27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not?- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 1455
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152

    27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not?

    I just sold my Fatboy and I think I've finally narrowed down my next ride to be a Farley..

    My next first world problem is do I make the new 27.5x4 wheel set work or do I try and trade it off for a 26x5 setup?

    If I understand correctly 27.5x4 will excel on groomers and in the summer. The Farley will be a late fall/winter/early spring bike for me so summer performance is not an issue and my trails are a mix of packed and not packed.

    Can anyone comment on the differences between 26x4 and 26x5? How noticeable is the width?

    Is anyone excited about 27.5x4?

  2. #2
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,894
    In soft or marginal snow that extra width is very nice but 4" tires are fine in a lot of winter conditions. I'm intrigued by 27.5 x 4" tires simply because I already have a wheel set. If someone makes a light 4" tire I'd like to try it out, assuming it will fit my frame.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,551
    I ordered the Farley 9,so,yea,I'm pretty excited!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    989
    How could you not be excited to at least ride it and see? I suspect it will kick ass. I also think the biggest mistake people are making when talking about this bike or whether or not they would consider it is, "My 26X4.8 will be better in the snow, so I don't have an interest in this bike"....I say, own more than one bike. Think back to our roadie days, or cross country race days. I never expected one bike to do everything perfectly, that's why I/we, owned multiple. However, if I could only afford one fat bike, I would pre order the Farley with the 27.5X4 and consider it the best of all worlds, and if it didn't perform in the snow as well as I would like, great. Gives me an excuse to buy another fat bike, or build a set of new hoops for the Farley. More choices is always badass.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,551
    I intend to ride mostly on dirt, the geometry is sweet for this and a trail maintenance bike,winters here in NE Pa are sporadic,but will entertain 26er wheelset for bigger tires if I can find some groomed trails close buy.

  6. #6
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    I'm in. 26x3.8 is a little small for me.
    I like turtles

  7. #7
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    meh.

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    yeah^^^^ i love how nimble my 26X4 are. woundn't want the diameter any larger for my type of riding.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    427
    Not
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    475
    Giving up 1.5" of sidewall will hurt your cush.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I suspect either wheel size will handle majority of conditions with aplomb. I plan on building a 27.5/4" wheel set for my Farley 7, but not because I think it will be superior in any way - mostly just curious. Oh and I'll wait for a 65mm 27.5 - otherwise what's the point.

  12. #12
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    In soft or marginal snow that extra width is very nice but 4" tires are fine in a lot of winter conditions. I'm intrigued by 27.5 x 4" tires simply because I already have a wheel set. If someone makes a light 4" tire I'd like to try it out, assuming it will fit my frame.
    ^^^On board as well! Would like to try a light 4 inch tire or at least something bigger than the current 3.25 only be offered now, as I think it will fit my frame!
    17 Fuel EX 9.9 (in progress)
    19 FM 279 carbon gravel
    17 Stache 29+
    14 GT Zaskar 100 9r

    https://kettleheadbrewing.com/

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    if you want a light 4" tire go with 26er fat

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    I think it is a brilliant marketing ploy. You get the name recognition of a 27.5 and everyone who falls for the bike industries "look at me- I'm new" sales tactics will jump right on board. And don't forget you get to sell a buttload of rims when people try to run them at ideal fat tire pressures and ruin their rim. You also get to sell a bunch of Bluto forks, when people realize than a rigid half fat doesn't have enough cushion and bounces like a basketball when inflated to the required 12+ psi required not to ruin your rim. Win win.

    Ask the guy running 24's on his SUV how they ride- they may look cool, but the lack of air doesn't equal comfort.

    I'd love to buy a Trek Farley 9.6, but the wheels just don't make any sense to me. If they had made it a true 27.5 wheel with a 1.5" larger diameter than the 26's I'd likely change my tune, but this low profile wheel just doesn't make any sense.

    So if you haven't guessed it now- I'm not very excited.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yep, not quite sure what Trek was thinking there, and one of the reasons why the 7 is the sweet spot in the lineup. A 27.5 x 65mm wheel, now we're talking and I can see the point in having that setup.

    Lower profile tire and identical outer diameter, plus same rim width though - doesn't pencil out with me.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    I agree- the Farley 7 is the winner. I wish they had the option of bigger wheels on the pricer models as I'd love a carbon frame though. Also looks like the 26" Jackalope is MIA, unless they release it later in 190mm to fleece the 27.5" owners again.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  17. #17
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,677
    if someone buys one of these and needs someone to test ride it, shoot me a line. otherwise i'm sticking with my current fatbike. 29+ interests me much more than 27.5x4.

    the real question to me is when will they stop screwing around with mid sizes that overlap each other and just go to extremes. I want a 4" tire on a 65mm 29er rim. or maybe a 3" tire on a 36"x50mm rim.

    alternately i want to ride a 6" tire on a 24"x120mm rim. or maybe a 8" tire on a 24"x180mm rim. tubeless of course. that just sounds ridiculously fun.

    if only i had the tools, materials, time, money, and equipment...
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  18. #18
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    My momma once told me if I don't have anything nice to say about something don't say anything at all. So here I am sayin nothin at all

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Ha!

  20. #20
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: anortherncrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    658
    Yeah no thanks here but I'm all for whatever anybody's stoked on. My Whiteout has 65mm 26in Nexties with 4.0 LS JJ's set up tubeless and my Fatback has 52mm 27.5 Hugo's with Vee Traxx Fatties set up tubeless as well. I thought the Vee/Hugo would be a lot quicker, but it's actually more sluggish due to the wheel diameter/rubber combo. Haven't weighed them either and I'm sure there's a bit of a difference as well. One thing I know for certain is that if you put more rubber further away from the hub, the "wagon wheel" effect increases. Tried 29+ as well and no thanks, but like I said, whatever's clever for ya! If all the fat was gone, I'd be riding 27.5x2.3.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    two wheel livin'..

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    I'll say something nice--
    I think 27.5 x 4 might actually be a touch better than 26x4 in the winter.
    I've always thought a 29 or 32 x 4 might be better than 26x5 on snow, and this is a tiny step in that direction.

    Often what slows a snowbike down is not just not enough float, but all the energy needed to break trail. Skinnier, long contact patch tires with a huge diameter would seem to have an advantage, just like long skinny skis are better for touring.

    So kudos to Trek for trying something new, even if it might not have my name on it, it's great to see more and more ideas and options.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,638
    It's gonna be really tall, as tall as a 29+, so fit will be a problem with many fat bikes and it's gonna raise the BB a whole lot.

    On my Mutz, the Trax Fatty 27.5 x 3.25 only leaves a short 1/2" of clearance at the bridges, so I couldn't run it. I could run them on my Jefe tandem, but I like 29+ on that ride.

    Seems like a waste of molds, but you can't really complain about more choices

    I'm more interested in B+ tires, we have plenty of 4-5" tires these days.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,638
    Taller is not going to be better. I have 32" and 36" munis, the extra height puts your COG too high, so agility and slow speed performance are compromised. If you want "clearance", then a high BB 26 x 4-5 is your ticket.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I'll say something nice--
    I think 27.5 x 4 might actually be a touch better than 26x4 in the winter.
    I've always thought a 29 or 32 x 4 might be better than 26x5 on snow, and this is a tiny step in that direction.

    Often what slows a snowbike down is not just not enough float, but all the energy needed to break trail. Skinnier, long contact patch tires with a huge diameter would seem to have an advantage, just like long skinny skis are better for touring.

    So kudos to Trek for trying something new, even if it might not have my name on it, it's great to see more and more ideas and options.

  24. #24
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,421
    Its great to have options, but personally I don't get all the in-between wheel sizes.

    (coming from the guy that has never owned a 29er, any kind of +, or 650b - what a catchy name lol)

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Taller is not going to be better. I have 32" and 36" munis, the extra height puts your COG too high, so agility and slow speed performance are compromised. If you want "clearance", then a high BB 26 x 4-5 is your ticket.
    There's nothing taller about the 27.5x4 setup, maybe a 1mm difference in final diameter. So only is there no difference in that department, but you're not getting a narrower rim either to save weight and round out your tire profile.
    I'll stick with the 26x4.8 and either build a set a Marge Lites as an option or wait for a 27.5 that makes sense - meaning 65mm.
    The rides I've had on 4.8's haven't left me feeling the need for less tire though.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,638
    Bad math.

    The only way a 27.5 x 4" tire will not be taller than a 26 x 4" tire is if WTB makes it

    If Vee Rubber makes it, it'll be friggin tall as shite!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    There's nothing taller about the 27.5x4 setup, maybe a 1mm difference in final diameter. So only is there no difference in that department, but you're not getting a narrower rim either to save weight and round out your tire profile.
    I'll stick with the 26x4.8 and either build a set a Marge Lites as an option or wait for a 27.5 that makes sense - meaning 65mm.
    The rides I've had on 4.8's haven't left me feeling the need for less tire though.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Bad math.

    The only way a 27.5 x 4" tire will not be taller than a 26 x 4" tire is if WTB makes it

    If Vee Rubber makes it, it'll be friggin tall as shite!!
    I'm talking about 26x5 vs 27.5x4.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    552
    29 inch inseam...bike fail
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by MUSTCLIME View Post
    29 inch inseam...bike fail
    Doesn't work like that - logic fail?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    552
    taller wheel tires= the boys betting smashed....fail
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by MUSTCLIME View Post
    taller wheel tires= the boys betting smashed....fail
    Stand over is stand over - regardless of wheel size. Do you honestly think top tubes are 3" higher than they were back in the day of the 26" bike?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  33. #33
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.
    About lost my morning beer

  34. #34
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    28,423
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.
    Yeah, I am in this same camp.

    I find myself asking, "why?" What is this supposed to do that 26x4 or 26x5 cannot? This screams to me a bike company trying to tell me what to buy, rather than offering something that riders actually want.

    With regular 27.5 wheels, I can't tell a difference from 26. I'm pretty "meh" on those, too.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    605
    if the overall diameter is the same on a 27.5x4 as a 26x4 and the width is the same isn't the contact patch the same? all you are doing is changing the sidewall. to me this seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy. the manufacturers saw how everyone went out and bought a fat bike and now they want to get everyone to but this new size. i see no advantage and as others have pointed out less cushion with the short sidewall. Now if the OD is taller so the 27.5 tire has the same sidewall as the 26 then there would be an advantage. not sure how much of one plus the addition of the extra weight may negate the advantage. either way i will not be jumpin into the 27.5x4 market.

  36. #36
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    the overall diameter is the same on a 27.5x4 as a 26x5, not 26x4.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    605
    if this is true then your contact patch is most likely smaller on the 27.5 due to the narrower tire given the relative tire pressures. there is then no advantage.

  38. #38
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefflinde View Post
    if this is true then your contact patch is most likely smaller on the 27.5 due to the narrower tire given the relative tire pressures. there is then no advantage.
    it will be a bigger contact patch than a 26x4, yet should roll faster than a 26x5, at least in theory.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I don't see any point to this either unless we're talking a 27.5 x 65mm rim. Now we're getting somewhere. That would yield a rounder tire profile on the 4" tire and actually save weight instead of adding it while maintaining the overall diameter and bb height.

    Keeping the 80mm rim width with the 27.5" rim on the other hand really makes the whole endeavor a wash at best IMO, at worst an actual disadvantage of only a minor one. We shall see. However in true MTBR fashion most who forked out the cash for those models will spew about how much of a difference it makes no matter what.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    I really wanted to post about Trek's new expandable rim coupler that allows you to switch between 26 and 27.5, but thought better to not.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    605
    Nice. Maybe next year they will allow it to cover all 3 sizes 26, 27.5 and 29. But by then the new 28.125" tire will be all the rage so you will still be missing the one everyone wants.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    I believe the settings are supposed to be very incremental, to be "future-proof".
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    123
    I would say I'm mildly interested.
    - If the bike is designed to run on 26x5 tires, then 27.5x4 (same tire diameter) would roll faster without compromising frame geometry in case 29x3 isn't enough traction/float/etc…
    - Want a faster rolling 27.5x4? You don't have to use 80mm rims, they would work fine on 50mm rims, which there are an abundance of on the market. I've used 26x4 on 50mm rims, they are still very capable if traction is needed (I used them down to 7 psi).
    - There are not many fast rolling 26x4.8 tires on the market (back to the bikes built around 26x5 tires, frame geo), tons of 26x4 tires though!
    - I'm really interested in the 907 full suspenion bike (prototype at the moment) that can fit 26x4.8 on 100mm rims. This option would work well without effecting geometry (27.5x50mm rim and 4” tires is what I would run), I'm not interested in 29x3. Why am I particularly interested in this bike? I already have a 65mm Nextie/I9 wheelset built for my Blackborow that would fit this bike.

    What I don't like about it is there is only one tire available in 27.5x4… If there were as many tires available in size as there are for 26x4, I would have had a wheelset built for my Blackborow. As of this time I am not interested in 27.5x4 for lack of tire selection, but I see the benefits as I stated above.

    To each his own...

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    it will be a bigger contact patch than a 26x4, yet should roll faster than a 26x5, at least in theory.
    Can't you'll have less sidewall to squish...
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,940
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    How could you not be excited to at least ride it and see? I suspect it will kick ass.
    That tall tire will roll over things really nice and 4" is as fat as most people need.

    Although Surly's inevitable 29 x 5" fatbike will be awesome in an excessive way as well.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  46. #46
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    I really wanted to post about Trek's new expandable rim coupler that allows you to switch between 26 and 27.5, but thought better to not.
    problem solvers has the 29 adapter.
    ptarmigan hardcore

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    It sucks.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  48. #48
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,246
    I'll admit I am intrigued. After having tried 29+, I'd rather stick to fat. 4" would be great for summer time riding, but it does lower the BB a bit for a bike measured for 26x5". This would enable running slightly lighter 4" tires during the summer without the BB height drop.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Stand over is stand over - regardless of wheel size. Do you honestly think top tubes are 3" higher than they were back in the day of the 26" bike?
    With many small fat bike frames having stand overs of 30+ inches....yes I do. Used to be small frames had stand overs of 27 inches with 26 inch tires. Look at a small fat boy, it has a stand over of 757mm....thats 30.25 inches !....here a link to prove it.

    Specialized Bicycle Components
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    That's a frame design problem, not a wheel size issue. Look at the Nimble 9 or Ventana El Gordo, or Norco Bigfoot and see if you can figure this out. Specialized is just being stupid with their top tubes/seat tubes.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    552
    and Framed....and others
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yep, they'll all slowly come around I think - or if they know what's good for them they will anyway.
    Dropping the top tube and using a gusset to get stand over is a no-brainer. I think Specialized is just being stubborn and not wanting to look like they're copying Trek or other makers, but really there's no other solution. The stand over on the Fat Boys is ridiculous - I couldn't get my wife sized property to one.

  53. #53
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Just put a DROPPER on it!!!!!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Put some Windex on it.

  55. #55
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    907
    I'm going to weigh in here, at first I had the same WTF mentality as most of the responses here

    Last night I rode a farley 8 back to back with my blackborow on the same super rooty climb, I'm so used to climbing with the blackborow that the slightly smaller wheel diameter seemed to hang up more, it felt like a lot more work and I was almost stalled twice

    It was not a traction issue, zero wheel slip on either bikes, picked the same line up the roots as always

    I'm committed to riding fat all year round now, my 29ers see very little trail time and I'm pretty sure the farley 9 is the trail bike that will replace my FS29er

    I've tried 29+ and 27.5+ different tires in both sizes and they give up too much traction and cush for my tastes, 27.5x4 retains the tire diameter that I'm now used to riding and is sure to shed some weight and a little tire flex as well, I think it's a good option for summer fatties, 26x5 will always be king of ungroomed snow, this new size will only be marginally better than 26x4 in snow

    Assuming you're a tall enough rider to be comfortable with the size, I'm 6'2" these larger diameters feel natural to me
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yeah, I can see that - and I'm on board in theory.
    What I need though is 2 things. I need a 65mm rim to maximize weight savings and give me a round tire profile...and I need more tire options. Give me those 2 things and that will be my second wheel set for the Farley 7.

    I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well.
    If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Where are you getting 50mm rims? Do you mean second wheelset? The bike are coming stock with 75or 83mm rims.. Well the Wampas are 83mm I presume the jackalopes are similar to the 26ers which have 75 internal

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    Where are you getting 50mm rims? Do you mean second wheelset? The bike are coming stock with 75or 83mm rims.. Well the Wampas are 83mm I presume the jackalopes are similar to the 26ers which have 75 internal
    Stock rims are 80mm on the 7 (which is what I ordered) and yes I'm talking about a second wheel set.

  59. #59
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well.
    If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears.
    Quite a few folks I ride with are running 4" tires on 47-50mm rims, surly rabbit holes or schlick northpaws, one of them even ran dillinger 5's on the neon trials rim last season, never burped or anything when I was riding with him, I can't speak to ride quality on that big of a size difference, for summer riding the schlick 47's with 3.8 knards was pretty nice, surprisingly not too much tire squirm at about 8-10psi
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Hmm...thanks for that. I think I'll wait and see what Interbike brings.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    133
    Has anybody seen or heard when these tires will be available? I for one am excited to try them. I originally bought 26x4 tires for summer use but I didn't like the reduced diameter and with my 80mm rims I didn't like the tire profile and self steer that i was getting. I bought a second set of summer wheels and went with chinese carbon 27.5x50mm rims with Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 tires. That has been a very light, fast setup for summer but FBN 3.5 are more like 2.75 in width. I would love to get some 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 on there for dirt riding. I haven't seen any mention of being able to buy Bontrager tires in this size or other companies making comparable tires. Any spottings yet?

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_T View Post
    Has anybody seen or heard when these tires will be available? I for one am excited to try them. I originally bought 26x4 tires for summer use but I didn't like the reduced diameter and with my 80mm rims I didn't like the tire profile and self steer that i was getting. I bought a second set of summer wheels and went with chinese carbon 27.5x50mm rims with Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 tires. That has been a very light, fast setup for summer but FBN 3.5 are more like 2.75 in width. I would love to get some 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 on there for dirt riding. I haven't seen any mention of being able to buy Bontrager tires in this size or other companies making comparable tires. Any spottings yet?
    I've been trying to keep my eye out and haven't seen anything available yet. Even when they are though, don't forget about the minor issue of availability of suitable rims. Those might actually be harder to find at first. I think 650bx4 is going to be perfect for my fat-front summer setup (26x5 is the correct height, but is a bit overkill and sluggish), but I'm not interested in an 80mm wide carbon fiber rim.

    Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b?

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-barbegazicomparo.jpg
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b]
    That's what I'm after as well, but nothing so far. I was hoping for something at Interbike.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    355
    I myself am looking forward to getting a 27.5x4, but not in any hurry. I read that other mfrs will be coming out with rims and tires, so there should be a selection. I suspect 65mm will come around eventually, and be popular for this and also B+ as a max width.

    The reasons I am looking forward to this tire are first that I've determined that this is the wheel diameter that best suits my body size and preferences. So that means 29+, this, or 26x5. Essentially, we were wondering when they would go up in wheel size next, well, this is how they've done it, and I approve. Second, I've determined that I'm Q-factor sensitive, and full fat frames are too wide for comfort. I will need a special low-q frame, which limits me to 4" tire on 80mm rim. With that frame, a second wheel set in 29+ would make sense, not that it would be absolutely necessary.

    Basically, I like fat, and I like diameter. But I can only take so much of each, and this is it for me.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swissam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,128
    26 for life! FTW!!!
    26 ain't dead!!!
    It's a marketing ploy, man!

    Wait, didnt we already go through all of this?

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    anybody have a width measurement for these yet? and ideally a real world height from rim at (x) psi would be useful (though we can work it out if we assume treks diameter figures are correct...
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

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

  67. #67
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    I need these right now.
    I like turtles

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    133
    I stopped into the local Trek dealer at lunch time to day and asked if the tires were available yet. They were able to order a pair for me, they should be here next week! I have 50mm Chinese Carbon rims I will be trying them on. I currently have Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 but they are way skinnier than 3.5. I am hoping these Hodag will be exactly what I am looking for.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_T View Post
    I stopped into the local Trek dealer at lunch time to day and asked if the tires were available yet. They were able to order a pair for me, they should be here next week! I have 50mm Chinese Carbon rims I will be trying them on. I currently have Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 but they are way skinnier than 3.5. I am hoping these Hodag will be exactly what I am looking for.
    Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Please post back with a ride report on those narrow'ish rims. I'm thinking of trying this myself as a summer option for the Farley.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.
    I will definitely weigh them and measure them and post the numbers. In the 2016 Trek Fat Bike thread I saw an actual measured weight of 1290 and 1295 grams.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.

    Sorry didn't measure but my pair weighs 1290, 1295 when I weighed them last night

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    355
    I have a Gravity Bullseye that was made for 26x3 tires on 50mm rims. I was able to fit the notoriously undersized FatBNimble in the rear and ended up with either the skinniest fat bike or the widest plus bike, all with standard width components.

    I say this on this thread because I am wondering if a 27.5x3.8 on a 45-50mm rim might possibly work in some frames designed for 29x3. I would be very interested in the actual tire width if anyone puts this together.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by BATRG3 View Post
    I have a Gravity Bullseye that was made for 26x3 tires on 50mm rims. I was able to fit the notoriously undersized FatBNimble in the rear and ended up with either the skinniest fat bike or the widest plus bike, all with standard width components.

    I say this on this thread because I am wondering if a 27.5x3.8 on a 45-50mm rim might possibly work in some frames designed for 29x3. I would be very interested in the actual tire width if anyone puts this together.
    I should be able to make measurements on 50mm rim next week. I will post some numbers once I get them.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    FWIW, I just test rode a Farley 9.8 (27.5x4) and then a Pivot Les Fat with a 26x4 on a sand beach. The 27.5x4 had significantly more float than did the 26x4.

    J.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    Got a bunch more riding on the 27.5 x 4's this week. Technical rock gardens, baby head ATV tread, buff single track, small pebble gravel roads, big roots, pavement, off trail grassy rocks-- pretty much everything.

    I'm sold. The way I describe them is that they are not earth shaking different than my 26x4, just a tad better in every category.

    I know one thing--I don't have the slightest interest in any rim or tire smaller than that for summer use--it's a mountain bike, not a gravel grinder!

    Can't wait to try them on snow, but I'm also setting up some 100mm with 5". Will be able to use the best tool for the conditions.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I'm sold. The way I describe them is that they are not earth shaking different than my 26x4, just a tad better in every category.
    BAM! That was the sound of 26" rimmed fatbikes going obsolete. The industry needs a new trend anways now that it has churned through 27.5, 26er fatbikes, enduro and plus bikes in just 3 years.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    Holding out for 29er fat wheels and tires with low casings to keep weight down.

    Small increments don't make sense. Go right upto the best size in one shot.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Windigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    FWIW, I just test rode a Farley 9.8 (27.5x4) and then a Pivot Les Fat with a 26x4 on a sand beach. The 27.5x4 had significantly more float than did the 26x4.

    J.
    What could possibly give it "significantly more float"?

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Windigo View Post
    What could possibly give it "significantly more float"?
    Trek's marketing materials under the tires......

    I can setup my Fatboy so it has considerably less float and grip with a 4.8 tire than my Bucksaw with a 4.0, just pump the 4.8 up to 20psi and drop the 4.0 to 6psi.

    Not to say that the 27.5" won't have more float than an identical width and tread pattern 26" tire both set to the same psi, but "significant" is drinking the manufacturer's Koolaid....
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Exactly - some wishful thinking and placebo effect going on I think.
    The difference in outer diameter/contact patch just isn't that huge.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Exactly - some wishful thinking and placebo effect going on I think.
    The difference in outer diameter/contact patch just isn't that huge.
    Exactly!

    If you compare a popular 26x4.0 tire, Surly's Nate (749mm dia) with the 764mm diameter Hodag 27.5 you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height. I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference.

    What I find really funny is that manufacturers are pushing riders towards the "better handling" 27.5" MTB tires over the wagon wheel 29er's on mountain bikes. Yet at the same time they are trying to push so called 27.5" fat tires that are actually a 30" tire if you look at the actual diameter. Even a 26X4 fat tire at 29.5" is larger than the so called "undesirable" handling 29ers.

    Nothing about the Hodag 27.5" tire has anything to do with 27.5" except for it using a 584mm (23") rim that if shod with a tradional MTB tire would be 27.5".

    I'm guessing if they called them by their actual measurement like motorcycle tires instead of a value somewhat associated to the rim size then the manufacturers would have a harder time fleecing consumers with an "improved" product every year.

    I was trail riding yesterday and had a 29er rider tell me that my Bucksaw must be quicker through the trees than his bike due to its 26" wheels. I tried to explain that it had a larger diameter tire than his bike, but eventually just gave up. Looks the manufacturers have everyone tricked.....
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    This diameter similarity is a big part of the reason why I got the Farley 7.
    I'll just throw 4" tires on it if I feel like it - can't go the other way and put 4.7" tires on the 9 models without new wheels.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.

    I have to admit you might be partially right though. Part of my enthusiasm over this new size might be clouded by new bike excitement. Going from a pugs ops to a carbon trek has a few things going on besides wheel size difference. I'm a pretty avid rider though, and I do think I'm detecting small improvements with rollover, traction and compliance with the new size. I cleared a few logs yesterday that I'm not so sure anything a millimeter smaller could have done.

    I also think I can run a pound or two more pressure without getting the dreaded "fat tire bounce" which allows me to gain snappier steering.

    I just measured my wifes farley with 26 rims/hodags and my bike with 27.5/hodags. About an inch difference diameter.

    I suppose one place that extra .5" radius shows up is pedal height. In the rough areas I've been riding, that's something I'm glad to have. Also, when I switch to 26x100mm rims with 5" tires, the bike geometry stays about the same.

    I would never tell anyone to go out and get the new wheelsize. But if you bike comes with it, don't worry about it for a second.
    Last edited by Teton29er; 10-11-2015 at 06:47 AM.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.
    I don't need to ride a bike with both purple and green paint to know they both ride the same, similarly some of us here have enough experience to know without having to ride these bikes that this small difference in diameter will not yield "significant' difference in floatation, traction, or anything else. The variance is just too small even at +.5" radius.

    In fact with more sidewall on the 26x4 tire contact patch is likely of similar size.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I have to admit you might be right though. Part of my enthusiasm over this new size might be clouded by new bike excitement. Going from a pugs ops to a carbon trek has a few things going on besides wheel size difference.
    Yeah, just slightly. In fact going from a Pugs even to a lighter steel frame is likely to yield a similar experience, let alone aluminum, let alone carbon.
    I think that accounts for your perceived super float and roll over powers.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.
    I've ridden a 9.6 and it felt a little harsh compared to a 26x4.8, granted it wasn't in sand or snow. It felt like riding 26x4.8 at too high of pressures.

    All of my recent saddle time on a 26x4 has been on my Bucksaw, and that really isn't a fair comparison as the suspension really transforms that bike.
    Last edited by Paochow; 10-11-2015 at 06:15 AM.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  87. #87
    cmg
    cmg is offline
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,468
    Im sure the betterness of 27.5x4 is due to Treks Boost standard, l can see no other reason
    always mad and usually drunk......

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,797
    It's like we're back in the 90's, but instead of everyone going crazy over suspensions it's tires. Kind of cool and I'll be really curious to see how many of these survive the Great Dying.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,551
    I was really excited about 27.5 and ordered a Farley 9 early, almost bought a Farley 8 that was sitting on LBS floor for 2000 but as we were talking they expressed that a 27.5 version was in the works and since I am smitten with this wheelsize I was game even though I did not care for the 197 rear because my intended purpose is mostly for dirt with some snow here on the East Coast but the 27.5 sold me.

    In July I fractured my ale with some tendon damage during an Enduro event and after copays and deductibles my dream of owning the Farley 9 had to be put off this year. As I was cruising Fat Bike Trader I came across a 2016 Specialized Fuse Comp, I knew little about plus sizes but did some research and came to the realization that this sizing may better fit my needs better and for a third of the cost, Paid 1075 shipped ,in comparison to the Farley and doable with my budget.I bought it and came in this week, I am back riding but still in rehab but managed to give it a good test ride. Bike comes in at 28.4 lbs but the previous owner made some upgrades, RF Deus cranks, Saint shifter, XT Plus rear derail, Sram Centerline rotors and converted to tubless. Pretty impressed with ride overall, steers and handles very much like my Mach 6 with just a tad steeper HA ,accelerates, climbs and tracks well and overall a very comfortable fun ride, does not feel sluggish in any way.So,did not go full Fatty 27.5 but by accident literally discovered a bike that better fits my needs and saved a bundle to boot. For you all out there considering a four inch 27.5 it my be in your interest to check out a plus size depending on your needs.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I've ridden a 9.6 and it felt a little harsh compared to a 26x4.8, granted it wasn't in sand or snow. It felt like riding aired up 26x4.8
    Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.

    But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.

    The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.

    But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.

    The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.
    That was my sense in the brief demo I did of a 26x4 and a 27,5x4 on sand. More float, rolled over obstacles better, less bounce and the bike seemed to be more nimble/less inertia feel to it. Didn't have that monster truck sort of feel to it. My feeling was that the 27.5x4 had a wider sweet spot and was more versatile than either the 26x4 or the 26x5/4.8.

    J.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    That was my sense in the brief demo I did of a 26x4 and a 27,5x4 on sand. More float, rolled over obstacles better, less bounce and the bike seemed to be more nimble/less inertia feel to it. Didn't have that monster truck sort of feel to it. My feeling was that the 27.5x4 had a wider sweet spot and was more versatile than either the 26x4 or the 26x5/4.8.

    J.
    Was the bike you demoed with a front suspension? Do you feel that it would benefit from a front fork? Or are we too concerned with air volume?

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    Was the bike you demoed with a front suspension? Do you feel that it would benefit from a front fork? Or are we too concerned with air volume?
    I demo'ed a straight up 9.8 (and bought it but haven't picked it up yet) with a rigid fork. That's how I'm planning on riding it this winter. I didn't want a Bluto fork because of the cold where I'll be riding it (Minnesota) and because I'll be primarily on snow and beaches. The Bluto has a temp spec that doesn't go down as low as what I'll be routinely riding in. In the summer, I think it would benefit from a suspension fork but not necessary in a lot of applications.

    So, I guess it would depend on the fork. I would guess there would be some other alternatives popping up soon and prices should also come down.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.

    But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.

    The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.
    I agree- rider preference has a lot to do with it. I initially bought my fatbike for snow only, but quickly realized that it was more capable than I realized. After years of offroad motorcycling, I hurt more than I used to and take longer to heal, so for me now fatbiking is all about cushy ride and mountain goat capabilities so I can ride harder terrain longer and hurt less. I had a Fuel 29er which rode fast, but it was much harder to ride in technical terrain and lacked the fun factor of a fatbike.

    One factor that can really help with the dreaded bounce of fat tires is suspension. It dampens the bounce effect and allows you to run the ideal pressures for the terrain. I rode my Fatboy a few months without a Bluto and after adding one there is no way I'd ever go back. It let me tune my tire pressure for grip/rolling resistance without bouncing out of control on the downhills. It allowed me to ride my Fatboy as fast as the Fuel.

    I think the 27.5 with its shorter sidewall would make a good tire for a fat Fuel, the suspension would really help smooth out the harshness without having to regulate psi so precisely.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    What I need though is 2 things. I need a 65mm rim to maximize weight savings and give me a round tire profile...
    I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well...
    If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b?
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    That's what I'm after as well, but nothing so far. I was hoping for something at Interbike.
    Quote Originally Posted by TrailCrawler View Post
    - Want a faster rolling 27.5x4? You don't have to use 80mm rims, they would work fine on 50mm rims, which there are an abundance of on the market. I've used 26x4 on 50mm rims, they are still very capable if traction is needed (I used them down to 7 psi).
    Well, since no new rim options seem to have come through at interbike (good thread/overview [here]), but tires are now available for purchase separately, I'm starting to research what existing options might work. Again, like many of you, I'm looking for an alloy rim in something significantly less than 80mm width, to optimize these tires for summer use. I'm after the height and a round profile, and don't need to maximize the footprint.

    The best option, right now, might be the Sun Ringle Mulefut 50 [here].

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-mulefut50.jpg

    I can't find a profile illustration, but if the sizing holds true to other Sun rims, it would have an internal dimension of 50mm. So it would actually be 6mm wider than a 50mm rabbit hole (44 internal), 11mm wider than a 45mm Dually (39mm internal), and 10mm narrower than a 65mm Marge (60mm internal).

    Then, there's this Stan's Hugo 52, [here], which is almost 50mm internal as well :

    27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-hugo52_profile.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-hugo52_rendering.jpg

    Both are available only in black, though, where Rabbit hole and Dually are available in silver.

    Meanwhile, here are some places where you can see 3.8" tires on the narrower Dually and other plus-size / mid-fat width rims:

    http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/pic...le-935057.html

    Velocity "Dually" 26" Wheel Set: Final Review

    Seems slightly forced, but I'd love to hear actual ride reports or impressions from others. Maybe the profile is perfect. I've used the Dually with a 2.4 Ardent, for which it was clearly too big - but it still worked ok. So maybe it works just as well going the other direction?!

    Also anxious to hear of other options if anyone knows of some.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    Got a bunch more riding on the 27.5 x 4's this week....
    I know one thing--I don't have the slightest interest in any rim or tire smaller than that for summer use--it's a mountain bike, not a gravel grinder!
    I might have missed it, but what rim are you using? Is it just the stock 80mm trek carbon rim? If not, you wouldn't happen to have a 135 qr front hub, would you? You're local to me and it would be nice to test fit if you're willing.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    ........
    I might have missed it, but what rim are you using? Is it just the stock 80mm trek carbon rim? If not, you wouldn't happen to have a 135 qr front hub, would you? You're local to me and it would be nice to test fit if you're willing.
    It's a 27.5 x 80mm alum rim called the jackalope. 150 Thru axles. PM me if you want to check it out. I've always like the wider rims even in the summer for good low pressure stability and volume.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    iamkeith, I checked in with Bdundee here since he has experience with 4" tires on 50mm rims. He had nothing bad to say about the setup.

    I'll either go with the 27.5x50mm Mulefuts which will give me the option to run that Hodag, or 29+.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    This diameter similarity is a big part of the reason why I got the Farley 7.
    I'll just throw 4" tires on it if I feel like it - can't go the other way and put 4.7" tires on the 9 models without new wheels.
    This is exactly why I ordered a 2016 F5 frame. I can go 26x3.8 summer, 26x4.7 winter on the same wheels. And if I feel crazy I can build up a set of 27.5 X 3.8 summer wheels too. Stealing all the great parts I have upgraded on my 2015 F6 and putting it back to stock for my wife to ride. The black/orange frame looks fabulious.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I like the black and orange too, if I could have that color scheme with the 7 build kit I would have been all over it. That said the purple is damn nice in person.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    iamkeith, I checked in with Bdundee here since he has experience with 4" tires on 50mm rims. He had nothing bad to say about the setup.

    I'll either go with the 27.5x50mm Mulefuts which will give me the option to run that Hodag, or 29+.
    Good to hear. Let us know what you decide, and your impressions if you happen to get your hands on a Mulefut 50 rim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    PM me if you want to check it out.
    Thanks! Even if I can't mount it, it would sure be nice to see it side by side with the tires I'm using. Sometimes all the specifications and internet chatter in the world can't compare to holding something in your own hands. I'm in Hoback. I think you're in Victor or Driggs, right? If this beautiful weather holds, I'll try to get in touch soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teton29er View Post
    I've always like the wider rims even in the summer for good low pressure stability and volume.
    You do make a good point. I kind of forgot and am frequently surprised by how low I've had the pressure in the current 26x4.8, that I want to replace - even in the summer. I think the Dually, as illustrated in the thread I linked, is completely out of the question. Tire would likely roll right off. The Mulefut will probably be marginal.
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I like the black and orange too, if I could have that color scheme with the 7 build kit I would have been all over it. That said the purple is damn nice in person.

    Yes it does, I've seen them both. I saw one this weekend set up tubeless and it felt pretty light.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    133

    First impressions of 27.5 Hodags.

    I got a set of the 27.5x3.8 Hodag tires yesterday at my local Trek dealer. I set them up tubeless on a pair of 50mm LB carbon rims. The tires weighed 1262 and 1269 grams. On the 50 mm rims at 20 lbs of pressure, I measured the width at 3 3/8 inches between the knobs and 3 5/8 inches at the widest knobs. The bead to bead measurement was about 21 cm.

    The size of these tires seems like a perfect summer/packed snow tire. The profile on the 50mm rim seems really nice also. I haven't had a chance to ride them yet since it rained all day in Denver.

    They seem extremely heavy though with a very solid sidewall. I am replacing some 3.5" Fat b Nimble tires. The FBN seem like a paper thin sidewall compared to these tires. I used the FBN all summer with no issues, maybe I have just been lucky. Maybe the Hodag is a bit of overkill? The FBN were 741 gms vs the 1260 gms for the Hodags. That is pretty significant. I liked how fast and light the FBN felt, but wanted a bit more volume. I an curious to see how these new tires feel, if the additional weight is a big factor.27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-dads-phone-10-21-15-046.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-dads-phone-10-21-15-057.jpg27.5X4  Who's excited? Who's not?-dads-phone-10-21-15-050.jpg

  103. #103
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    Me likey.
    I like turtles

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.

    Currently riding a Trek 8.4 DS and looking for a winter bike.

    I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it.

    Nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair store that the 4.8" tires are going to be too big for my purpose.

    Can a narrower tire (4"?) be mounted on the 80 mm rim?

    Going to test ride it tomorrow so that should help.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.

    I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it.

    Nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair store that the 4.8" tires are going to be too big for my purpose.

    Can a narrower tire (4"?) be mounted on the 80 mm rim?

    Going to test ride it tomorrow so that should help.
    you can mount a 4 inch tire on an 80mm rim without issues.

    i wouldn't think a 4.8 on a 5 mile ride would be to much. i rode a bud and lou on paved, gravel and trail with no issues.

    one more thing i forgot the 7 comes with 26 inch wheels not 27.5 just thought i would add that.

  106. #106
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    I ride my 4.8" tire bike on a paved path to the beach and back when I don't have time to do a proper trail ride. It's approx 5 miles each direction and it isn't the slightest bit difficult.
    I like turtles

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I concur regarding the pavement riding.

    Edit - and wow Trek - nice heavy tire on your supposed "light wheel" setup.
    I was thinking of going Hodags on 50mm with my second wheel set on the F7, but I think I'll stick to the 29+ plan and Chupies.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    The drag effect of 4.8's is greatly overstated. I've done my commute (29mi one way) on my Fatboy and even though it wasn't my fastest average (13.8mph) it wasn't horrible by any means. I've been using my Fatboy to pull my son in the bike trailer as well on family rides and have no issue keeping up with my wife and daughter. If you are going to be riding solely pavement higher pressures of 10+psi help, but I wouldn't hesitate to ride it on the road.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Oh and JT, thank you for posting those pics! I was curious about the profile on 50mm rims and you've answered that question beautifully.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I concur regarding the pavement riding.

    Edit - and wow Trek - nice heavy tire on your supposed "light wheel" setup.
    I was thinking of going Hodags on 50mm with my second wheel set on the F7, but I think I'll stick to the 29+ plan and Chupies.
    Definitely- Trek's lightweight carbon wheelset weighs more than many lightweight aluminum 26" setups and the tires are comparable to most 26"x4 tires and a few hundred grams heavier a 4.0 Jumbo Jim. Looks like not only is 27.5" fat heavier than a 26" fat at this point, but moves the weight further out on the wheel.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Looks like I'll be ordering the 29+ Mulefuts today.
    Maybe I'll get a set of JJ's for the 80mm Mulefuts as my 3/4 fat setup.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_T View Post
    I got a set of the 27.5x3.8 Hodag tires yesterday at my local Trek dealer. I set them up tubeless on a pair of 50mm LB carbon rims. The tires weighed 1262 and 1269 grams. On the 50 mm rims at 20 lbs of pressure, I measured the width at 3 3/8 inches between the knobs and 3 5/8 inches at the widest knobs. The bead to bead measurement was about 21 cm.

    The size of these tires seems like a perfect summer/packed snow tire. The profile on the 50mm rim seems really nice also. I haven't had a chance to ride them yet since it rained all day in Denver.

    They seem extremely heavy though with a very solid sidewall. I am replacing some 3.5" Fat b Nimble tires. The FBN seem like a paper thin sidewall compared to these tires. I used the FBN all summer with no issues, maybe I have just been lucky. Maybe the Hodag is a bit of overkill? The FBN were 741 gms vs the 1260 gms for the Hodags. That is pretty significant. I liked how fast and light the FBN felt, but wanted a bit more volume. I an curious to see how these new tires feel, if the additional weight is a big factor.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dads phone 10-21-15 046.jpg 
Views:	996 
Size:	111.0 KB 
ID:	1023643Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dads phone 10-21-15 057.jpg 
Views:	814 
Size:	132.7 KB 
ID:	1023642Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dads phone 10-21-15 050.jpg 
Views:	505 
Size:	108.1 KB 
ID:	1023645
    Is that an Ican SN01 frame they are on? Did they fit OK? Thinking about going the same route on my sn01 frame.

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

  113. #113
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    907
    When the rest of the weight weenie 257x4 tires roll in we'll be all set, give it some time

    does anyone have a weight on just the jackalope 275 rim?

    Since I only intend to ride my farley 9 as a summer bike I'm thinking about going to a 50-60 mm rim from the 80's, for a more rounded profile and some weight loss

    I see that the hugo 275 is already more than 100g lighter than the jackalope 26 rim, I'm thinking it's almost a pound lost by swapping rims, then when some lighter tires come...
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.

    Currently riding a Trek 8.4 DS and looking for a winter bike.

    I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it.

    Nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair store that the 4.8" tires are going to be too big for my purpose.

    Can a narrower tire (4"?) be mounted on the 80 mm rim?

    Going to test ride it tomorrow so that should help.
    I'm from MN too. Since they plow all the bike paths and roads, you are not ever going to need the float from the 5", the rest will be car or snowmobile packed. If you have a 4" tire you should be just fine. Too, the 27.5"x4 is going to have a larger footprint than a 26x4 so you could look at that too. While you would be fine with the 5" you'd be finer with the 4", I would think. You will, however, likely want to stud the tires - you know how long the ice sticks around and what snow that has been polished by lots of car tires packing it down acts like.

    I'm getting a 9.8 and I rode the 27.5x4's over sand and thought they worked pretty well. That's going to be like you riding through deep snow not packed snow. So I think if the answer is that you will be riding mostly packed snow, then it's 4". Hard to believe it would be anything else for commuting, especially since we don't really get that much snow, but mostly cold so that snow never leaves.

    J.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Get the 7 - more versatile.
    You can always put 4" tires on a 7, but you can't
    put 4.8" tires on the 9 without new wheels.
    The difference in footprint between 27.5 x4 and
    26x4 is tiny, and not a factor.

    You were on the right track - 7 is the sweet spot.

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Get the 7 - more versatile.
    You can always put 4" tires on a 7, but you can't
    put 4.8" tires on the 9 without new wheels.
    The difference in footprint between 27.5 x4 and
    26x4 is tiny, and not a factor.

    You were on the right track - 7 is the sweet spot.
    Test ride of both will answer the question on this. When I test rode both in the same sand conditions, I found that the difference in float on the 27.5x4 vs the 26x5 was a lot smaller than I had thought it would be. The test ride made the decision pretty easy. Everyone's experience will vary depending on where they ride and how they ride. The only way to find out is to try it.

    J.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    The difference in float between 27.5x4 and 26x4 is even smaller.
    The point is that with the 7 all doors are open to you.
    Of course test rides are always best.

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,551
    I recently cancelled my Farley 9 order for a 2016 Specialized Fuse Comp I found used for a screaming deal after I discovered 27.5 Plus size. I was smitten at first by the 27.5 Farley and its geometry because it would be mostly used for trail with occasional East Coast Pa snow. I rode my Pivot mach 6 with 2.4 tires on groomed and compacted trails last year and previous year after significant snow falls and accumulation. Sure, a wider tire would have been better to a degree for handling and floatation but really did not suffer overall.I believe a three inch is all I'll realistically need for snow but really shines on trail riding I've done so far. Many choices to make to fit your needs for the best possible equipment,but choices do abound and that is a good thing!!!

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Thanks for the input everyone. Test ride is pushed to Monday. If I can ride at a decent clip with the 4.8" tires then I'll likely get the 7 knowing I can get a spare set of 4" tires for the summer.

    If I hate riding the 4.8" on pavement I just won't buy it and explore different options. Can't justify spending more than $2,400 on a bike and/or spare rims at this juncture. Some think I'm insane already!

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    I'd be interested in a 27.5 x 3.8 to gain back that inch of BB height I loose going form a 26 x 4.8 to a 26 x 3.8, just for consistency of feel. Although its all moot until I see a 27.5 x 3.8 Nate, and knowing Surly I'd have a better chance getting on to the International Space Station.

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    I'm from MN too. Since they plow all the bike paths and roads, you are not ever going to need the float from the 5", the rest will be car or snowmobile packed. If you have a 4" tire you should be just fine. Too, the 27.5"x4 is going to have a larger footprint than a 26x4 so you could look at that too. While you would be fine with the 5" you'd be finer with the 4", I would think. You will, however, likely want to stud the tires - you know how long the ice sticks around and what snow that has been polished by lots of car tires packing it down acts like.

    I'm getting a 9.8 and I rode the 27.5x4's over sand and thought they worked pretty well. That's going to be like you riding through deep snow not packed snow. So I think if the answer is that you will be riding mostly packed snow, then it's 4". Hard to believe it would be anything else for commuting, especially since we don't really get that much snow, but mostly cold so that snow never leaves.

    J.
    I'm guessing you live in the metro and just ride the groomed trails. I'm out west of the metro and spend a good amount of time breaking trails, riding on lakes, islands, river trails, fields, parks, and everywhere else I can explore. Most see little or no fatbike traffic and I can reach them without having to truck my bike anywhere. A 4" tire won't cut it and if I could go bigger than 4.8" I would- there is no replacement for displacement when you are cutting trails especially when it drifts.

    For me the best part of a Fatbike is going spots I normally wouldn't ride and the challenge of riding stuff that is tough in the summer. If I was going to ride plowed roads and groomed "trails", I'd probably just have a studded mountain bike or buy one of those silly trainer things.

    The slight advantage your 27.5" tire is going to buy you over a 26x4" is negated by the shorter sidewall of your 27.5 that will restrict you from running lower PSI's or you'll risk trashing a rim. That is the beauty of a 4.8" tire, you can run lower pressures 3-5 psi and have a tank tread pattern and still have some sidewall left to prevent bottoming. Too much grip, just add a little air, not enough let some out.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by l3eaudacious View Post
    I'd be interested in a 27.5 x 3.8 to gain back that inch of BB height I loose going form a 26 x 4.8 to a 26 x 3.8, just for consistency of feel. Although its all moot until I see a 27.5 x 3.8 Nate, and knowing Surly I'd have a better chance getting on to the International Space Station.
    If you compare a 26" Nate to the 27.5" Hodag you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height not 1". I seriously doubt you could tell the difference.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    The problem as I see it, is that Trek is the only company that has gone forward with 27.5" fat. This doesn't bode well for an influx of 27.5 fat tires. This means any company even thinking of making a 3.8" fat tire would be doing so knowing that it's for an extremely limited market. That's not to say it won't happen at all, but it presents a big unknown and it's not a certainty by any means. Some people here thought we'd see a few examples at Interbike - Pfffttt...nothing.

    Likely if we see another one any time soon, it will be just one, and it will be from Bontrager.

    If I knew a 27.5x3.8" Chuppacabra was on the way, then I may well have gone ahead and ordered a 27.5" set of rims today instead of 29+ . As it stands I'm not willing to wait and see at this point.

    If the 3.8" Chupie becomes a reality at some point, then maybe I'll re-lace the DT hubs to 27.5 Mulefuts.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    I'm guessing you live in the metro and just ride the groomed trails. I'm out west of the metro and spend a good amount of time breaking trails, riding on lakes, islands, river trails, fields, parks, and everywhere else I can explore. Most see little or no fatbike traffic and I can reach them without having to truck my bike anywhere. A 4" tire won't cut it and if I could go bigger than 4.8" I would- there is no replacement for displacement when you are cutting trails especially when it drifts.

    For me the best part of a Fatbike is going spots I normally wouldn't ride and the challenge of riding stuff that is tough in the summer. If I was going to ride plowed roads and groomed "trails", I'd probably just have a studded mountain bike or buy one of those silly trainer things.

    The slight advantage your 27.5" tire is going to buy you over a 26x4" is negated by the shorter sidewall of your 27.5 that will restrict you from running lower PSI's or you'll risk trashing a rim. That is the beauty of a 4.8" tire, you can run lower pressures 3-5 psi and have a tank tread pattern and still have some sidewall left to prevent bottoming. Too much grip, just add a little air, not enough let some out.
    I was responding to Jeff_G's post. What he described was more urban. I live in a rural area, on the St. Croix and will be riding it on the beach along the St. Croix. Works fine.

    J.

  125. #125
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    If you compare a 26" Nate to the 27.5" Hodag you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height not 1". I seriously doubt you could tell the difference.
    I read this type of stuff a lot on here and no one takes into account the amount that fat tires flex under load at low pressure, the bottom bracket will drop more than you think when you sit on it
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    I read this type of stuff a lot on here and no one takes into account the amount that fat tires flex under load at low pressure, the bottom bracket will drop more than you think when you sit on it
    True, but both tires will flex by a similar amount so the measurement difference is very meaningful.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Bought a set of Jackalope's with Hodag's (27.5" version) from a local dealer who swapped them off of another customer's bike (long story). I got 'em for cheap, but have to replace the hubs to fit them to my Pugz. Kinda excited as the tubeless setup is the easiest that I've seen or tried. Not getting my hopes up since I'm used to 5"x65mm setups (super absorbant and corners like a dream...not to mention all that float!). Will post back when I have some ride time (could be a while).

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    what you doing with the hubs? Selling them by chance?

  129. #129
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Bought a set of Jackalope's with Hodag's (27.5" version) from a local dealer who swapped them off of another customer's bike (long story). I got 'em for cheap, but have to replace the hubs to fit them to my Pugz. Kinda excited as the tubeless setup is the easiest that I've seen or tried. Not getting my hopes up since I'm used to 5"x65mm setups (super absorbant and corners like a dream...not to mention all that float!). Will post back when I have some ride time (could be a while).
    good luck fitting them on a Pug- iirc, a pugsley needs a 17.5mm offset lacing and the hodags are setup for more or less centered lacing. let us know how it works for you.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    what you doing with the hubs? Selling them by chance?
    They're yours if you want them!

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    good luck fitting them on a Pug- iirc, a pugsley needs a 17.5mm offset lacing and the hodags are setup for more or less centered lacing. let us know how it works for you.
    Already did the spoke calculations. Not my first wheel build. 272mm are gonna work all the way around with my chosen hubs and offsets, perfect for back-country riding as only have to carry one size :-)

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    217
    Really tempted by the Velocity Dually build kit being offered at bikehubstore.com.

    135/170mm BHS hubs, Dually rims in 27.5 or 29 with spokes and nips...

    Velocity Dually/Fatbike Hubs Wheel Kit - 36/36 - $359.95

    Seems like a really good deal... Thoughts?

  133. #133
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    Really tempted by the Velocity Dually build kit being offered at bikehubstore.com.

    135/170mm BHS hubs, Dually rims in 27.5 or 29 with spokes and nips...

    Velocity Dually/Fatbike Hubs Wheel Kit - 36/36 - $359.95

    Seems like a really good deal... Thoughts?
    It's a great deal. I'm picking one up as soon as I can. I'll post pics when it's built.
    I like turtles

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by NYrr496 View Post
    It's a great deal. I'm picking one up as soon as I can. I'll post pics when it's built.
    As I read that link, it looks like there is only one set available.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    As I read that link, it looks like there is only one set available.
    I asked. Seems they have several kits available.

  136. #136
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11,012
    There's 29 and 27.5.
    I like turtles

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumX View Post
    I asked. Seems they have several kits available.
    Screaming deal then. Wonder who ordered 36H in bulk? Seems kinda strange, especially if a bike company had planned to use them.

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    I am crossing my fingers that some one with a 9.6 wants to sell their 27.5 Jackelopes for some Whampa's or carbon wheels and I can buy them used!

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    They're yours if you want them!
    If FT251 doesn't want them can I get next in line?
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    They will not fit my F5 build. They're yours.

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    If FT251 doesn't want them can I get next in line?
    Just so everybody's aware, these were hub swapped for the customer whose bike they came from. The hubs I have are 135QR/177TA. End caps are replaceable, they are for sale, and they are REALLY nice hubs. PM me with an offer if you want. No need ask about them here :-)

    Edited to include that they are Bontrager Jackalope hubs

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    427
    Sorry I was thinking they were 150 and 177. One usable hub isn't going to do me much good. On to the Next!
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Just so everybody's aware, these were hub swapped for the customer whose bike they came from. The hubs I have are 135QR/177TA. End caps are replaceable, they are for sale, and they are REALLY nice hubs. PM me with an offer if you want. No need ask about them here :-)

    Edited to include that they are Bontrager Jackalope hubs
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    165
    I was just comparing my 26" 4.7s with some 26" MTB wheels, a 650b wheel I am building and a 700c.

    The 26" fat is considerably larger in diameter than all of them. I don't like this because it looks like the industry is cracking the door to obsoleting all of our 26" bikes, but we already have the largest diameter wheels in bicycles, I don't see the burning need for more.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    So whats the consensus on the new Jackelope 27.5 wheels with tubeless Hodags? How you guys liking them? how do they feel? Looks like i found me a set of takes offs for my F5 build. I've been real happy with the 26 inch Jackelopes currently on my F6 set up tubeless with hodags. Will be converting those to fatter tires for winter and use the 27.5 x 3.8's for summer along with a bluto fork. I was going to just use a faster 26 inch tire but feel the 27.5 wheels may be a bit nicer with the newer frame. Thanks for the feedback!

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    So whats the consensus on the new Jackelope 27.5 wheels with tubeless Hodags? How you guys liking them? how do they feel? Looks like i found me a set of takes offs for my F5 build. I've been real happy with the 26 inch Jackelopes currently on my F6 set up tubeless with hodags. Will be converting those to fatter tires for winter and use the 27.5 x 3.8's for summer along with a bluto fork. I was going to just use a faster 26 inch tire but feel the 27.5 wheels may be a bit nicer with the newer frame. Thanks for the feedback!
    Well I'm still loving 27.5 jackalopes/hodags. Since my last comments I've used them on sand dunes and snow. On the dunes I got the feeling I was doing better than guys with 26x4 but not quite as well as the 26x5 guys. The snow ride was less definitive, as it was new snow and aggressive knobs were more important than diameter. As pointed out by many on this thread, it's not a world of difference from 26".

    It's nice to have the same diameter as my winter wheelset, which is clownshoes/5" tires.

    The hodags are super nice--lots of traction they roll well.

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Thanks!

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    Sorry I was thinking they were 150 and 177. One usable hub isn't going to do me much good. On to the Next!
    End caps are swappable to make the front 150TA... I just don't have those, your Trek dealer should be able to get them, no problem.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Laced my 27.5's up last night, and, as Teton29er says, they don't feel much different than a 26x3.8" setup. As a matter of fact, tubed (I haven't recieved my Stan's tape for tubeless, yet), they feel identical to Vanhelga's tubed (another tire in the same casing width category!). I suspect, they'll feel really similar to the Vanhelga's tubeless as well, but that will have to wait a few days. Bottom bracket height change between 26x5 and 27.5x4 seems to be minimal. These Hodags are only 8mm shorter in overall height that my Buds on Marge Lites.

    Will keep everyone up to date as I continue to ride these up til the snow flies :-)

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Thanks, good to know. I will have the 27.5 jackelope as my "Summer Wheel" set up with the Hodags tubeless. For winter I have the 26" jackelopes with the bigger Barbagazi tires set up tubeless. Thought that would keep the BB about the same and the geo similar. i was worried that the larger wheels may have a effect or different feel being it's larger diameter. Maybe the sidewall of the hodag makes up for it.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    The sidewall of the Hodag isn't making up for anything.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,734
    Lots of good info here around 11:40. 27.5x4 not as great volume/ floatation in super soft conditions as 26x5" but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.

    Fat Camp Podcast #7 ? Ken and Andy Talk Tech With Trek Engineers | FAT-BIKE.COM
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.
    Verified. 27.5 Hodags roll better than the double Buds I had before, but the Buds rolled significantly worse than the Ground Controls before that. Ground Controls are the best rolling 5" tire I've had so far (out of many), but the 27.5" Hodags MIGHT give them a run for their money. My main worry is how the Hodags will handle on MTB trail. I've gotten used to the forgiveness of 5" traction and squooosh.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,458
    You're saying a low knob 4" tire rolls better than a big knob 5" tire?
    Amazing!


    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Verified. 27.5 Hodags roll better than the double Buds I had before, but the Buds rolled significantly worse than the Ground Controls before that. Ground Controls are the best rolling 5" tire I've had so far (out of many), but the 27.5" Hodags MIGHT give them a run for their money. My main worry is how the Hodags will handle on MTB trail. I've gotten used to the forgiveness of 5" traction and squooosh.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yeah, pretty much my response as well.

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    ATTENTION ATTENTION!

    NEWS ALERT: 700X23C tires roll better than 26X5" tires

    WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,460
    Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    For me and my Pugz, getting the bigger diameter (and all the "features" or "quirks" that come with it) is a big plus, but I don't like having to trim side knobs off of my rear tire. The 27.5's get me even closer to what I want, in that regard, because they're narrower on a taller rim.

    For the record, rolling resistance is not a large concern of mine. I was attempting to move the thread along, but since you all got hung up on it: Try riding a 3.8 27tpi Knard back-to-back with a Ground Control (a much bigger, knobbier tire) and try telling me the (clearly) more aggressive tire doesn't roll far better. And that's just one example I can give. Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    For me and my Pugz, getting the bigger diameter (and all the "features" or "quirks" that come with it) is a big plus, but I don't like having to trim side knobs off of my rear tire. The 27.5's get me even closer to what I want, in that regard, because they're narrower on a taller rim.

    For the record, rolling resistance is not a large concern of mine. I was attempting to move the thread along, but since you all got hung up on it: Try riding a 3.8 27tpi Knard back-to-back with a Ground Control (a much bigger, knobbier tire) and try telling me the (clearly) more aggressive tire doesn't roll far better. And that's just one example I can give. Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!
    Yep. I got what you were saying. On many rides I do, the wider, big knob tires roll faster and better than anything smaller and it's a tough call whether big knob 26x5 or medium knob 27.4 or small knob 26x4 are best. The guys sitting at computers saying skinnier tires always roll better don't ride where I ride thats for sure.

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?
    No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.
    Having just ridden some soft early season snow with 27.5 x 4 with 80mm and super low pressure, I can assure you that the rim width was not unnecessary.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    For most conditions 65mm rims would stand you in good stead,
    and provide other advantages to boot. There are conditions where
    a 100mm rim and a 5" tire provides an advantage.

    On the 27.5 Farleys, and for their intended purpose, a 65mm rim
    would be better/wiser choice.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.
    Another data point for illustration:

    A 26x4.8 Knard, on an 82mm Rolling Darryl Rim, with tube and at 7psi riding pressure, measures 756mm. Incidentally, this happens to be exactly the same diameter as a Fat B Nimble 29x3, on a 39mm Dually rim, which is the smallest of the "plus" size 29 tires. In both cases, they're about the biggest I can fit on my bike:

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

    This is also the reason I'm following the 27x3.8 development with so much interest. Putting the FBN on the back was a phenomenal improvement I would never reverse, but the +/- 1" diameter difference from a 3.8" front tire altered the geometry and steering too much. Even a "4.7" Big Fat Larry was about 3/4" too short and a noticeable difference.

    The 4.8 Knard fixed the geometry, but it's just slightly too much tire. I'm not talking about rolling resistance and I'm about as non-weight-weenie as they come... it's just a bit hard to keep on line on smooth surfaces and hard, concave trails. So I think the 27x3.8 might just be perfection.

    I know that the "fat-front" thing is a bit of a minority concern, but it illustrates EXACTLY why this and all other new tire sizes/formats are a good thing for us consumers and riders! We get to pick the volume and width we want, while maintaining the diameter and geometry we need!
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I have a Farley 9.6 with the 27.5 wheels and 3.8 Hodag's. During the fall, it seemed great, but as the snow is building, I am getting closer and closer to getting a set of 26 x 5's. I am trying to decide between DT Swiss 2250, which is out of stock at the cheap places, Chinese Carbon or going nuts and getting HEDs. For tires, maybe Dinninger 5 studded, although I know this is not as wide as some. Where I am struggling with the 27.5's on on unpacked single track with some ski tracks or a little foot traffic, and sometimes only my previous tracks. The issues has been mainly with the front end on downhills wanting to wash out when there is a bit of a sidehill. I started at 6 lbs in the front and 7 in the back, and ended dropping the front down to about 4 lbs which improved things, although I am fearful of frozen stumps. Things seems really good an stable while climbing; the problems seems to come on the downhills with more weight forward.



    That is the trail I am riding in front of my front tire. Ignore the snow buildup on the tire, that has been really minimal. I had just gone through a muddy creek before this picture.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    ...especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.
    Must not be considering all things, then? It makes all the sense in the world that Trek would just re-roll the awesome 26" rim (that was already bought and paid for) to a bigger diameter when they took a gamble on this whole 27.5-Fat thing...

    Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to have seen a 60mm wide version for the 27.5's but I'm not complaining 'til I give 'em a fair shake-down. They seam to have given the 27.5" Hodag a lot of thought to tire profile, as they have about the same crown as my Buds on Marge Lite (which is about perfect for my style of riding).

    What DOESN'T make sense is that they're still spec'ing their bikes with MuleFuts when they have a better rim in the same size category...

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yeah don't get me wrong, I don't think 80mm is
    a horrible idea. I just don't think they took
    their own 'faste' logic far enough. 65mm would be
    lighter and yield a better tire profile.
    80mm isn't fully comitting to what they say that
    they're going for with those bikes, and its leaving
    some performance unutilized/sitting on the table
    for no apparent reason, which doesn't make
    much sense from where I sit.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,460
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    For me and my Pugz, getting the bigger diameter (and all the "features" or "quirks" that come with it) is a big plus, but I don't like having to trim side knobs off of my rear tire. The 27.5's get me even closer to what I want, in that regard, because they're narrower on a taller rim.

    For the record, rolling resistance is not a large concern of mine. I was attempting to move the thread along, but since you all got hung up on it: Try riding a 3.8 27tpi Knard back-to-back with a Ground Control (a much bigger, knobbier tire) and try telling me the (clearly) more aggressive tire doesn't roll far better. And that's just one example I can give. Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!
    Ok, diameter seems clearer, but to the point, width is the most important factor needed for float in soft sand or snow, correct? As well as psi.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Ok, diameter seems clearer, but to the point, width is the most important factor needed for float in soft sand or snow, correct?
    Not necessarily.
    Listen to the "fat camp" podcast with the Trek engineers and the old agriculture/tractor
    research they utilized with regard to tires.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,460
    So, still murky here. Longer foot print ala 26er vs 29er debate? I need science dammit, not some engineer/ marketing double speak. And now my Farley 6 I have to put out on trash day

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Both diameter and width play a role.
    A happy combination of both parameters
    is the name of the game.

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    605
    Flotation comes down to the ratio between over all diameter and width. it does not mater what size rim is in there. Except that with more sidewall (ie smaller rim for the same overall diameter) you will get more squish. More squish means wider tire on the ground. So if your goal is to have the most foot print you would want to go even smaller then 26" rim while keeping the same overall diameter.

    Now if one tire is a 4 and the other a 5 then all bets are off. Also i think there are multiple goal here. some people want more float and others want better handling. those two are opposing characteristics of the tire. a bigger rim with less sidewall will handle turning better but will ride much more harsh. look at monster truck tires vs Ferrari tires. those are the extremes but it illustrates the capabilities and characteristics of the tire sizes.

    I still think the fat 650b is still away to separate a man from his money. I think 26 is better suited for the really fat tires and 650b for the plus. But even for plus tires i would go 29+ for better rollover characteristics.

    just my $.02

  172. #172
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489

    I agree with Trek

    My own (non scientific) testing seems to back up what Travis and co are claiming.

    Full disclosure, though, I got some free product/tires from them during the testing phase.

    -Walt

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    The sidewall of the Hodag isn't making up for anything.
    What i meant is that the 27.5 Hodag is a bit lower profile than a 26 x 3.8 Hodag, so shorter sidewalls, and may be a bit firmer, maybe, IDK.

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Oh, yes definitely.
    If they are actually lower profile anyway.
    I've seen mixed messages on that point.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Did some measuring today at the LBS:
    26 X 3.8 is 29.0 in diameter
    26 x 4.7 is 29.25 in diameter
    27.5 X 3.8 is 29.3 in diameter
    29.0 x 3.0 is 30.25 in diameter.

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
    and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
    I knew they were all close - but damn.

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
    and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
    I knew they were all close - but damn.
    Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I will say thought that I've seen measurements that put the 29x3 Chupie on the 50mm, and the 4.7 Barbegazi in the 80mm much closer together - within a few mm.
    768mm, and 765+- respectively.

    I think a 1/2" bottom bracket drop should be expected if going to 26x3.8" - which is no big deal.

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150

    We the people ...

    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

    You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

    Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!
    FYI: The surly Knard is one of the smallest diameter 26X3.8" tires out there at 726mm per Surly specs.

    If you compare the Bonti 27.5" to the Surly Nate, another common 26"X3.8" tire at 749mm you are talking a 14mm difference. Take half that for the radius and you have a 7mm (.275") difference in ride height.

    Compare the Bonti 27.5" to the fast rolling Vanhelga- 21mm overall difference, 10.5mm (.41") in ride height.

    Neither of the measurements in these comparisons are very significant and I doubt most riders will be able to tell the difference.

    That is my problem with this whole 27.5" thing, it is a marketing scam. Trek is trying to capitalize on the "hot" 27.5" MTB's to sell fatbikes that offer a very small diameter increase over a 26X4" tire.

    Not only that but it also has following downsides:

    No tire selection- Heck you can you even get replacement tires? Granted the market may come out with more brands of 27.5" tires, but the only ones at the latest bike shows have been 3.5" or smaller. As of right now you have only one place to buy 27.5" fat tires- Trek.

    No studded tires, no traction tires, no wider tires- If you want bigger or better tires- buy another wheelset in 26".

    Shorter sidewalls than 26"X5" and even many 26X4" tires. More likely that you will ruin a rim at lower pressures as have happened to several already. Worse yet you can't even readily get a replacement rim in a timely manner.

    Heavy wheels- The lightest 27.5" Wheelset is 2550gr with carbon rims negating any potential weight savings of the tires.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yep - it's all pretty transparent when you top to look at it.

  181. #181
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    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

  182. #182
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    I wouldn't say the concept by itself sucks- if it was the only fatbike tire size available I'd be ridding the $h!t out of it and be happy. My complaint is that this product under certain conditions gives a very limited diameter/performance advantage over 26" setups that have an abundance of options that therefore give a much wider range of performance. The irony is that these so called 27.5" fat tires are bigger than the 29er wagon wheels that many say are too big for the trail, which is why 27.5" MTB tires were developed in the first place.

    To me it is like an automaker developing a car that runs on kerosene that gets 1% better MPG than comparable gasoline models. Would you buy it knowing that you are very limited on where you can buy kerosene and if it wasn't working for you- you'd need to pay a bunch of money to switch it to a gasoline powered motor?
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by FT251 View Post
    Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.
    Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.
    I already own the Makwa, I've had it almost a year and it was on my Farley 6.

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140

    Just an update from my perspective:

    After only 6 years, it's hard for me believe that I used to ride tires this narrow (much crappier back then, too). I remember when the Endo was the only tire to be had and it rode like a dumptruck front and rear!

    These 27.5 Bonti's on the other hand... So sweet! What I lost in ride comfort (from the double Buds) I gained in a more direct steering feel. No surprise, there, since the tire has less rubber to flex with!

    The fact that that's the most significant finding, for me, speaks as loudly as any. Traction and rolling (on hardpack and loose, wet leaves) felt like they were right off of some Ground Controls.

    So, yeah. Combine the minor compensation of me floating on the bike (read "not being a lazy rider") with majors of traction and predictability (plus the raised BB, something I like), and Bontrager's awesomely easy tubeless setup. This set is a winner if you can get a discount!

    I'm also worried (like others are) that this "standard" might fizzle and die (hence the comment about buying on discount), but Trek seems to be selling a fair few bikes set up this way... I could only hope that they come out with a tire in the 220-230mm Bead2Bead category (You listening Trek!?!?). That would be perfect IMO.

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    While people were taking time to write long essays about how bad this new rim choice is, I went on a ride in 3" new snow and had a great time!

    Again, I detected a slightly better traction and trail braking capability from the 26x4's I have used for years. (my measurements show closer to an inch compared to hodags on 26). Call it my imagination if you like, but I can't imagine any reason a 26x4 would have been better yesterday.

    Now we have a little more snow, I'll put on the 26x100mmx5". Oh yeah, winter is here!

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.
    Hey!!! You get back down in that hole!!

    Sheezus, we're gonna need to set some traps round here.

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    989
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.
    Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".

  190. #190
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".
    No it pretty much only comes out in the winter when all the uncool kids are hiding in the house.

    Still wouldn't buy a wheelset that had one tire available. Them days are long gone no need to limit oneself.

    edit: Now I remember who beat me up.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iamkeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    That is my problem with this whole 27.5" thing, it is a marketing scam. Trek is trying to capitalize on the "hot" 27.5" MTB's to sell fatbikes that offer a very small diameter increase over a 26X4" tire.
    I don't know. I'm the world's biggest hater of big, corporate bike companies - especially for their marketing hype around useless trends, use of components with built-in obsolescence, their tendency to hold up racing as the end-all archetype and - in Trek's case in particular - their propensity for swallowing up good, small companies. But, having just listened to that podcast (while I should have been working), I think I've changed my mind about Trek quite a bit! I have to say those guys actually "get it," in many ways where others don't.

    Yea, like all the big guys, they were way late to the party in terms of fat and 650b and plus, and they are benefitting from the risks taken by Surly, Fatback, Wildfire, Waltworks, etc. But unlike almost ALL the other big companies, they are looking at it fresh, with a critical eye, and are actually taking chances of their own, rather than just hopping on a bandwagon.

    The big takeaways from listening to those guys, is seeing how they recognize that:

    1. Plus-size volume tires are the future, for everything that doesn't require full-fat floatation. Just like most of us on this forum, they probably look at a 2 1/2" wide tire as almost comical in it's skinniness. Incidentally though, they DO directly acknowledge that there are times when the floatation of a 26 x 4.8 tire is warranted and superior to the 27.5x3.8.

    2. Diameter is where it's at - in terms of efficiency, speed, comfort, traction, float! They clearly are NOT pushing this 27.5x3.8 thing because of the 650b trend. Quite the opposite, they're pushing it because they realize that 29+, with it's bigger diameter, is far superior to 650b+, and they want to build bikes around that geometry - which is what this tire does.

    3. It's perfectly ok to question even the most accepted-as-gospel tenets of contemporary bike design - things like "chainstays should be as short as possible" - in search of a geometry that best leverages a specific wheel diameter. For most of us non-perfectionist hacks, there's absolutely nothing wrong with messing up your bottom bracket height or trail figure, by squeezing in a tire that a bike wasn't designed around. But that's much harder for a designer to be comfortable with, since they've intended everything to work as a precise package. Trek wants a constant wheel diameter, regardless of rim format.


    Now... none of this new-found Trek appreciation changes the fact that the whole Boost thing is a total cluster f___iasco - and that there are (were already) way better ways of achieving everything it managed to achieve. But I now believe that they came up with it in part just because they were honestly trying to see things from a fresh perspective - not entirely for the sake of marketing a new standard. 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...
    We still hang bike thieves in Wyoming [Pedal House]

  192. #192
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by iamkeith View Post
    2. Diameter is where it's at - in terms of efficiency, speed, comfort, traction, float! They clearly are NOT pushing this 27.5x3.8 thing because of the 650b trend. Quite the opposite, they're pushing it because they realize that 29+, with it's bigger diameter, is far superior to 650b+, and they want to build bikes around that geometry - which is what this tire does.
    This.... and I'll be happily riding the piss out of my farley 9, I went from 26x4 to 26x5 for snow reasons (clydesdale) then went back to smaller tires for summer, then up to 4.8 knards for summer because I liked the larger diameter more, then trek went larger diameter with a 3.8, I'm sold, I rode last year's farley 8 after my salsa with 4.8 tires, I won't go back to that diameter, the 27.5x3.8 is a happy medium when I don't need the float

    if you're a skinny guy that doesn't need the larger diameter or 5" tires to get more float or don't like the taller wheel geometry, more power to you, you get the run lighter wheels and tires, but I'm not going backwards now, more tires will come

    B+ is cool because it fits my existing MTBs that could use a little more float or cush for certain rides but it's diameter now feels lacking to me

    find what you like and rock it, I'm thrilled with all the options we have today
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  193. #193
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    I sure do like the new Farley's, one of the coolest bikes out at the moment. Trek is actually an awesome company who help out a lot with the local MTB scene around WI and MI. If I needed another fatty I would be checking out the 7 fur sure.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Still wouldn't buy a wheelset that had one tire available. Them days are long gone no need to limit oneself.
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    989
    Quote Originally Posted by jr z View Post
    i'm guessing you didn't buy an original pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-p
    bam!!!

  196. #196
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P
    Im guessing either your reading comprehension is off or you didn't read the whole post. Bam!!

    And no I waited till the Larry came out.

  197. #197
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,811
    It amazes me how people can get their panties all up in a bundle over someone not agreeing with them on a silly wheelsize. Do we all have to agree in order to get along? There is not a right or wrong just different opinions.

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Z View Post
    I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around? :-P
    So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.

    That sound you just heard... Hundreds of Pugslies rolling over in their shallow graves.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.

    That sound you just heard... Hundreds of Pugslies rolling over in their shallow graves.
    Fat biking is far from a revolution. It's just an interesting evolution of rigid mtb that originally fitted a niche market of snow riding. Now that we are further improving that branch of the market, new wheel and type size are certainly options that need to be tested.

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    Fat biking is far from a revolution. It's just an interesting evolution of rigid mtb that originally fitted a niche market of snow riding. Now that we are further improving that branch of the market, new wheel and type size are certainly options that need to be tested.
    Maybe not in France, but here in the northern US, it definitely is....
    https://www.google.com/search?sclien...74.qUbvmlRVMSA
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... 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.