27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not? - Page 2- Mtbr.com
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 400 of 1455
  1. #201
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Maybe not in France, but here in the northern US, it definitely is....
    https://www.google.com/search?sclien...74.qUbvmlRVMSA
    Seeing every single major manufacturer is jumping in, I agree.

  2. #202
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    so many sandy vajay-jays...

  3. #203
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so many sandy vajay-jays...
    Not to be confused with sandy vaginas
    Urban Dictionary: Sandy Vagina

    Or maybe.?.?.?.?.?.?

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,035
    Curious to know more. What conditions did you test under? How much time did you spend on the 27 tires?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    i've been involved peripherally in the testing/design process of the Bontrager/Trek tires and discussed a lot of this with all the folks involved. I am sure they want to sell bikes and wheels and tires, and their marketing people are of course pushing their stuff. But they also do the most thorough job you can imagine testing stuff (including competitor's products). I would be very surprised if they were doing 27.5x4 as a gimmick. Travis likes to go fast too much to sell stuff that sucks.

    -Walt
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Rode, again, this weekend on wet, leafy, frozen trails. Found that the Hodags didn't really like the drop in pressure associated with the drop in ambient temperature (last ride report was in the ~70*F range, yesterday was ~35*F). Pumped 'em up and they managed to get some of their cornering traction back. I was, initially, a little surprised to run into this, as I'm used to getting more traction with a lower pressure, but with more squirm. The Hodags were the opposite (which shouldn't have surprised me since I normally wouldn't run this small of tire on an 80mm rim). Overall, the Hodags really lost a lot with the temp change. I'm still liking these better for warm weather riding (something I didn't, really, ever expect to think/write/say), and will likely continue using them next warm season.

    Overall, I'm glad Trek brought this size out. I really, truely do like it better than 26x4", but it seems to be a toss-up between 26x5" and 27.5" standards depending on conditions. Honestly, I kinda like that I'm torn between the two. It helps reaffirm to me that more options are never a bad thing...

  6. #206
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Curious to know more. What conditions did you test under? How much time did you spend on the 27 tires?
    I was only involved with the 29 and 29+ stuff. I rode all kinds of XC to easy FR stuff around Park City. I was just giving impressions, not doing any "serious" testing, though. Trek gave a couple of us ex-pro racer/framebuilder folks some tires early on to play with. Whit at Meriwether has a lot of time on them and some good info at his site as well.

    I did do some super-ghetto testing on the 29+ vs 29, you can read about it here. Long story short: I'm faster everywhere on 29+ than 29. I don't doubt the same would be true for 27.5x4 vs 26x4.5 or whatever but I haven't tried it.

    -Walt

  7. #207
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Not to be confused with sandy vaginas
    Urban Dictionary: Sandy Vagina

    Or maybe.?.?.?.?.?.?
    yes. totes.

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    It's just too bad there are so many roadies in their boardroom, telling them that a narrow q-factor was actually an important design criteria. Sigh...
    Q factor is very important to me, but I'm pretty short. Keeping a relatively narrow Q didn't really hinder tall riders but helps shorter ones. Or at least that's probably their reasoning.
    Just a little perspective from way down here!

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I was only involved with the 29 and 29+ stuff. I rode all kinds of XC to easy FR stuff around Park City. I was just giving impressions, not doing any "serious" testing, though. Trek gave a couple of us ex-pro racer/framebuilder folks some tires early on to play with. Whit at Meriwether has a lot of time on them and some good info at his site as well.

    I did do some super-ghetto testing on the 29+ vs 29, you can read about it here. Long story short: I'm faster everywhere on 29+ than 29. I don't doubt the same would be true for 27.5x4 vs 26x4.5 or whatever but I haven't tried it.

    -Walt

    since you wrote "everywhere". are you saying that 27x4 is better than 26x4.5 on snow?



    btw I was faster on my 29er than 29+. I have the power to move the 29+ as fast as the 29er uphill, but the tiny knobs on the 29+ was not confident building. the same for 27+ and fat 26". too small of knobs on plus tires so far.

  10. #210
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    I would guess that in most snow conditions, yes, 27.5x4 will be a little better than 26x4.5 or 26.5. If it gets soft enough the 26x5 probably wins, though. As I said, I have not even ridden the 27.5x4, I'm just extrapolating (perhaps erroneously) from the 29+ experience I have and Trek's own claims that wheel diameter is a better way to increase volume than width for traction/rolling resistance purposes.

    Did you listen to the Trek guys interview podcast? Good info in there. Obviously they are biased but they do at least explain their own logic.

    For my testing, I compared 2.2" XR2s to Chupacabras, because of the almost identical tread patterns and casings/shapes. If you are comparing very large knob 29er tires to small knob 29+, that's obviously not super useful. You might like the Dirt Wizards?

    It will also depend on riding style, I suppose. I was expecting a sort of bouncy fun machine that was generally slow. Turns out I was faster on every type of terrain, up or down. Pretty surprising to me, but makes sense based on Trek's stated logic/testing.

    -Walt

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    I am very exited about the new 27.5 Hodag.
    Let me explain.
    I am a southern rider, my bike will most likely never see snow.
    However I have many opportunities to ride through trails that pre-fatbike
    were nearly unrideable.
    I am wanting to build a new bike for myself on a fatbike frame for reasons of building
    a "summer wheelset" to ultra wide hubs, which will give me a crazy strong wheel build.
    However I do not want to build on an 80mm rim, most likely will be using wtb scrapers.
    I have spent time on 26 x 4 and It is too slow for me.
    The 27.5 Hodag will allow me to run a suspension fork up front and build on a 150mm hub, resulting in a strong wheel build and still give me clearance under the arch.
    It will be a smidge slower than 29+ but will give me more bluto arch clearance "real world mud clearance"
    This tire size will actually be better for "owning" endless rock gardens.
    I feel that it will maximize the potential for a wheelset for a southern fatbike.
    I feel that the 27.5 hodags competetion for performance in summer conditions will be from sizes 3.8-3.0
    I plan on seeing for myself what this tire size will do for me.
    I ride rediculously rocky terrain and loose river bed stuff. I just don't want to run 26 x 4.7-5.0,
    Currently being a krampus rider I was excited to see a jones bike displayed with 29 x3.2 duro crux tires....
    Could u imagine a 29 x 3.5? or 3.8? for that matter? It wouldn't fit inside a manitou magnum fork,,, That size would most likely be rediculously cumbersome also, so much weight and mass.... It would accentuate on 29+ only weakness in my mind.
    I plan on building a bike around the Hodag tires without even riding them. I know
    deep down what this tire size will do for me personally.
    On another note:
    Did Trek/Bontrager really beat Surly to the punch on something fatbike oriented?
    Way to go Trek for stepping out and "growing some" and having some fun.
    Seriously Way to friggin' go! American ingenuity right there.
    Thank you Trek/Bontrager!
    Last edited by mikeetheviking; 11-23-2015 at 08:52 AM.
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    What is the down side of the 80mm wheel other than a bit of weight/rolling mass?

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    I don't see 80 mm rims for 27.5 x 3.8 as a downside....
    I just see myself using tires from sizes 27.5 x 3.8 - 3.0 that are already in existence.
    So using a narrower rim is going to benefit me
    I also happen to like the tire profile using a narrower rim
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    What is the down side of the 80mm wheel other than a bit of weight/rolling mass?
    For mikeetheviking's described riding, I'd have to agree with his choice for narrower rims. I'd do the same if I hadn't already purchased the Bonti's (at discount). I don't like having that small of tire (the Hodag 3.8) on that wide of rim, just for the sake of reducing rim strikes. Otherwise, Bontrager's profile design of the 27.5" Hodag seems like it was made for 80's.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    This podcast from fat-bike.com is pretty interesting. It's a long interview with the trek farley team (engineer, product manager, and Travis Brown) on the Farley, their outcome of their research on the 27.5x4 and why they are all in on that format. Really an interesting discussion and well worth the listen.

    Here's the podcast: Fat Camp Podcast #7 – Ken and Andy Talk Tech With Trek Engineers | FAT-BIKE.COM

    The upshot of this is that their research shows the 27.5x4 is a lot better than other formats in all but the deepest loose snow. What they described was consistent with my test riding over sand with the 9.8 Farley (27.4) and the Pivot Les Fat set up with 26x5's on the same sand beach (relatively firm sand that would break free into loose sand if you didn't have a light touch on the pedals).

    I'm thinking that the 27.5x4 fits into a continuum between the 26x4 and the 26x5 where it is considerably closer to the 26x5 in terms of terrain compatibility than it is to the 26x4. It's hard to quantify since the science behind this is pretty complex and there are a lot of variables that have a pretty big impact. According to the engineering guy on this, a lot of the research on tires in loose terrain comes from the Ag world where research was done on low flotation tires for tractors with respect to fuel efficiencies etc.. I thought that was interesting especially given the large diameter of tractors with respect to other vehicles.

    J.

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Well I am cool with it either way as I have 2 wheel sets for my Farley Build, 26x5 winter and 27.5x3.8 summer. I also have 2 forks, carbon for winter and bluto for summer. I think in my case the 29+ would be just too tall for me at 5'4" shortness. LOL I am counting on Trek expanding the 27.5 tire choices such as a Rogarou. Those look really sweet.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Well I am cool with it either way as I have 2 wheel sets for my Farley Build, 26x5 winter and 27.5x3.8 summer. I also have 2 forks, carbon for winter and bluto for summer. I think in my case the 29+ would be just too tall for me at 5'4" shortness. LOL I am counting on Trek expanding the 27.5 tire choices such as a Rogarou. Those look really sweet.
    Your plan sound similar to mine but closer to completion. I'll add the 26x5's only if I run into issues with the 27.5x4 this winter.

    I'm interested to see how the 27.5x4 does on the terrain I have to ride on this winter. One of the attractions for me was the ability to support 26x5 all the way up through 29+. I, too, plan to add a Bluto fork this coming summer but I wanted a good carbon fork for the winter.

    In that podcast, Trek had a discussion about what they were planning for tires. They talked about it in generalities, but that was because they have multiple tires apparently forthcoming and didn't want to spill the beans until they were available (reading a bit between the lines).

    Have you had a chance to compare the 26x5 to the 27.5x4 in some softer terrain yet?

    J.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Smartest money for many would be going with the F7 and holding out for a more sensible/logical 65mm 27.5 rim.
    You're just not gaining much (except weight) with the 80mm rims shipping with the F9's currently.

  19. #219
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Jackalope 27.5 x 80mm rims came into stock today.

  20. #220
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Jackalope 27.5 x 80mm rims came into stock today.
    I like turtles

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Smartest money for many would be going with the F7 and holding out for a more sensible/logical 65mm 27.5 rim.
    You're just not gaining much (except weight) with the 80mm rims shipping with the F9's currently.
    Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion (and it makes sense to have a 50MM 27.5 wheel for weight savings) but I had a blast on my 26X3.8 Jackelope/Hodags all last year, so I expect these will suit me fine, especially for what i paid for them including the tires. They are well built wheels. And I will have the Bluto this time around tooi instead of a fully rigid bike,.

  22. #222
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,907
    I read through this thread and maybe I missed it, but has anyone run the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag tires on 50mm rims yet? I have a 50mm 27.5 carbon wheelset and wondered how fatter tires would feel after running both 3.5 Fat B Nimble and 3.0 Ground Controls for a couple of months.
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | ssoft | flickr

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    Mikesee has built both 26 and 27.5 HODAG tires onto 52 mm HUGO rims.

    you can see a photo of a 26 in hodag here on a 52mm rim, to give you and idea of tire
    profile for both 26 and 27.5

    Big Wheel Deals

    when you think about it.....It's not hella bigger than 3.0....
    were just adding .4 to each side, less than half an inch.
    Just wide enough to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    The next thing I am curious about.... Is will the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag fit front or back on any 27.5+ bikes in existence?

    Or is this literally a "fatbike" only tire?
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  25. #225
    Ride da mOOn Moderator
    Reputation: NEPMTBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,463
    You guys keep spending my money...
    ...I need more tires!

  26. #226
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeetheviking View Post
    The next thing I am curious about.... Is will the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag fit front or back on any 27.5+ bikes in existence?

    Or is this literally a "fatbike" only tire?
    On a 50mm rim, the Hodag 26" tire is about 90mm wide. I'd assume the 27.5 is the same bead to bead/shape/etc, just bigger diameter. So probably a no-go on basically all 27.5+ bikes? You'd have to measure each frame but I doubt you're going to find a lot with 100mm of space.

    -Walt

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    Kind what I was thinking, Thanks Walt!
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    921
    Yeah I think it is going to be a fat bike only thing. I asked the mechanic at one of the bike shops here in mn. about the 27.5 x 4 fitting in the Trek 29er + bike (I forgot what it's called) he said it was one of his first thoughts, but its a no go. I live up in northern Minnesota and when the trails get packed down I'm thinking the 27.5 x 3.8 would be a good fit for me. Between Susie and I we have the three different wheel sizes her 27.5 + is on a narrower rim and I'm going to have it redone to a Hugo 27.5 and then get the 27.5 x 3.8 tires and give it a go on my Mukluk 2 I'm just having surgery on my neck on Wednesday so I'm going to be off my bike till the end of February.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    Oh shizzle..... Hope your operation goes well!
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  30. #230
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    So, if I'm understanding this, a fat bike capable of taking 26 x 5" tires will also fit 29+, 27.5+ and 27.5 x 4" tires? And 27.5+ would offer the same bb height and fork geometry as 26 x 4" while 29+, 27.5 x 4" and 26 x 5" would all offer similar bb height/fork geometry?

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    Exactamundo
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  32. #232
    Living the thug life.
    Reputation: Logantri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    795
    27.5" Hodag on a 50mm rim is 86mm wide, 72mm high, very rounded. The 27.5" tire has less girth to it than the 26" tires. Very evident when you hold a rolled up 27.5" tire.
    I proudly ride for these guys.

    My blog.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    921
    I am trying to talk my wife into moving to the Hayward WI. area.. if I was getting a new fat bike it would probably be a Farley and have three wheelsets for it.

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    So, if I'm understanding this, a fat bike capable of taking 26 x 5" tires will also fit 29+, 27.5+ and 27.5 x 4" tires? And 27.5+ would offer the same bb height and fork geometry as 26 x 4" while 29+, 27.5 x 4" and 26 x 5" would all offer similar bb height/fork geometry?
    More or less, depending on the rim/tire combos in question.

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    Ok, which brings me to my next question, considering if this is a "fatbike" tire, Will it fit inside of early 26x4 "pugsley" esque fatbike frames?

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeetheviking View Post
    Ok, which brings me to my next question, considering if this is a "fatbike" tire, Will it fit inside of early 26x4 "pugsley" esque fatbike frames?
    Yep! I was running exactly this setup (on a battleship grey Pug) with fenders for last month. A friend of mine (Sven7) was commenting this weekend how forward thinking Surly was with the first-gen. frames. 29"+, B-Fat, 26"-Fat, and 26"x5"x80mm all on one (albeit single speed) frame... Love!

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    JR Z,

    How did you like the 27.5 Hodags? how much clearance did you have in that pugs frame?
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  38. #238
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,823
    This is how excited I am.

    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  39. #239
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Now that I've built a few sets of these I 'get it' a lot more. 27.5 x 4 is not the best for deep/soft snow in my backyard, but for people that ride groomed hardpack, they are definitely faster with more float than 26 x 4, and probably at least as fast but lighter and with less rolling resistance than 26 x 5.

    If groomed trails are your thing 27.5 x 4 makes the most sense.

  40. #240
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    It (27.5 Hodag) also fits in the Fox Boost 27.5+ fork, fyi. Which is pretty awesome.

    -Walt

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    Hey Walt, Do you have pics of the 27.5 Hodag in the Fox 27+ fork?
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  42. #242
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    No, I'm extrapolating from the 26" Hodag dimensions. I will have tires and wheels here to mount up very soon but it's VERY generous clearance all around unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.

    -Walt

  43. #243
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.
    They are the same.

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    309
    I have almost 800 miles on my 27.5 Hodags mostly trail and gravel they are great. We got 12 inches of snow the other weekend the first day was a little challenging but on day two and three when i had a good path they worked great. I think it really depends on the intended use but i think for the most part they work great. I just received a set of Minion FBF/FBR that i will be mounting to my second wheelset i am getting to see how those work on fresh snow and gravel.

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    No, I'm extrapolating from the 26" Hodag dimensions. I will have tires and wheels here to mount up very soon but it's VERY generous clearance all around unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.

    -Walt
    I would be very interested in your findings. Pictures would be awesome.

  46. #246
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I would be very interested in your findings. Pictures would be awesome.
    I will take some when I have all the parts here. I mean, it will fit with lots of room, there's really not a question about that. Hell, you can fit Vanhelgas on 70mm rims in there (pics here: http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-29/2016-...l#post12343829) and those are considerably wider than Hodags.

    It's pretty great - those boost 34 forks will fit:
    -27.5+
    -29+
    -26x4 or so
    -27.5x3.8
    -Normal 29er/27.5/26 if for some reason you wanted to use one of those.

    Pretty great flexibility there.

    Edit: Here's a 29+ Chupacabra mounted up (this one has ~1000 miles on it, so it's nice and stretched out):
    https://www.instagram.com/p/_BSI_pry...n-by=waltworks

    -Walt

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    300
    Very good to know, Thanks Walt! #herostatus
    Mikee Likes It! :cool:
    @gordosbicycleclub

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Here's a good reference image I just made from the posted photo. (which is perfect, thank you)
    I'm not buying the "it makes a huge difference" thing.
    I'm going to say zero to just perceptible, depending on circumstances.
    The tiny difference in contact patch, and it's increased length based on these 2 tires sizes is laughable.

    I may end up building a set on 50mm rims (because then it actually makes sense) but not for contact patch reasons. Just to be faster in the summer vs 26x4.6 stock on the 7.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-circumference-comparison.jpg  


  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeetheviking View Post
    How did you like the 27.5 Hodags? how much clearance did you have in that pugs frame?
    They'll be my go-to summer tire from now on, if that tells ya anything... Clearance; a little taller and narrow (talking millimeters) than a BFL on 65's. In other words, plenty!

  50. #250
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!

    -Walt

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    i think its probably a bit tricky to compare from that photo, isn't it? for example, if the angle the picture is taken at is not exactly at 90 degrees to the wheel, you are going to get some distortion of the visualised diameter from actual. then the lens has to be non distorting (is it a camera phone?) it is hard enough using a tape measure right next to the tyre from the ground and eyeballing the 'top'. i'm not saying it is a big difference, just that i think it is hard to judge from this picture and superimposing 2 circles like this.

    in saying that, i think you are probably right gambit21 and it's not a *huge* difference. the question is if it is a worthwhile difference i suppose....
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  52. #252
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Here's a good reference image I just made from the posted photo. (which is perfect, thank you)
    I'm not buying the "it makes a huge difference" thing.
    I'm going to say zero to just perceptible, depending on circumstances.
    The tiny difference in contact patch, and it's increased length based on these 2 tires sizes is laughable...
    And you're basing this conclusion on merely drawing some lines on a photograph? Now THAT is laughable.

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    And you're basing this conclusion on merely drawing some lines on a photograph? Now THAT is laughable.
    I simply illustrated graphically the obviously, and seemingly telling small difference.
    I'm coming to an opinion based on the tiny difference I see - if I come to a different conclusion later I'll post as much. As it stands, the small difference is the small difference - that's all. Unbunch your panties. Also feel free to explain why you think the tiny difference yields a significant difference in ride (other than I paid for it, so it's awesome)

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    i think its probably a bit tricky to compare from that photo, isn't it? for example, if the angle the picture is taken at is not exactly at 90 degrees to the wheel, you are going to get some distortion of the visualised diameter from actual. then the lens has to be non distorting (is it a camera phone?) it is hard enough using a tape measure right next to the tyre from the ground and eyeballing the 'top'. i'm not saying it is a big difference, just that i think it is hard to judge from this picture and superimposing 2 circles like this.

    in saying that, i think you are probably right gambit21 and it's not a *huge* difference. the question is if it is a worthwhile difference i suppose....
    The photo is remarkably dead on, (I check these things) and the difference illustrated holds up with the actual real world measurements. Anway, it was for visual reference as to the relative difference, not a "to the millimeter" comparison.

  55. #255
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I simply illustrated graphically the obviously, and seemingly telling small difference.
    I'm coming to an opinion based on the tiny difference I see - if I come to a different conclusion later I'll post as much. As it stands, the small difference is the small difference - that's all. Unbunch your panties. Also feel free to explain why you think the tiny difference yields a significant difference in ride (other than I paid for it, so it's awesome)
    You're being the classic desk jockey expert. You see an unidentifiable "seemingly telling small difference" based on a few lines drawn on a photo, tell me to "unbunch your panties", and then tell me what i think when i never expressed an opinion at all - other than your method is laughable. I didn't pay for it so that argument is out too. I would base my opinion based on true experience, not a guess based on what i perceived a photo showed me.

    Move your seat position 1/2" in any direction and tell me it's a small difference, maybe even "zero to just perceptible". Yet this would show up in your photoshop job as barely visible.

  56. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    I no longer wanna see what you're showing me. It doesn't mean a thing at all, doesn't change the way I feel.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!

    -Walt
    Exactly, changing tire width without significantly changing BB height.

    Edit: So, I initially read this thread because I thought might be something of value within, then you two start a pissing match. Please, don't mess up this thread with garbage. Delete your comments and stop making new comments. Let the thread be valuable.
    Last edited by Nurse Ben; 12-08-2015 at 03:57 PM. Reason: Cuz Gambit and Raidair are being jackassess

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723

    Idea!

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    You're being the classic desk jockey expert.
    Yeah, because getting a visual on something can't possibly yield any information whatsoever, or be the basis of an initial opinion, especially in conjunction with years of off road experience. Nah, that's totally off the deep end.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    You see an unidentifiable "seemingly telling small difference" based on a few lines drawn on a photo,
    Uh huh, which coincide pretty much exactly with what's already been ascertained based on measurements. The photo is a great visual illustration of the sizes difference. THE END. How much of a feel it translates into is the only part up for debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    tell me to "unbunch your panties",
    You don't have to - just a friendly suggestion. With respect - they're your panties.


    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post

    and then tell me what i think
    Oops, when you said using the visual reference as a basis for an opinion was 'laughable' I concluded that you disagreed with said opinion - that was silly of me.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    other than your method is laughable.
    There's the panty bunching I was referencing. I was talking about tires, you were referencing my post - see the difference? That said it was mostly tongue-in-cheek.


    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    I didn't pay for it so that argument is out too.
    I was referencing the oft typed "I own it, so I love it no matter what" we see so often around here. I wasn't suggesting you bought one.
    Further, I'm happy for anyone who did purchase one and is happy with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    I would base my opinion based on true experience, not a guess based on what i perceived a photo showed me.
    Oh...yeah. So if I showed you a circle and a hexagon, you'd be unable to ascertain which one would roll better down a hill and would need to ride it first. Further anyone presenting an opinion based on the illustration that the circle shape would likely be better would be full of it. Got it - we've established that visual reference is useless even when combined with common sense and previous world experience. I've been so informed.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    Move your seat position 1/2" in any direction and tell me it's a small difference, maybe even "zero to just perceptible". Yet this would show up in your photoshop job as barely visible.
    This is a complete disconnect with the purpose of the illustration and my post, and tells me we're really just talking past each other here. You have the freedom to move your post back and forth. Get those wheels and you're stuck with that tire size.
    Look, no hard feelings. I've seen enough of you around here that I know you're not a dolt. Let's not fall too far down the rabbit hole of written communication. I'm simply skeptical based on what I can see, as clearly as comparing a circle to a hex as mentioned above. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that at a certain point the difference in size is too small to matter, and at a certain point the difference would be large enough to matter. Based on measurements (forgetting the pic) it seems to me sizes fit into the former category. The pic was to drive that home - that's all. The difference here is clearly small - and I'm dubious as is Walt. I've simply stating my educated opinion, not trying to be a desktop expert.
    Peace
    Last edited by Gambit21; 12-08-2015 at 05:18 PM.

  59. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!

    -Walt
    Yep, the conclusion I've come to as well, and why I'm considering it (50mm rim) as well as 29+ to compliment the 80mm/ Barbegazzi setup that comes with the bike. Those 29+ chuppies are pretty damn fat which I like - building up a new set, that probably makes the most sense all things considered.

    The large tire selection, including the 3.8 is what was attracting me to the 27.5 idea. I'm just not sure I want to take the tiny chance of being unhappy with the BB height afterword when running 3" tires - which frankly I think would be just fine. With a better 3.8 tire selection and 60-65mm rims to boot, I'm all over those 27.5's.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    I am not that convinced by the picture of the wheels side by side. If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''

    I am convinced that depending on rider's size, weight and playground there is a matching wheel and tyre size that will bring joy to the rider. This is why ride reports are so subjective.

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I am not that convinced by the picture of the wheels side by side. If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''
    That's neither here nor there, and not indicative of how it all went down with regard to 27.5 coming about.

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''

    Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails.

    Give it a few years and the bike industry will be selling us a "better handling" 24in fattire that has the same true outside diameter as a 27.5" mountain bike tire to go with our 1X13 drivetrain and stiffer external axle hubs all of which will cost more and be fractionally better than what we have now.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  63. #263
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    The one thing that has really surprised me with this new tire size though is the lack of support from not just the outside market, but from Trek as well. Trek just released two new 26" fatbike tires Gnarwhal and Rougaru, but nothing in the 27.5" size. If they really want it to succeed, they need to have at least a few options compared to the many designs currently available for 26".
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    They probably had the process started long ago for the 26 inch tires so they were released.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    They probably had the process started long ago for the 26 inch tires so they were released.
    True- but they also also knew long ago that they would be releasing bikes with 27.5" fat tires. The announcements for the Gnarwhal were long after the 27.5" fat info came out.

    Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5? With the amount they have invested in the future of fat 27.5, tires seems like a odd area to become conservative with, especially since they are the only producer at this point.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5?
    Yep, which (aside from the rim width that I've harped on enough times now), is the real disconnect. I know some thought (and I certainly hoped) that we'd see more support for this size, including a 65mm rim at this past Interbike but it didn't pan out that way.

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    True- but they also also knew long ago that they would be releasing bikes with 27.5" fat tires. The announcements for the Gnarwhal were long after the 27.5" fat info came out.

    Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5?
    i asked than that very same question at the Ice Man, and added the fact that their "racing Bike" features 27.5 wheel (9.8) but their "racing Tire" the Rogaurau wouldn't fit. They had not answer but that they were not aware of anything in the works. So I wrote Trek and and asked them again and all is quiet. So wait and see I guess.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,035
    Funny you mention the Rogaurau. Switching to that tire from a 26" Hodag will drop your BB at least 15mm's. Crazy stuff going on these days.


    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    i asked than that very same question at the Ice Man, and added the fact that their "racing Bike" features 27.5 wheel (9.8) but their "racing Tire" the Rogaurau wouldn't fit. They had not answer but that they were not aware of anything in the works. So I wrote Trek and and asked them again and all is quiet. So wait and see I guess.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  69. #269
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails....
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Funny you mention the Rogaurau. Switching to that tire from a 26" Hodag will drop your BB at least 15mm's. Crazy stuff going on these days.
    Indeed. And a lot of time spent focusing on minute differences that could be spent riding.
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    427
    With a 24" rim you could go wider and still keep the diameter of the 26x4....
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    Indeed. And a lot of time spent focusing on minute differences that could be spent riding.
    Yup- if only it would stop raining and/or the ground would freeze
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  72. #272
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Yup- if only it would stop raining and/or the ground would freeze
    No kidding. After a weekend of great conditions, it's been in the 40's and raining here the last couple days. **** El Nino.
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails.

    Give it a few years and the bike industry will be selling us a "better handling" 24in fattire that has the same true outside diameter as a 27.5" mountain bike tire to go with our 1X13 drivetrain and stiffer external axle hubs all of which will cost more and be fractionally better than what we have now.
    I sense a bit of bitterness toward the mtb industry

    I was referring to skinny wheels because unlike fatbikes they are not completely out of whack with their actual size/outer diameter.

    People seem to feel the difference between 26 and 27.5 skinny wheels. A bit more rollover, a bit more inertia. They like it so why not.

    27.5x4 is intended to be a more rolling/less resistance version of a fatbike.
    I agree that its placement between 26x4 and 27.5/29+ may be very confusing.
    27.5x4 large outer diameter makes it better for large bike sizes.

    29+ isn't really in a better position. Its size makes it valuable for L/XL bike sizes. I am guessing that lower bike sizes tests bring the same reaction than 29er brought.

    Overall, just as we have different wheel sizes for kids (basically changing wheel size every 10-15cm in size of the rider), the same would be applicable for adults.

    If you trace a line of wheel size according to rider size, you can clearly see that 26 was way too small for L/XL size riders and that 29 is too large for S/M size riders.

    Something along the lines of :
    Trek Smart Wheel Size | VeloSport, Cleethorpes, UK - Specialized, Trek, Focus & Genesis Bikes & Cycle Accessories

    Edit: made graph:
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-0egbwz4.png

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    It occurred to me, on my ride home, last night that we've (yes, me included) have been coming at this the wrong way. 26x4 and 27.5x4 comparisons have not been apples to apples, thus far, because we're comparing outside diameter of the tires! I don't have a set of Hodags on 26"x80mm rims to take a direct measurement, but Mikesee has confirmed that Bontrager's Hodags are basically the same tire with a different over-all diameter... So let's look at the bead seat diameter:

    26" ISO standard is 559mm BSD
    27.5" (or 650B) ISO standard is 584mm BSD

    All things equal, 27.5" will be a full 25mm taller than 26x4. Not a huge difference, but still significant. Just look at how much hubbub is going on in the skinny-bike world over this 25mm.

    My stance hasn't changed. If you like 26x5 in the winter but want something a little more nimble for summer without comprimising BB height, AND you can get 27.5-Fat at a severe discount, (from my experience) it's worth it. Until it becomes more "standard" (assuming that happens with more tires), ride whatcha got and be happy!

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I sense a bit of bitterness toward the mtb industry

    I was referring to skinny wheels because unlike fatbikes they are not completely out of whack with their actual size/outer diameter.

    People seem to feel the difference between 26 and 27.5 skinny wheels. A bit more rollover, a bit more inertia. They like it so why not.

    27.5x4 is intended to be a more rolling/less resistance version of a fatbike.
    I agree that its placement between 26x4 and 27.5/29+ may be very confusing.
    27.5x4 large outer diameter makes it better for large bike sizes.

    29+ isn't really in a better position. Its size makes it valuable for L/XL bike sizes. I am guessing that lower bike sizes tests bring the same reaction than 29er brought.

    Overall, just as we have different wheel sizes for kids (basically changing wheel size every 10-15cm in size of the rider), the same would be applicable for adults.

    If you trace a line of wheel size according to rider size, you can clearly see that 26 was way too small for L/XL size riders and that 29 is too large for S/M size riders.

    Something along the lines of :
    Trek Smart Wheel Size | VeloSport, Cleethorpes, UK - Specialized, Trek, Focus & Genesis Bikes & Cycle Accessories

    Edit: made graph:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0egBWz4.png 
Views:	169 
Size:	24.3 KB 
ID:	1034566
    I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.
    If you look at the chart, he should definetly get a 29er... err wait a fatbike 27.5x4!

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.
    I think we're all disappointed in how poorly you have been treated by some shops and the marketing force driving them to not lose a big name backer that could make or break their shop. I can't say that, from my experience, that's the norm, though, and shouldn't be treated like it is, IMO.

    And, in this case, listening to what the muckitymucks at Trek/Bontrager have to say about this standard and jumping on the 29+ bandwagon (while fully knowing that other companies were steering another direction) lends a bit of credibility to their claims. Whether there's an appreciable benefit to the bigger standard? All you have to go on is Trek/Bontrager's word, the word of people here who have tried it, and a little bit science that's peeked through the haze. It tooks some guts to stick to this and the beta behind it says there's a reason other than marketing... IMHO.

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    It occurred to me, on my ride home, last night that we've (yes, me included) have been coming at this the wrong way. 26x4 and 27.5x4 comparisons have not been apples to apples, thus far, because we're comparing outside diameter of the tires! I don't have a set of Hodags on 26"x80mm rims to take a direct measurement, but Mikesee has confirmed that Bontrager's Hodags are basically the same tire with a different over-all diameter... So let's look at the bead seat diameter:

    26" ISO standard is 559mm BSD
    27.5" (or 650B) ISO standard is 584mm BSD

    All things equal, 27.5" will be a full 25mm taller than 26x4. Not a huge difference, but still significant. Just look at how much hubbub is going on in the skinny-bike world over this 25mm.

    My stance hasn't changed. If you like 26x5 in the winter but want something a little more nimble for summer without comprimising BB height, AND you can get 27.5-Fat at a severe discount, (from my experience) it's worth it. Until it becomes more "standard" (assuming that happens with more tires), ride whatcha got and be happy!
    So a 12.5mm difference in BB height then.... IMHO I wouldn't buy a bike that only has one tire available, especially one costing $3k+ just to gain less than 1/2" in ride height. Lower rolling resistance tires like the Juggernauts or Jumbo Jims would give you similar results for summer, but right now 26" wheels have a lot more options for the slick stuff, the smooth stuff and everywhere in between. Five years from now it may be different, but right now I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to jump to 27.5.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  79. #279
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    So a 12.5mm difference in BB height then.... IMHO I wouldn't buy a bike that only has one tire available, especially one costing $3k+ just to gain less than 1/2" in ride height. Lower rolling resistance tires like the Juggernauts or Jumbo Jims would give you similar results for summer, but right now 26" wheels have a lot more options for the slick stuff, the smooth stuff and everywhere in between. Five years from now it may be different, but right now I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to jump to 27.5.
    It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.
    If you buy the wheels $$$$, but that wasn't his point.

  81. #281
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    If you buy the wheels $$$$, but that wasn't his point.
    I understood his point, and I expanded it. It is not a rare thing for people to own 2, 3, even 4 high end bikes. Or 2 bikes with 2 (or 3) wheelsets for each. Getting more common as options increase that offer a different experience but keep geometry similar or identical.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I understood his point, and I expanded it. It is not a rare thing for people to own 2, 3, even 4 high end bikes. Or 2 bikes with 2 (or 3) wheelsets for each. Getting more common as options increase that offer a different experience but keep geometry similar or identical.
    Right, but you could type the same thing about the 5 and 7 and the guy achieves similar with fewer wheel sets. Thus why bother with the 9 at this point.
    One extra wheel set on a 5 or 7 and you're versatility/tire choice is greater.

  83. #283
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Right, but you could type the same thing about the 5 and 7
    I'm not that well versed in the models/options to know that.

    But I didn't need to be -- you just typed it for me...

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.
    True, but so can my Fatboy and am guessing most of the 5" fatbikes out there. If 27.5" fat is the same diameter as 26x4.8" many bikes can run it. The upside in buying a bike with 26" wheels is you have a multitude of options right out of the gate without having to drop another grand out on wheels and tires.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    True, but so can my Fatboy and am guessing most of the 5" fatbikes out there. If 27.5" fat is the same diameter as 26x4.8" many bikes can run it. The upside in buying a bike with 26" wheels is you have a multitude of options right out of the gate without having to drop another grand out on wheels and tires.
    Coming from a situation on skinnies where if I wanted to change wheels size, I had to buy a completely new bike, that isn't so bad

  86. #286
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    I saw these wheels on a Farley in a shop near my house. I can't wait to put a pair on my 907. Riding year round on 4.8's and 100mm rims is fun but I'm ready to go faster in warm weather.
    I like turtles

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    No connection to the sale, but for all of you wanting to go 27.5 fat here is a potential cheap way to add a set of wheels/tires....

    Bontrager Jackalope 27 5" Fat Bike Wheelset Hodag Tires Tubeless Disc 150 197 | eBay
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,072
    Nobody is forcing these 27.5 fat wheels on people. If you don't want them, don't buy them. Buy one of the versions that has 26" wheels instead.

    I do agree that Trek/Bontrager should get a couple of more tires out ASAP.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    They'll be my go-to summer tire from now on, if that tells ya anything... Clearance; a little taller and narrow (talking millimeters) than a BFL on 65's. In other words, plenty!
    Wait... am I reading this correctly?! ^^^^

    Are you saying that the Hodaq on the 80mm Bontrager rim is narrower than a BFL on a 65mm rim? If so, that might make me re-think my insistence on holding out for a 650b x 65mm rim. I was completely satisfied with the steering characteristics of a BFL, even on a wider 82mm rim. It just wasn't tall enough.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    Nobody is forcing these 27.5 fat wheels on people.
    I think everyone here realizes that.

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    82
    I am looking at 27.5X4 what is the lowest tire pressure you have run on Trek 9 series tubeless. I like a bit of squish

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I have run them down to 4lbs or so, but I don't really see much advantage and an mostly running them at 6 in the front, 8 in the rear. Maybe they don't give as much squish as 26's do, but it seems like they slow down a lot and I don't really get that much more traction. Since the sidewall is shorter, it seems like things would get dangerous quicker than on a 26. I have a 9.6 Farley.

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    82
    Great thanks, how do you like it in snow ?

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I think I agree with what I have heard from others. On firmer snow it is great, with great traction and I like it a lot. On deeper, fresh show, say more than 3 or 4 inches, it has a tendency to wash out , especially the front tire on any sidehill. It seems to me that wider and lower pressure would be better. I am still looking for a good set of 26 rims around 80mm, and then this may be my deep snow setup with something like D5's and studs, but it is not an immediate need. The LBS said that Bontrager was doing a studded 27.5 next winter, but I think it is the same 3.8 width, so that will be another option if I don't find what I am looking for in 26".

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    43
    I`m excited...
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-small_1218.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-pieni_1214.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-pieni_1215.jpg

    Hodag 27,5 x 3,8" is 93 mm wide on a 50 mm rim. Height is pretty much same as Dunderbeist on a 65 mm rim.. So a bit less than Bud 4,8 height.

    Easily fits to Beargrease2 rear.. etc.. Just to test these, as I will be using these in a fs.
    Last edited by Jukahia; 12-24-2015 at 12:20 PM.

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    ^ Man, the tires actually look small in this application! Funny how your perspective changes after you get used to fatter and fatter proportions, and they become the norm.

    Still, I think these do look a lot better on the 50mm rims. To my eye, the 80s make the profile too boxy for all-round use, and the rim doesn't look like it would have enough protection from rocks. I still think that 65mm is going to be the sweet spot, but this is looking pretty promising. Thanks for sharing the pics!
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fatboy43's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    168
    Don't think it has been posted here yet but Nextie is making a 27.5 x 65 rim. Could be perfect....

    http://www.nextie.net/fatbike-black-...65mm-NXT27BE65

    Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Carbon - meh

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    27
    Well that answers my ? regarding fitting in a Krampus frame for curiositys sake. Regardless of the diameter inflated, I'm measuring 93mm up and down on my frame.

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by fatboy43 View Post
    I've got a set of these, sadly they haven't been built up yet, anyone want to take them off my hands?

  101. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Is this a 29+ fork or a 27.5+? Every time you post it you are saying 29+, but I thought it was a 27+.

  102. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177

    Giving this a try.

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_0543.jpg

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_0544.jpg


    Supa Fat before the skinnie fat:
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_0535.jpg
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  103. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Allamuchy Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    483
    Supa Fat before the skinnie fat:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0535.jpg 
Views:	314 
Size:	363.4 KB 
ID:	1039166
    I know fat bikes have great traction, but that is one steep hill!
    2019 Reeb Sqweeb
    2017 Pivot Mach 429 Trail
    2016 Salsa Bucksaw

  104. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Allamuchy Joe View Post
    I know fat bikes have great traction, but that is one steep hill!

    IDK why the damn pics are sideways, I wasn't drunk when I took them!
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  105. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Who makes that mud guard? My 7 might want one.

  106. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    T'aint Muddy Fenders off Amazon.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  107. #307
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    I was at the bike shop yesterday and spotted a set of Jackalope rims with 27.5x4 tires waiting to be picked up. First time I've seem em off a bike. Makes me want em even more now.
    I like turtles

  108. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Continuing to obssess about how to make these Hodag tires work... I think these Fatlab 55 rims might be the most promising so far, now that I look at them more closely. Does anybody have experience with them?:

    Fatlab 27,5x55 - FatLab bicyclesFatLab bicycles

    I can't find the inner rim width anywhere, but it seems like they might actually be a couple of millimeters wider than the Hugo (49.5 inner - at least before the re-design), which is in turn wider than the Mulfut. Also - similar the Rabbit hole but opposite of the Hugo design - the hollow section and extra material is added at the EDGE, rather than the center. For me who will run them on an unsuspended bike, this seems like a better, more durable design.

    Name:  70408.jpg
Views: 1082
Size:  7.3 KB27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-american-classic-fatlab-fat-bike-wheels021-600x399.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-fatlab-27.5x55-angle-view-full-rim_resize-640x500.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-fatlab-felge-innen.jpg

    Some pics below, stollen from Bike Rumor and THIS THREAD, show them with Husker Du (4.0) and H Billie (4.25) tires, and the profiles actually look pretty darn good.

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-11nine-full-suspension-fat-bike-275-2.jpg

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-11nine-full-suspension-fat-bike-275-3.jpg

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-k2i6tc.jpg

    Lastly, does anybody know if the production Hodag turned out to be smaller than promised? I ask for two reasons: 1) In some of the pics above, on 80mm bontrager rims, the profile looks really squared off and narrow, relative to the rim; and 2) in THIS thread, Walt cites the diameter as being 750mm which, if measured accurately, is significantly shorter than the intended 768mm. If this is the case it makes an even better argument for 55mm rims but, on the other hand, may mean the tire is too short for what I want to accomplish.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  109. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post

    Lastly, does anybody know if the production Hodag turned out to be smaller than promised? I ask for two reasons: 1) In some of the pics above, on 80mm bontrager rims, the profile looks really squared off and narrow, relative to the rim; and 2) in THIS thread, Walt cites the diameter as being 750mm which, if measured accurately, is significantly shorter than the intended 768mm. If this is the case it makes an even better argument for 55mm rims but, on the other hand, may mean the tire is too short for what I want to accomplish.
    Since the big advantage of 27.5 is supposed to be 26x5 diameter in a 4" tire, I'd be surprised if it was that small (750mm) of a diameter. If so, it would hold zero advantage over 26X4, aside from the placebo effect.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  110. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mbeardsl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by aquamogal View Post
    I am looking at 27.5X4 what is the lowest tire pressure you have run on Trek 9 series tubeless. I like a bit of squish
    I've got a 9.6 and have run less than 3psi a couple times in really soft snow (once was in a snowcross race, needed more traction). I'm also 225+ gear so keep that in mind. I agree with what jrogersAK, except that my front doesn't tend to wash out as bad if I go lower pressure, and it doesn't seem to wash out any worse than the folks I ride with (everything in the gamut, but mostly 26x5 and some 26x4s). I can say for sure that they roll faster even at very low pressures. I am often braking a lot more in groups on descents (road and trail) and tend to get to the top of the hill quicker (tubed 26x5 vs tubeless hodags is very different animal going uphill).

    FWIW The local pro here races a 9.6 and only brings out the moonlander occasionally. We discussed at the last race and the consensus was that for an all-season bike they are better than the 26xwhatever due to the faster rolling/lighter weight/etc, and for all but the softest conditions they are better in winter too. So far for me (with exceptions that go both ways), if I'm walking with my bike so is everybody else regardless of wheels so I haven't felt limited.

  111. #311
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    On Hugos, at about 4psi (about where I run them for snow), the 27.5 Hodags are just a smidge under 750mm diameter. I can confirm that. That compares to about 725mm for the 26" version at the same pressure and mounted to the same rim. So the tire casing/bead to bead is the same, just ~1" bigger diameter, as you'd expect.

    With Bud/Lou in the 760mm range, I'd say that's close enough to use interchangeably if you wanted to.

    I would love to see some more 27.5 fatbike tires, we'll see if Trek sticks to their guns or not. If not, I guess 27.5 Hodags will be going cheap. I for one will stock up, they're great all-arounders (and I built a whole bike for myself around 'em).

    -Walt

  112. #312
    LCW
    LCW is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,520
    Here's how I see the industry going... in an ideal sense.... I'm sure it won't though

    26": 4" to 5"+ tires
    27.5": plus size... i.e. 2.8-3" tires
    29": 2.2-2.5"

    Santa Cruz Tallboy 4


  113. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by LCW View Post
    Here's how I see the industry going... in an ideal sense.... I'm sure it won't though

    26": 4" to 5"+ tires
    27.5": plus size... i.e. 2.8-3" tires
    29": 2.2-2.5"
    Neither the 27.5x3.8 nor 29+ do fit in your grand scheme.

    I'd like things to be simple but I believe that we need wheel sizes adapted to adult rider sizes. Just like we do have different wheel sizes for kids.
    Kulhavy who is 6'1 (1m87) does ride 29er.
    Schurter who is 5'6 (1m73) does ride 27.5.
    The size is adapted relatively to their size.

    This taken into account you do realize that wheel sizes (and tyre sizes for fatbikes) do have a huge impact on how bike feels for various people with varying sizes.

    Just like there are different frame sizes, we will have different wheel sizes for the same tyre width.

  114. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	k2i6tc.jpg 
Views:	237 
Size:	195.9 KB 
ID:	1042427
    Can somebody tell me what that fork is please?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  115. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    On Hugos, at about 4psi (about where I run them for snow), the 27.5 Hodags are just a smidge under 750mm diameter. I can confirm that. That compares to about 725mm for the 26" version at the same pressure and mounted to the same rim. So the tire casing/bead to bead is the same, just ~1" bigger diameter, as you'd expect.
    Wow, I'm struggling to see the benefit then at this point. Many of the 26"x4.0" tires have similar diameters- My Van Helgas are right about ~745mm, Nates are ~750mm.

    I realize that comparing Hodag to Hodag, the 27.5" has a 1" larger diameter, but comparing 27.5" to some of the other available 26" options it has minimal or no diameter advantage. If the diameter is the same doesn't the whole longer contact patch thing go out the window?
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  116. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Wow, I'm struggling to see the benefit then at this point. Many of the 26"x4.0" tires have similar diameters- My Van Helgas are right about ~745mm, Nates are ~750mm.

    I realize that comparing Hodag to Hodag, the 27.5" has a 1" larger diameter, but comparing 27.5" to some of the other available 26" options it has minimal or no diameter advantage. If the diameter is the same doesn't the whole longer contact patch thing go out the window?
    nate at 750? my 3 are about 730 iirc...
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  117. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    82
    Trying to come up to speed on this thread, Trek spec is 764OD for hodag.

    Sorry real confused.

    I have the farley 5 and 9.6 in west MI, we just got a bunch of snow !!!

  118. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    82
    Sorry correction 764 OD for hodag

  119. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    nate at 750? my 3 are about 730 iirc...
    The stockers (120tpi? setup tubeless) on my Bucksaw were a hair under 29.5" when we measured them at my LBS when I bought the bike. I was concerned I'd drop my BB too much switching to JJ's, but they were only about .5" less so I made the switch.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  120. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    The stockers (120tpi? setup tubeless) on my Bucksaw were a hair under 29.5" when we measured them at my LBS when I bought the bike. I was concerned I'd drop my BB too much switching to JJ's, but they were only about .5" less so I made the switch.
    hey! if they are and they fit id call it a bonus - wish mine were! im sure there is some variation...

    yeah mine are 120tpi 'light' versions x2 and one 27tpi boat anchor version. all the same size. mounted to various rims between 45 and 85mm wide...tubeless and tubed....

    cheers!
    Last edited by dRjOn; 01-14-2016 at 11:20 AM.
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  121. #321
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Can somebody tell me what that fork is please?
    Trans-Fat Fork - Carver Bikes
    I like turtles

  122. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    hey! if they are and they fit id call it a bonus - wish mine were! im sure there is some variation...

    yeah mine are 120tpi 'light' versions x2 and one 27tpi bpat anchor version. all these e same size. mounted to various rims between 45 and 85mm wide...tubeless and tubed....

    cheers!
    Yeah, doesn't look like Surly is that consistent with their sizing...
    http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/bud-bluto-944893.html
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  123. #323
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Regardless, the diameter isn't much different than a slightly larger 26" tire, which should be obvious, I suppose. The Hodag is the smallest fatbike tire I know of (about 90mm width on the Hugos, spreads out to maybe 95mm on a 65 or 80mm rim) and I struggle with whether it's really a big plus tire or a small fatbike tire.

    I think that if Trek had really wanted to play the wheel-diameter-is-king card, they'd have been better off just going to full on 29x4 or something. 27.5 is really just not that much different than 26.

    For folks who want a smaller fatbike tire (like me) and the ability to swap to 29+ easily, they're great. And you can build yourself a fully geared 73mm shell frame with nice normal/low q-factor and still get the chain to clear, which is pretty cool. So I'm not saying the idea is dumb...but I'm also confused about Trek's thinking on this, given that they just released a bunch of new tires and didn't make any of them 27.5.

    -Walt

  124. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    i feel pretty much the same way - for me, it is a big '27.5 plus tyre' - and the tread looks great for my uses too...struggling to wait for these darn spokes to get it rolling!

    its odd in some ways particularly as the chupa is so light. i know the hodag has a lot more tread, but it is 1250g ish...400g more than the hodag. if it were 1050-1100 id be super stoked...though i guess compared to a lot of the 26x5" jobs thats lighter by a fair chunk...so maybe they were splitting the difference a little...diameter vs weight wise....
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  125. #325
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by aquamogal View Post
    Sorry correction 764 OD for hodag
    That is incorrect. They are not even close to that diameter, regardless of what Trek says. I have both the 26 and 27.5 versions here - about 725/750mm, respectively.

    -Walt

  126. #326
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    That is incorrect. They are not even close to that diameter, regardless of what Trek says. I have both the 26 and 27.5 versions here - about 725/750mm, respectively.

    -Walt
    I've got a set of 27.5 Jacka's shod with 3.8" Hodag's. 754 and 756 respectively, at about 5psi.

  127. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    43
    Yep, I measured my set also, on a 50 Hugo @10psi only 750mm. These 27,5 hodags has now been set tubeless on wheels for + two weeks @10psi. Compared to Bud on a nextie 65 (it is 768mm) these are far away from big boys... But I still like these tyres.

  128. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Thank you guys, for confirming measurements. I can't decide yet if I'm disappointed. Fully aware that mfgr. specs rarely match reality, I just measured some tires myself to see if my expectations were unrealistic... or even important.

    For reference:

    FBN 29x3 = 768 mm (This is the crucial one, that I was hoping to pair the Hodag with)

    Knard 4.8 = 770 mm (This is the tire I want to replace with the Hodag, because it's just too much volume. Measurement is from memory because it isn't mounted at the moment, but I recall it being ever-so-slightly larger than the FBN.)

    D5 = 746 mm

    BFL = 739 mm (My old front tire, paired well with Ardent rear, but detrimentally too short for pairing with FBN )

    Ardent 29x2.4 = 743 mm (My old rear tire, paired well with BFL & D5 front)

    So splitting the difference between Walt's and Mike's numbers (and considering I'd run a bit more than 4 psi in the summer) let's say the Hodag is 753 mm:

    - That equates to a 5/16" ride height (radius) difference between the FBN rear and the Hodag front. Certainly not world ending and I can compensate somewhat with headset shims, though the real difference will be a bit more noticeable due to tire squish.

    - As Walt says, the Hodag size is probably close enough for replacing 29+ tires or 26x5 tires on a bike with a geometry built accordingly, if you're swapping both wheels as a pair.

    - However, this is really truest only if you're comparing to the smaller 29+ tires, like the FBN and Dirt Wizzard. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really equate well to the larger 29+ tires, does it?

    - Likewise, as Jukahia says, the Hodag does NOT seem to be an equivalent to the larger 26" fat tires, like the Bud, Knard 4.8, Snowshoe XL either. Which is what Trek advertises. It is pretty equivalent to the "tweener" size fat tires, like the FBN, D5, Ground Control, etc.

    Like I said, not sure if I'm disappointed yet. Kind of just thinking out loud and sharing my thoughts. Good news is that this makes the 55mm rims seem all the more appropriate, if I go ahead with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    The Hodag is the smallest fatbike tire I know of (about 90mm width on the Hugos, spreads out to maybe 95mm on a 65 or 80mm rim) and I struggle with whether it's really a big plus tire or a small fatbike tire.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  129. #329
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    However, this is really truest only if you're comparing to the smaller 29+ tires, like the FBN and Dirt Wizzard. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really equate well to the larger 29+ tires, does it?
    Even DW is a solid ~12mm taller than Super B Hodag.

    That said? These just make sense to me, in the same way that 29" makes sense over 26".

    With no super fat rubber options they'll be limited to summer use, for me. For any kind of omniterrain traverse where massive float isn't needed, but some float coupled with efficiency is?

    Like, for example, this or this or this?

    I think 26 x 4" just died a quick death in my world.

  130. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    FWIW, I've measured my 27.5" Hodags at 763mm diameter on a fresh mount on Jackalope Rims... Don't know what's happening with the discrepancy everyone is having, but every tire I've measured on my own (I measure circumference at the center of the tread at Max. Press. then divide by Pi) has been +/-2mm of the manufacturer's numbers for VEE, Surly, 45nrth, and Bontrager... These are new tires, prior to stretch, too!

    Edited to include Specialized Tires, as well.

  131. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    FWIW, I've measured my 27.5" Hodags at 763mm diameter on a fresh mount on Jackalope Rims... Don't know what's happening with the discrepancy everyone is having, but every tire I've measured on my own (I measure circumference at the center of the tread at Max. Press. then divide by Pi) has been +/-2mm of the manufacturer's numbers for VEE, Surly, 45nrth, and Bontrager... These are new tires, prior to stretch, too!

    Edited to include Specialized Tires, as well.
    This brings up a good point, about standardizing how we're all coming up with these measurements. My method is to:

    1. Bring the bike inside, and roll it up until the tire just touches a vertical wall (obviously, floor is horizontal).

    2. Measure from face of wall, at height where tire hits, to center of axle.

    3. Multiply X 2

    With this method, you do have to be very careful that the wheel is plumb and perpendicular to the face of the wall, or the measurement changes significantly and quickly.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  132. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Nonetheless, we have to assume that when someone like Walt says the Hodag does not even come close to the height of the bigger 26" fat tires or 29+ tires, that he is comparing apples-to-apples and using the same measurement method or both and/or comparing them side-by-side.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  133. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    This brings up a good point, about standardizing how we're all coming up with these measurements. My method is to:

    1. Bring the bike inside, and roll it up until the tire just touches a vertical wall (obviously, floor is horizontal).

    2. Measure from face of wall, at height where tire hits, to center of axle.

    3. Multiply X 2

    With this method, you do have to be very careful that the wheel is plumb and perpendicular to the face of the wall, or the measurement changes significantly and quickly.
    Why can't you hold the tire up, put a level on it and use a metric tape to measure from top of tire at the base of the level (centered on level) to the floor? Just making sure the tape dissects the wheel directly past the axel.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  134. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Why can't you hold the tire up, put a level on it and use a metric tape to measure from top of tire at the base of the level (centered on level) to the floor? Just making sure the tape dissects the wheel directly past the axel.
    I used to try it that way, but I could never duplicate a measurement, so I quit. Too hard to hold both the bike/wheel and the level plumb and horizontal, or something. Depending on how much air is in the tire, the weight of the bike could actually deform the tire, too - especially at these low pressures.

    I also use the same face-of-wall method as an easy way to accurately measure things like front-center and effective (horizontal) chainstay length and saddle setback, without relying on eyeball measurements and/or trigonometry , so it just became my de-facto method, I guess.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  135. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    I use 2 right angled steel rules bolted together so they can slide against each other but be cinched down this means the total diameter is the minimum the rules can be reduced and still allow the wheel to fit. It helped to get accurate numbers for a number of wheels to have some very close fitting frames made around particular wheel sizes.
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  136. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,460
    And no 27.5 fatty studded? Farley 8 owner here, I'm not seeing a great advantage to the 27.5 rim size. Incrementally bigger? What am I missing?

  137. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Some of you might be following a parallel conversation going on in the Plus forum but, just in case, here's a picture that craigsj just posted, of the Hodag and Chupacabra together. This might be the most informative way to look at this:

    Name:  IMG_0757.jpg
Views: 1546
Size:  54.5 KB
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  138. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    43


    Yep, You need to twist Your head, it's an I phone quality + me

    Here is now hodag 27,5x3,8" on 50mm wheel and on the bottom/left is barbegazi 26 x 4,7" on 65mm wheel.... And wait for it...

    Hodag is 5mm TALLER ! So by the method of bontrager 27,5x3,8" is a match for big tires One just needs to make them all small...

    Heights are, hodag 750mm and barbegazi 745mm, both 10psi, same method Bud is 768mm !! and yes, measured standing in front of wall with steel angle etc. I ewen tryed 20psi to barbegazi and had it 750mm.

  139. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Barb and 27.5 Hodag are roughly the same size - within 4-5mm.
    Old news.
    The bikes are designed with that in mind, and that's also how we knew 29+ would fit just as well since the Chupie is also within a few mm of the Barb.

  140. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Ahhh.... that's what we thought was the whole point right ? But it seems that neither the barb or hodag really did turn out as tall as the chupa in reality, as we had expected - or as wide, for that matter. Thats really the only new revelation.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  141. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Hmmm...I have a 29+ wheel set here ready to be built up along with Chupas.
    I'll be interested to see in person just how much size discrepancy there is from the Barbis.

  142. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xctearor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    200
    I like the 27.5 x 4 idea, but is the ability to accommodate 26x4, 26x5, 27.5x4, 29+ specific to the Farley due to its geometry and sliding drop-out? Or would something like a Fat Caad 1 be able to run all wheel sizes as well?

  143. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by xctearor View Post
    I like the 27.5 x 4 idea, but is the ability to accommodate 26x4, 26x5, 27.5x4, 29+ specific to the Farley due to its geometry and sliding drop-out? Or would something like a Fat Caad 1 be able to run all wheel sizes as well?
    Typically if the bike can run 26x5" tires it should fit all of the others.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  144. #344
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    Yep. Once I get some 27.5 stuff, I'll have all three for my 907.
    I like turtles

  145. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,759
    So what are we talking about as far as widths go on a 50mm rim?
    "Wait- I am confused" - SDMTB'er

  146. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm [email protected] 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  147. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm [email protected] 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.
    You felt a 1% increase in diameter? 9mm is only a 4.5mm (.177") increase in ride height.

    More likely you felt the difference of less compression due to 3 more psi in a smaller casing.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  148. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    You felt a 1% increase in diameter? 9mm is only a 4.5mm (.177") increase in ride height.

    More likely you felt the difference of less compression due to 3 more psi in a smaller casing.
    I think you are making assumptions based on things you don't know. I have a LOT of time on the Barbs at 14 PSI to 4. The first time I was on the 27.5's at probably 8-10 PSi it hit me immediately that it felt taller. But hey, you probably know more than me. I am 5'3" tall, I am sensitive to seat height. Probably just my imagination.
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  149. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    If I gave you a Barb with a 757mm diameter and then swapped it with a slightly undersized one 9mm smaller with everything else being equal (bike, psi, rim size, etc) I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in ride height.

    You are changing tires, rims, psi, casing size, width, tread pattern, knob height,wheel weight, rolling resistance, rigidity and a host of other factors and you claim that you can isolate all of that to notice the minute .177" difference in ride height? .177" is the same size as a BB from an air rifle, i.e. Very small. Can tell if you have a BB under your fat tire?

    Your "experiment" has way too many variables for you to say that the diameter/ride height is the difference. You are the one assuming that all of these factors (different tires, rims, psi, casing size, tread pattern, knob height, casing rigidity, tire construction, tpi, etc.) have no bearing on your perception of ride height.

    I'm not saying you can't tell a difference between the two wheel sets, they should be very different, but there is a lot more at play than just a small diameter increase making that difference.
    Last edited by Paochow; 01-20-2016 at 08:02 PM.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  150. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    OK, thank you. I wasn't experimenting, I just own 2 set of wheels and I reported my impressions of them, how ever useless that may be. I'll just stay our of this and leave it up to the scientists. Thanks!
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  151. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-24504710195_663d054cd9_b.jpg

    mounted on nextie junglefox2 45mm internal, 87mm casing, 93mm tread, 745mm diameter. this was imediately after mounting tubeless, at 25psi, so it might stretch a bit, but the casing is pretty robust (1250g) so maybe not.

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-23875781514_3f230b111e_b.jpg
    Last edited by dRjOn; 01-21-2016 at 04:45 AM.
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  152. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If I gave you a Barb with a 757mm diameter and then swapped it with a slightly undersized one 9mm smaller with everything else being equal (bike, psi, rim size, etc) I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in ride height.
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.

  153. #353
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.
    It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"

  154. #354
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 882
Size:  37.9 KB
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  155. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  156. #356
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    Not those exactly but I ride with guys that have Nextie's fat rims and they swear by them.
    I like turtles

  157. #357
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    i have some older Nexties and wasnt ecstatic about the drilling, a common issue, but they have held up ok otherwise to a year plus of use, though they are on a rigid singlespeed so not massive impacts etc. the newer one i built up seems to have a step up in construction and the drilling was both directional and perfect.
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  158. #358
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

    Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.
    You know some of us have been a this for a while.

    However, I can totally tell that my front tire was molded from a different lot/production run than my rear tire. Must have been the next day and a different dude was molding the tire. Maybe a .002 difference in durometer but man the rear totally absorbs bumps better than the front. It's awesome and confidence inspiring once the bump gets to my rear tire and my butt cringes less than my wrists.

  159. #359
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"
    Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.

    -Walt

  160. #360
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    I must be drinking from an entirely different cup, I dream of 24" of pure bliss with some 4.6's and super short stays. Instead of worrying about about rolling over logs I'd be flying over em
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-shrek20012.jpg  


  161. #361
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    I'm curious if anyone has tried fitting these to a Salsa Bucksaw on 44mm rims. Given the complaints about these tires that they're not true to size, I wonder if they'd fit...

  162. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    walt: do you think the hodag would fit in paragons' yoke? (do you build with that, ever? i know you often dont use a yoke...)

    edit....nope! too close!

    MS2060.PDF
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  163. #363
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    I'm curious if anyone has tried fitting these to a Salsa Bucksaw on 44mm rims. Given the complaints about these tires that they're not true to size, I wonder if they'd fit...
    I'm 99% sure the 27.5 Hodags would fit the Bucksaw.

    -Walt

  164. #364
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Welnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.

    -Walt
    Some people are more sensitive about things than other people.

    Amazon.com: Books

  165. #365
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I'm 99% sure the 27.5 Hodags would fit the Bucksaw.

    -Walt
    Sweet. Just ordered some for my bucksaw. I decided to build a set of 27.5 plus wheels for it first, because I got a sweet deal that I couldn't pass up on some WTB Scrapers. Of course, now that snowmageddon is about to hit the northeast, I'm wishing that I'd built up my marge lite rear instead, hopefully, we'll still have snow when the tires arrive next month.

  166. #366
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,460
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm [email protected] 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.
    Width?

  167. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"
    Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.

  168. #368
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.
    Jeez talk about getting hung up Uh nobody really said you had a valid point.

    Oh and I read the rest, I just didn't want to call you out in public and call BS but since you bring it back up.

  169. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,072
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.
    Nobody is arguing that the difference doesn't exist. It's just that with all of the other factors, a 4.5mm ride height difference is going to be extremely hard to notice. A slight pressure difference will result in more ride height difference than that and be much more noticeable.

  170. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,035
    I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.

    It is a given that people have different sensitivities. Just because you can't feel it does not mean that it is not perceptable to others.

    I can feel when a tire is getting worn and the knobs are shorter I don't stop riding but it does change the feel of the bike.



    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.

    -Walt
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  171. #371
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid.
    You may want to research this and then read their statements again.....
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  172. #372
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.

    It is a given that people have different sensitivities. Just because you can't feel it does not mean that it is not perceptable to others.

    I can feel when a tire is getting worn and the knobs are shorter I don't stop riding but it does change the feel of the bike.
    So the shorter, worn, rounded knobs, and stretched/degraded rubber do nothing to change the feel of the tire, but yet you can feel the 2-3mm decrease in ride height?

    "Why'd you change your tires- were they worn out and not gripping anymore?"
    "No- I couldn't handle the 3mm decrease in ride height."

    Worn tires feel different I agree, but there are other factors contributing much more to that change. With knobs averaging in the 4-6mm range, a half worn tire would only have a 2-3mm difference in ride height.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  173. #373
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?

  174. #374
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?
    Curious about this as well.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  175. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.
    .
    Note: Don't send Shoo to the grocery store to shop for apples and oranges.

  176. #376
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    A blog article on this very subject:
    Bigger Wheels | DANOS MODERN(ER) LIFE

    I am not the author but the guy being the owner of a bike shop has had many bikes over time so he can compare formats.

    He also says that "big guns" are working on it.

  177. #377
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?
    Ive heard that other manufactures are having a hard time replicating the magic fairy dust that gives them their super powers
    Last edited by bdundee; 01-22-2016 at 08:07 PM.

  178. #378
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Personally I believe these where created specifically for a 6 foot whater freakishly tall dood that drifts like a *******

  179. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Ive heard that other manufactures are having a hard time replicating the majic fairy dust that gives their super powers
    Placebo powder!

  180. #380
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    A blog article on this very subject:
    Bigger Wheels | DANOS MODERN(ER) LIFE

    I am not the author but the guy being the owner of a bike shop has had many bikes over time so he can compare formats.

    He also says that "big guns" are working on it.
    So a guy who sells Trek bikes, gives them a positive review....

    Theoretically a larger diameter tire would hold the advantages he notes. However looking at the real numbers being posted here, there is little to no difference in diameter compared to available 26" options, so the the only advantage appears to be all placebo effect.

    And with that placebo advantage you get the disadvantages of:
    - smaller casing/less squish
    - narrower footprint at lower pressure also due to smaller casing
    - no winter/studded tires
    - no other tires available
    - more mass concentrated further from the wheel center
    - inability to run low pressures without rim damage

    If Trek really wanted this to succeed, they should have made it bigger so it truly has an advantage in contact patch and not just an advertised advantage.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  181. #381
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    So here's a thought and question:

    I do think that it would be difficult for me personally to notice 1/4" or so of difference in ride height - at least as it affects things like inertia, mechanical advantage (gearing) and rollover ability ("angle of attack"). But I kind of wonder if there are other aspects or ride qualities that might truly be more noticeable in a change this small. Things like trail and center of gravity (bb height).

    Looking at trail, for instance (calculator HERE):

    Assuming a 70 degree head angle and 50mm of fork offset, tire diameters of 750mm, 760mm & 770mm give you trail figures of 83mm, 85mm & 87mm respectively. If you listen to roadies obsess about trail and their custom forks, those could be significant numbers.

    Or maybe not? Interested in opinions, for sure.

    Going back to the original question posed by this thread, this is why I've personally been excited about 650bx4, and why I thought Trek was on to something. It gets us closer to my dream of being able to choose whatever tire width I want, in the exact diameter I need.

    I've always thought it funny how we fat bike guys all try to squeeze in as wide of a tire as possible - sometimes an inch or more fatter than the bike was designed for - and then critique the bike's "handling."

    I also think the industry obsession with 27+ is kind of silly, when 29+ diameter is so much better. (Yes - a subjective opinion, I know.) But just like with road bike conversions, where a fat-tire 650b actually DOES equal the diameter of a skinny 700c, this should have been the perfect use of the wheel size for a change.

    What I DON't get is why Trek would have botched it right out of the gate, by making the tire undersized. Not to mention failing to offer a properly sized rim. Now, my fear is that they'll throw in the towel, without even giving it a fair shake:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I'm also confused about Trek's thinking on this, given that they just released a bunch of new tires and didn't make any of them 27.5. -Walt
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  182. #382
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    2mm of trail is not discernible to anyone. 5mm is about the lower limit.

    Trek botched this, though, for sure. They made a sweet plus tire, not a fatbike tire. Then when they released a bunch of nice new tires... they didn't make any of them in this supposedly superior size. No idea what the thinking was there.

    I mean, I really like my 27.5 Hodags. They're great. But they really probably aren't any different/better than a 26x4" tire for most people.

    -Walt

  183. #383
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    So who says that what they have is all that they are going to have? I have a Trek 9.6, and it seems like there is plenty of room for more tire, both in width as well as height. If someone was to produce a 27.5 x 5 tire, it seems like you would have the width of any of the good snow tires now, and a larger diameter and longer patch.

    It does suck that there is no studded option currently, although I head that Trek is putting out a 27.5 studded in time for next year. I am still on the fence about getting a set of 26 rims or waiting to see what comes next...

  184. #384
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If Trek really wanted this to succeed, they should have made it bigger so it truly has an advantage in contact patch and not just an advertised advantage.
    They get a better return advertising.

  185. #385
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604


    well, its a very iffy video, but the hodag was anything but iffy...27.5x4 is allllllright by me...

    more thoughts on my blog, here.
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  186. #386
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    The question is how "allllright" is it in relation to the standards that already exist.

    Higher pressure than 26" (thus negating any possibly TINY increase in contact patch) means there's little point in it.
    Not that I don't think it works just fine - it should since it's more or less the same thing - with less cush.

    I tested the 9.6. My thoughts were "heavier and slower than 29+, and not feeling any better in the rolling resistance/quickness department than the 4.7 Barbis unless I air them up beyond what would feel good to me on the trail, then I just lose lose cush. So what's the point?" Might as well ride 4.7's and then get 29+. Best of all worlds.
    I'm with Walt in that they're a nice Plus tire if you want the extra weight and more contact patch (compared to other Plus tires) but as a fat bike tire it comes in somewhere between no difference and slightly inferior.
    Much of my take on this is due to how well the Barbis work - and that happens to be Treks own tire. Comparing the 27.5 Hodag to say a Lou - well now have something with regard to weight, rolling resistance, etc.

    This new standard is a sort of weird, intermediate, sort of "worst of all worlds" compromise. I'm sure they work great for the right person, not sure that person wouldn't be just as happy on 26x4" and a few of those people even on a fast rolling 4.7" tire. As I said before I don't think anyone is a dummy for buying them - just talking about the tires here relative to each other.

  187. #387
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Woulda coulda shoulda... 29x3.8! 27.5 was always basically silly, not enough of a difference to matter over 26.

    Someone make it so I can build a bike around it.

    -Walt

  188. #388
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post


    well, its a very iffy video, but the hodag was anything but iffy...27.5x4 is allllllright by me...

    more thoughts on my blog, here.
    27.5 "fat" should have more grip than 29+, it's .8" wider.

    I'm not seeing anything in your vid though that 26" fat couldn't do as well or better, which is kind of the whole point of this thread.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  189. #389
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Woulda coulda shoulda... 29x3.8! 27.5 was always basically silly, not enough of a difference to matter over 26.

    Someone make it so I can build a bike around it.

    -Walt
    Screw that build me a 24er!!

  190. #390
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Screw that build me a 24er!!
    That would work too! 24x6" would be amazing for a lot of stuff, I bet. And I personally think the Q factor would be tolerable, if barely, at least for most people.

    Maybe we'll get there. One can only hope; tires keep getting bigger and better so maybe it's just a matter of time.

    -Walt

  191. #391
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    27.5 "fat" should have more grip than 29+, it's .8" wider.

    I'm not seeing anything in your vid though that 26" fat couldn't do as well or better, which is kind of the whole point of this thread.
    Yeah, I'm not a GoPro jockey, I just did that video for sh!ts and giggles - I didn't expect it to prove anything... ;-)~

    I haven't ridden the wtb trail boss or a dirt wizard- my point was simply that the Hodag is the most aggressive, biggest plus tyre I have tried and for that, it works very well. I don't see it as a replacement for my 26x4.5 but I do really like it ... I think it *is* better on my terrain...indeed for most trail riding I think it will be better than 26x4-5 ... Which in my mind is more suited for questionable surface- bog, snow, sand etc fwiw, I also think a bigger diameter would be pretty awesome...

    But it's all fun, and that's the point I hope!
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  192. #392
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    If anyone was wanting to try 27.5x4's for cheap, I'm selling my set of used Hodags and Jackalopes (have some bends, I recommend tubed on 'em, now). PM me if you're intersted!

    Edit: Hodags are now sold.
    Last edited by JR Z; 01-27-2016 at 05:11 AM.

  193. #393
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177

    more to argue about

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-img_1996.jpeg

    I'll just put this right here, looks like a 2017 carbon Trek Frame, with 27.5 wampa wheels and 4.7 Barbagazi tires. (fromTravis Brown's Twitter. No words about the bike. The extra cables are data sensors for a log box probably in the bag.)

    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  194. #394
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177

    Full Monty

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-czxgh1lvaaaopon.jpg
    2016 Trek Farley 5 Frame and all custom parts.

  195. #395
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mbeardsl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    597
    Not sure what everyone is complaining about. I took 7th today in a fatbike race running these. 3rd was running them too. I passed people running everything you're saying is better. Do you just not like running low pressure? What am I missing?

    If I had any complaint it'd be with the tread, not the size. I really dig the low weight and they seem to roll better at all pressures than the bigger tires my buddies ride. Maybe I'm crazy?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  196. #396
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    I think one thing we can agree on is people are very sensitive over a silly wheel size.

    @mbeardsi if you don't like the tread design just go get some different tires, simple right?

    Oh and I don't believe anyone is calling then inferior just not superior, ie the same
    Last edited by bdundee; 01-25-2016 at 05:21 AM.

  197. #397
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    The point isn't that they suck. They're great. The point is that they're really not any different than 26" fatbike tires. That is really something you could say about all 27.5 stuff, not just fat 27.5, though. The difference in radius is pretty minimal, and hence the difference in ride is pretty minimal. So why do it, especially when there's not much evidence the size will be supported with more tires?

    -Walt

  198. #398
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Walt,

    Outer Diameter as large as 4.7 without the "larger" 4.5+ tyre. I am all for it as my terrain is very rolling. 26x4 seems a rather small wheel size for my 6'1 height. And 26x4.7 is of no use for me as snow is probably going to last only a few days here in Europe.

    27.5x4 brings some of the Fat tyre benefits without as much rolling resistance. I believe Trek is addressing the market wanting more of an all-year-round bike rather than a snow-only bike.

    We can see that all large manufacturers are offering 26x4 on their high-end fat bikes (Specialized & Canyon come to mind, Surly with its Wednesday). If Fat bikes are to become year round bike they need to offer a better compromise.

  199. #399
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    Walt,

    Outer Diameter as large as 4.7 without the "larger" 4.5+ tyre. I am all for it as my terrain is very rolling. 26x4 seems a rather small wheel size for my 6'1 height. And 26x4.7 is of no use for me as snow is probably going to last only a few days here in Europe.

    27.5x4 brings some of the Fat tyre benefits without as much rolling resistance. I believe Trek is addressing the market wanting more of an all-year-round bike rather than a snow-only bike.

    We can see that all large manufacturers are offering 26x4 on their high-end fat bikes (Specialized & Canyon come to mind, Surly with its Wednesday). If Fat bikes are to become year round bike they need to offer a better compromise.
    Did you miss the last few pages of this thread? You know the part where everyone measured their tires and found them undersized and having smaller diameter than the 26"x4.8's and similar to many 26x4.0's. In theory, Trek should have some performance advantages, however their actual tires lack the diameter to have said advantages, so you are stuck with a similar performing wheel size with only one tire to chose from. Now with time that may change, as Trek will likely come out with more types and sizes of tires, but for now and until it is correctly implemented it's just a gimmick.
    19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  200. #400
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Did you miss the last few pages of this thread? You know the part where everyone measured their tires and found them undersized and having smaller diameter than the 26"x4.8's and similar to many 26x4.0's. In theory, Trek should have some performance advantages, however their actual tires lack the diameter to have said advantages, so you are stuck with a similar performing wheel size with only one tire to chose from. Now with time that may change, as Trek will likely come out with more types and sizes of tires, but for now and until it is correctly implemented it's just a gimmick.
    I didn't miss that. However, they aren't bontrager tyre though.
    Now 27.5x4 is compared to every other type of wheel & tyre combo in the fatbike universe.
    Comparing different manufacturers tyres does not make sense when weight and structure play such a major role in a fatbike wheel behavior.
    I am not sure we have any firm objective conclusion on what the benefits are. Only feedback we have is people having tried both type of wheels and reporting improvements.

    Imagine what the different brands tyres would do with a 27.5x4' size?
    Pic of that 2017 trek farley is showing Barbegazi probably in 27.5 size.
    Are we going to say it's the same as 26x5 from a different brand?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I was so excited.
    By modifier in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-22-2013, 12:19 PM
  2. Excited about ss
    By jrogs in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-24-2012, 03:14 PM
  3. Really Excited
    By The Hookler in forum Turner
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 04:21 AM
  4. excited!
    By nephets0 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 03:27 PM
  5. Excited !!!!
    By stb3222 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 10:49 AM

Members who have read this thread: 135

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.