravel or hardpack. They might have the weight advantage, but the roll over of the big diameter rubber is a real thing.

    In any case, I ride where most buddies are on full suspension, so I liked the idea of the extra volume and lower pressures front and back to soften the ride.

    So back to your original post, I'd say you can't go wrong with either choice, especially if you use light and narrower rims with the 27.5 option.
    Last edited by Teton29er; 12-11-2018 at 10:17 AM.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    Now that's just spiking the ball.

    Heck, the popular XR2/Chupa knobs are not as big as a Knard.
    I have an Ice Cream Truck and a Karate Monkey. I could take the depth gauge out and measure, but I don't think that Bud/Lou have lugs as deep as even the Dirt Wizards that came on my KM? Perhaps it's just perception from riding both plus and fat? I love fat, but mostly for being able to monster over everything, not so much for the (mostly cornering) traction on the loose over hard/dry desert we have here. I know everyone's trails are different and perhaps in dirt, the extra width overcomes the reduced ground pressure when cornering. I don't ride that close to the friction limit on purpose and trials change day by day, so it's really hard to say. I would agree that more XC rated tires have smaller knobs; I don't own an XC bike or XCish tires, though.

    There certainly are some chunkier fat tires out there. I really had Bud/Lou or the Jumbo Jim in mind when I made that post, since that's what everyone runs here.

  28. #28
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    ... I don't think ...


    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    I really had Bud/Lou or the Jumbo Jim in mind when I made that post, since that's what everyone runs here.
    i don't run bud/lou or JJ, nor does anyone around me. I take that back, two guys with wozos ran the stock JJ for a short time, but after flatting on every ride, they learned fast...

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    I would agree that more XC rated tires have smaller knobs; I don't own an XC bike or XCish tires, though.

    There certainly are some chunkier fat tires out there. I really had Bud/Lou or the Jumbo Jim in mind when I made that post, since that's what everyone runs here.
    One certainly can find SOME regular or plus tires with larger knobs than SOME fat bike tires, but the original statement was a blanket statement. The blanket nature of the statement is what I took exception to.

    Certainly the goal, which is appropriate traction, is condition and use dependent. In some conditions narrower tires can provide more traction.

    (For the record, I do not run Bud/Lou or JJ either...but then again I do not run super aggressive plus tires either)

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Missing from this conversation is the rims that go with your tires.

    If you have 27.5 x 3.8 with 80mm rims, you still have a fat bike. A bike which can handle sand or snow.

    For dirt, I run 27.5 x 3.8 with 50mm rims. The weight difference is tiny compared to 29+ and I would love to see some real data showing they roll slower than 29+. Tire choice is always a bigger factor than width anyway. In fact I might be willing to place a bet my 27.5 hodags are faster than 29+ with minions on gravel/hardpack. I do know that every time I've gone out with guys on standard bikes (27.5 or 29) I roll faster than they do when coasting on gravel or hardpack. They might have the weight advantage, but the roll over of the big diameter rubber is a real thing.

    In any case, I ride where most buddies are on full suspension, so I liked the idea of the extra volume and lower pressures front and back to soften the ride.

    So back to your original post, I'd say you can't go wrong with either choice, especially if you use light and narrower rims with the 27.5 option.
    Nope, weight is more important. Rolling resistance is highly dependent on the knob arrangement, but a 3.8 tire will be considerably heavier than a similarly knobbed 3.0 tire. And it will roll the same or slower.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    Nope, weight is more important. Rolling resistance is highly dependent on the knob arrangement, but a 3.8 tire will be considerably heavier than a similarly knobbed 3.0 tire. And it will roll the same or slower.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Excellent point. I looked up the numbers, and i could save a whole pound on my bike with 29+. That means my 23 pound single speed with 27.5 hodags could weigh in at 22 pounds. So instead of me and bike weighing 208 pounds, it would be 207 pounds.

    Well that changes everything. No wonder I'm so slow!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Excellent point. I looked up the numbers, and i could save a whole pound on my bike with 29+. That means my 23 pound single speed with 27.5 hodags could weigh in at 22 pounds. So instead of me and bike weighing 208 pounds, it would be 207 pounds.

    Well that changes everything. No wonder I'm so slow!
    1/2 lbs per tire is huge! But if you are slow, that wonít matter. 😉
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,032
    I have found my bike to be about 2# lighter with 29+ vs 26 x 4.

    FWIW, overall diameter of 29+ and 27.5 x 3.8 is about the same.

    My gps data shows the 29+ to be faster on the same trails.

    29+ and 26 fat essentially gives you 2 different bikes with the same frame.

  34. #34
    kk2
    kk2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    59
    Interesting thread. Having just put 400 miles on my new build Fatboy C with 26 4.8 JJ I started considering another wheelset for the summer time. What rim width would be recommended for a 29x3.0 tire?

  35. #35
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,535
    Quote Originally Posted by kk2 View Post
    Interesting thread. Having just put 400 miles on my new build Fatboy C with 26 4.8 JJ I started considering another wheelset for the summer time. What rim width would be recommended for a 29x3.0 tire?
    Some go as narrow as 30mm. Others as wide as 50mm. About halfway between feels like the sweet spot, but it's dependent on your specifics.

  36. #36
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    Nope, weight is more important. Rolling resistance is highly dependent on the knob arrangement, but a 3.8 tire will be considerably heavier than a similarly knobbed 3.0 tire. And it will roll the same or slower.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Actually, rolling resistance is a function of rubber compound, sidewall thickness, and pressure. Knobb arrangement makes almost no difference.
    --Peace

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    Actually, rolling resistance is a function of rubber compound, sidewall thickness, and pressure. Knobb arrangement makes almost no difference.
    Well yes, all those things affect rolling resistance, but how on earth have you reached the conclusion that knob arrangement makes almost no difference?
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    Actually, rolling resistance is a function of rubber compound, sidewall thickness, and pressure. Knobb arrangement makes almost no difference.
    Sorry Lars, anyone that has ridden a Nate and a Knard (same manufacturer, same casing) knows that tread design makes a huge difference in rolling resistance.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    336
    I kind of have the same idea / question as OP. I have 26"x4.8" and was wondering if 29+ would be good for the 3 seasons.

    OP has a suspension fork and I assume you answers took that into account. I don't and don't plan to. Would for a rigid fork a 29+ still be better in summer? My fear is it would give me less dampening over roots etc. (a wheelset will cost me close to $500, so hard to just try out :-).
    2018 Motobecane Sturgis NX
    2016 Giant Toughroad SLR1

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrKaLeun View Post
    I kind of have the same idea / question as OP. I have 26"x4.8" and was wondering if 29+ would be good for the 3 seasons.

    OP has a suspension fork and I assume you answers took that into account. I don't and don't plan to. Would for a rigid fork a 29+ still be better in summer? My fear is it would give me less dampening over roots etc. (a wheelset will cost me close to $500, so hard to just try out :-).
    A Krampus is $1500 and opens up options. You're going to spend $750 on wheels and tires, plus a brake rotor and a cassette. You're halfway to having a second bike!

  41. #41
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,535
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    A Krampus is $1500 and opens up options. You're going to spend $750 on wheels and tires, plus a brake rotor and a cassette. You're halfway to having a second bike!
    Yes, a Krampus is $1500, but with a wheelset thatís worth maybe $250.

  42. #42
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,346
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Yes, a Krampus is $1500, but with a wheelset thatís worth maybe $250.
    How is that any different than any other $1500 bike? It's got WTB i40 hoops, so the rims aren't bad. Like all Surly products it's meant to be durable, versatile, and a good value, not high end or fancy.

    I'm not sure I understand the comment, what more do you expect at that price point? There are plenty of carbon FS bikes that cost $4k and have equally crappy wheels.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Yes, a Krampus is $1500, but with a wheelset thatís worth maybe $250.
    If you really don't think the wheelset on a Krampus is decent enough to get a whole lot of enjoyment out of, I don't think 29 plus is for you. If you want to race or something, you should be on something else. Plus bikes are for fun (and they ARE fun).

    I don't have a Krampus but my best friend does, and I cannot even type into this box how much fun we have had on our plus bikes this year. I have a fat bike, too, and as much as I love fat, the plus bikes are just too much fun. Do yourself a favor and stop worrying about trivial details and give in and get yourself a Krampus. For the right size rider, there is nothing better.

  44. #44
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,535
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    If you really don't think the wheelset on a Krampus is decent enough to get a whole lot of enjoyment out of, I don't think 29 plus is for you. If you want to race or something, you should be on something else. Plus bikes are for fun (and they ARE fun). .
    I ride 29+ full time and have for a few years. Iím well aware of what they bring to the table and frequently steer appropriate candidates toward it.

    My point was simply one of equivalence, or a lack thereof. A $250 wheelset isnít remotely equivalent to one that costs 3x as much. If you donít understand that basic fact there really isnít any common ground from which we might discuss.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    31
    This is a good example of 35mm width summer wheels. For either 29Ē Or 27.5Ē the tires would be 2.8Ē to 3.2Ē

    https://shop.fatbackbikes.com/fatbac...wheel-set.html

    Quote Originally Posted by kk2 View Post
    Interesting thread. Having just put 400 miles on my new build Fatboy C with 26 4.8 JJ I started considering another wheelset for the summer time. What rim width would be recommended for a 29x3.0 tire?

  46. #46
    In dog years, I'm dead.
    Reputation: burtronix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,068
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    29+ all day long.

    B-Fat is a silly marketing gimmick IMHO, but in this specific case, why carry more weight for less roll over and overall diameter, when the conditions don't even require float?
    For flow trails, you're probably right. But for northeast gnar & drops, B-Fat is the sweet spot.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.... (Ecclesiastes 9:10)

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    11
    I own a Rocky Suzi-Q with the stock 27.5X3.8 setup as well as a 50mm 29er setup and have run Minion 3.0 as well as the Chupa/XR2 so can comment based on vast experience.

    Snow/Soft - No question the b/3.8 offers more float and is far better as a soft conditions setup. Aslo, they roll far faster than 26X4.0 with a similar footprint. The format is far more than just marketing hype. I would say roughly 25-40% more

    Speed/hardpack - 29X3.0. Not even close

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    160
    If I had to keep only one for the riding I do - 27.5x3.8 on 50mm rims is my pick. Overall, for me itís more capable and more fun to ride. Absolutely not a waste of money and not a marketing hoax. Gnarwhal front, hodag rear is absolutely marvelous for all sort of trail riding in all kind of conditions. 29x3.0 is more efficient in terms of speed, I like it too. But my heart is with 27.5x3.8. I wish there would a bigger list of FS bikes that can takes such tires...

  49. #49
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,346
    Quote Originally Posted by burtronix View Post
    For flow trails, you're probably right. But for northeast gnar & drops, B-Fat is the sweet spot.
    OP wasn't asking about B+. I ride the shit out of my 29+ hardtail on technical Northeast trails. Please do come visit some time and try to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by survivalofthefattest View Post

    Snow/Soft - No question the b/3.8 offers more float and is far better as a soft conditions setup. Aslo, they roll far faster than 26X4.0 with a similar footprint. The format is far more than just marketing hype. I would say roughly 25-40% more

    Speed/hardpack - 29X3.0. Not even close
    OP wasn't asking about snowy conditions since he clearly stated the already had a 26" snow wheelset.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

Similar Threads

  1. When to use the large chain ring..to use or not to use..?
    By jc1surf in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-21-2014, 10:47 PM
  2. So, any dirt on this dirt?
    By DesertDog in forum Nevada
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-04-2012, 02:16 PM
  3. Women's dirt clinic this weekend and next. Dirt Series
    By zazzafrazz in forum Women's Lounge
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-16-2012, 04:53 AM
  4. Dirt Jump dirt
    By crazy Jim in forum Urban/DJ/Park
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-16-2011, 03:03 PM

Members who have read this thread: 211

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.