Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215

    They are enormous! The Barbegazi 27.5 x 4.5

    I finally broke down and fully embraced the 27.5 format. I am officially done with 26" wheels, they are dead to me

    Behold:

    They are enormous! The Barbegazi 27.5 x 4.5-kimg0207.jpg

    They are enormous! The Barbegazi 27.5 x 4.5-kimg0309.jpg

    Not a lot of ride time yet, but the maiden spin around the block reminded me of the first time I rode a fat bike, like OMG this is friggin amazing!!

    It's like riding a ginormous 29" wheels, tall and fat, all at the same time. The foot print of these suckers, it's so big; that's what she said

  2. #2
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,416
    Wait til you see the Gnarwhals...

    Same casing, but gi-mondo knobs make them look even moar biggerer.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215
    I think we're gonna need a bigger "bike"

    https://youtu.be/VquLerRp-ps

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Wait til you see the Gnarwhals...

    Same casing, but gi-mondo knobs make them look even moar biggerer.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215
    The Deets:

    Built by Mikesee (Mike Curiak) at Lace Mine 29 - Big Bicycle Wheels

    Barbe 27.5 x 4.5, Jackalope 80mm rims, DT 350 woth 54t poe, mounted on a Wozo medium frame/Mastodon EXT 120 (soon to be changed to a Mastodon STD 130), drop outs slammed back. Clearance is 3/8" on the sides and 1/2+ at the chainstay bridge.

    No idea on the weight, but they are significantly lighter than my old wheels (Minion 4.8, LM, Onyx).

    I decided not to get the wheels built with Onyx hubs because I wants the most fat with the least amount of weight; big fat is heavier

    The DT 350 Big Ride hubs spin up very nicely, they feel even better than my boost DT350's.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    274
    How do these tires stack up in size to Snowshoe 2XL? I searched but could find any direct comparisons. Same rolling diameter but significantly less width and weight, I would guess?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    317
    I second that. If Nurse Ben can throw a set of calipers on that rubber it would be nice for comparisons sake.

  7. #7
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    542
    wow, who woulda thunk the barbi's would fit he back of a wozo.

  8. #8
    Thingamejigger
    Reputation: Flying_Scotsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    How do these tires stack up in size to Snowshoe 2XL? I searched but could find any direct comparisons. Same rolling diameter but significantly less width and weight, I would guess?
    2XL's are 793mm, these are 770mm which is more Bud/Lou territory

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    371
    I was so tempted to go 27.5 fat for my ICT but just couldn't pull the trigger. Instead had Mr. C build an MOBD set with DT Big Rides. Perhaps 27.5 fat is in my future...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,917
    yup, one of the big reasons i switched from the 2016 Farley 7 to the 2017 Farley 9.6.

    27.5 and carbon
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2017 Trek Farley 9.6
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo Trail Carbon
    2016 Scott Solace 10 Disc

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishboy316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    429
    27.5 is sweet! I run mine with Hodags for summer. Kept the Barbi's for snow.
    2013 Cannondale F29 1 Alloy
    2013 Cervelo S5 Rival
    2012 Trek X01 crosser
    2017 Trek Farley 7
    2017Trek Domane SLR 6

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    79
    What frames have the most clearance for these bad boys? Apart from Trek..

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215
    ~105mm, the same width as the Minion 4.8 on LM 65mm rims.

    I'd actually have a little more sidewall spacing, but the drop outs limit how far the wheel can move rearwards; it's a really tall wheel. I could gain another 1/4" on each side if I had another 1/2 of chainstay.

    And yet, they do fit, they ride awesome, and I'll never go back!!

    I want to have Walt build me a frame from unobtanioum, short chainstays with an alternator drop out, seat post capacity for a 175mm dropper, 5" wheel capacity, long and low geo, 67deg HTA with a 140mm Mastodon STD, .... a true Fat Honzo without the lamedown that Kona did to the Wozo.

    But since I just built a Fatillac, I do believe my banker is going to make me wait

    Hey Rodney, just imagine if the Barbes fit in the back of a Fatillac

    I want Devin to a triangle for the Fatillac that'll handle a Barbe!!

    Quote Originally Posted by alias View Post
    I second that. If Nurse Ben can throw a set of calipers on that rubber it would be nice for comparisons sake.

  14. #14
    fat guy on a little bike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Hey Rodney, just imagine if the Barbes fit in the back of a Fatillac

    I want Devin to a triangle for the Fatillac that'll handle a Barbe!!
    umm, that would be hot... make it happen.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215
    We'll, I think it would be something to work toward, might need to get a group together so it'd be worth Devin's time to build a jig and fab the swingarms. Not cheap. What's it worth?

    It'd need to be wider and longer, allowing space for 29+, 26 x 4.5 and 27.5 x 4.5, even with adjustable drops it might end up with a longer swingarm by 1/2".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
    umm, that would be hot... make it happen.

  16. #16
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,416
    I rode my (now Rodney's) Fatillac with a Gnarwhal up front for a handful of rides. Deliberately chose some chunky, techy trail. It worked fine, but it was such massive overkill for anything that we think of as "trail" that I reverted back to a Hodag up front pretty quick.

    Just my $.02. Seemed like you'd need to find (or already have in mind) some pretty out there terrain to warrant those tires on a 6 x 6" sled.

    If someone has something like that in mind, invite me...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I rode my (now Rodney's) Fatillac with a Gnarwhal up front for a handful of rides. Deliberately chose some chunky, techy trail. It worked fine, but it was such massive overkill for anything that we think of as "trail" that I reverted back to a Hodag up front pretty quick.

    Just my $.02. Seemed like you'd need to find (or already have in mind) some pretty out there terrain to warrant those tires on a 6 x 6" sled.

    If someone has something like that in mind, invite me...
    That's three

    My idea of "out there riding" would be off the grid, boonie bashing, no holds barred, just rolling over and through everything.

    I did this sort of thing last night on the Wozo, which got me thinking about how much better it would be with more suspension

    So Mike, is winter a good time to get Devin's attention?

  18. #18
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Willum View Post
    How do these tires stack up in size to Snowshoe 2XL? I searched but could find any direct comparisons. Same rolling diameter but significantly less width and weight, I would guess?

    They are neither as tall nor as wide. More akin to Bud/Lou.

  19. #19
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    That's three

    My idea of "out there riding" would be off the grid, boonie bashing, no holds barred, just rolling over and through everything.

    I did this sort of thing last night on the Wozo, which got me thinking about how much better it would be with more suspension

    So Mike, is winter a good time to get Devin's attention?

    Yes, that's the idea, but (for starters) there are very few people doing it. In many places it ain't even legal. And (speaking from experience) although I've done plenty of it, it's not something I want to do every day, nor necessarily even every week. Perhaps if I had a riding partner that was similarly wired and pushing me to head that way I'd do it more, but even then I dunno.

    Also, although I don't mind riding/pushing a ~100# bike for weeks at a time in order to see some country, there are few people whom think that even a 40# bike is acceptable. Such a beast would undoubtedly be pushing 35# at least, and probably more.

    Not suggesting anyone shouldn't pursue it, nor that it's in any way less acceptable because few people are doing it. More trying to get you to see why Devin is reluctant to invest the time/money/energy into building something that few people actually want and yet fewer are going to pony up for.

    Just my $.02. Not speaking for Devin. He's usually yet busier in winter, as he transitions over to building skibikes.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-08-2018 at 09:22 PM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,203
    Actually, according to Trek's research, they would disagree. Apparently this comes from research on tractor tires in soft soil where larger diameter and narrower (relatively) is better - think tractor tires for farming. You can listen to Trek/Bontrager engineers and Travis Brown (Trek pro cyclist involved in Trek development) discuss it here:

    FAT-BIKE.COM: Fat Camp Podcast #7 Ken and Andy Talk Tech With Trek Engineers
    https://overcast.fm/+FhC8naOXM/07:48

    I guess the takeaway is that for a given tire patch size, you're better off with a narrower and longer patch and rolling over the loose material than trying to push a short fat patch through it.

    J.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-08-2018 at 09:22 PM.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    The last thing I'd want is even taller tires for riding in snow. After stopping and trying to get going again indeep snow trying, standover clearance is a big deal. I'd rather they go to wider tires like a 5.5" or a 24" wheel with with lots of volume so when you air down the footprint gets huge.
    You're confusing taller tires with high center of gravity/high standover. Tall wheels work fine on a frame like Wozo which has a low bb.

    Taller tires are excellent for snow, kinda like having longer legs. The Barbes are also nice and wide, great tires.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,057
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    ...I believe fatbike would be better served with 24" wheels with higher volume, much thinner cased tires that are wider but keep their current diameters. Just like the ski industry switched to shorter, fatter skis, the fatbike industry should do the same.
    I don't ski, so a question. Did the ski industry switch to the shorter fatter ski for cross country use or for agility down a given course?

    I can see the argument for larger diameter and skinny, I reckon for any given volume of tyre it may be the way to go purely because of the footprint will be narrower but longer, therefore you're pushing less stuff out of the way = less effort.

    But ultimately there are physical constraints on the diameter you can stuff in a bike, and at that point then we have no choice but to go wider for more volume.

    I'm not so sure about the baggy style of a high volume 24" tyre. That's going to have a lot of squirm and keeping it on the rim will be a bigger issue at low pressures, but that can be solved.

    I think the next step is to go low profile, ie larger diameter rim for same max diameter of tyre.

    This will probably need a radial tyre type construction. Advantages I foresee is getting the maximum footprint with more precision in the feel of the bike and the ability to have extremely supple sidewalls. Hopefully for a large footprint the tyre will be lighter because of less need to have a supportive sidewall. Then it's a question of getting light enough rims.

    Speaking as an advocate for 8" tyres for bog hopping and deep snow, I suspect that those with the legs to drive such wheels for any distance will be very few*, and it may be the fat eBikes that adopt such wheels.


    *ie, not me
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-08-2018 at 09:22 PM.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-08-2018 at 09:23 PM.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    Thanks for the link, pretty interesting. I didn't listen to the entire 48 minute interview but I heard the part about the ag industry and tractors. I don't think the comparison is applicable to bicycles and lends itself to the current marketing of 29+ and 27.5+ tire sizes.

    A tractor is used for a completely different purpose than a bicycle. The rear wheel tire diameter on a tractor is ridiculously larger than most anything but a monster truck. But the size difference between 26"-29" isn't that dramatic. The biggest flaw in their anology is that a tractor uses tall, skinny tires to fit between the furrows. Big, Wide tires would flatten the crops.

    There is a limit to how tall of tires a bicycle can be fitted with and still be able to be ridden by people of average height. Tractors don't have that concern. I believe fatbike would be better served with 24" wheels with higher volume, much thinner cased tires that are wider but keep their current diameters. Just like the ski industry switched to shorter, fatter skis, the fatbike industry should do the same.
    You should listen to the whole thing. They are not using agricultural tires as the model, but said only that there was little research on tire rolling performance in loose soils except for some agricultural tires. There is a whole discussion on the importance and benefit of angle of attack in a larger diameter tire and then keeping the rotating weight down - which if you look at their tires is exactly what they've done. They also made a number of prototypes and did research on these so much of what they had done was original research. Travis Brown had a lot to say on their experience in testing the various approaches that they tried.

    Your analogy of the ski industry is wrong. Skis were made wider and were "shaped" to give a greater sidecut from the prior straight skis. This enabled a ski to edge and carve better and hence the ski could be made shorter. Skis were able to carve better rather than skid in a turn which was a better turn AND enabled the ski to be used in a wider range of conditions (cutting through different snow conditions rather than trying to skid through). Powder skis were made wider but not longer. Both my powder skis and my all mountain skis are both 184cm. The powder skis are wider by about 30mm. The difference is that powder skis are able to plane on top of the snow *if you have sufficient speed*. If you don't have the speed, a lot if not most of the advantage is neutralized. We are not able to generate that sort of speed on a fatbike and so we're constrained to more pushing through loose soils and snow or going up and over (i.e. attack angle = important). Comparing skis to fatbike tires is a comparison of apples to fire trucks.

    Your 24" tire proposal is going to add pounds to the rotating weight of the tire even if you made paper thin (but obviously impractical) sidewalls. Since most of my riding is on sand (beach) and through snow (I live in the frozen north), I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that I don't have the legs to push that much width through sand or, especially, snow. Going to the 4.5"x 27.5" tire is bad enough for added rotating weight but there is an advantage of better angle of attack and some width. It's the combination of the two together that makes it work.

    I have a Trek 9.8 when they first first came out and the only 27.5" tire available was the 3.8". I rode that all winter through the snow and fall and spring on the beach in sand. Worked pretty well and I had a great time with it. When the 4.5" came out, I put those on my bike and noticed a decided advantage on riding through new snow and in choppy terrain since the tire seemed to go up and over obstacles easier. The same advantage carried through on the sand. So I feel pretty comfortable in saying that I agree with Trek's premise that the added tire patch size is most beneficial if it's added primarily in length rather than primarily (note "primarily") in width.

    J.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,215
    Quote Originally Posted by ak-rider View Post
    My post wasn't intended to draw you out into a debate but I disagree. I ride a KHS 1000 that has almost the exact same BB height as the Wozo but also a lower standover height. Thing is, when you install VeeRubber 5.05" tires like I did, you immediately notice the increased diameter (taller tire) and reduced standover. Reduced standover sucks for riding in deep snow. I believe the point of diminishing returns is found far more quickly going tall then it is wide. Unless we are all going to ride a trials bike style variant fat bike with no seat and a radically sloped down tube, you can only go so tall until most people can't fit the bike.
    You're still not seeing the point, it's not just a taller tire on the same rim, it's a taller tire and taller rim. The benefit is greater width AND greater stability.

    I agree, fatter 26" tires are not great except for maximum floatation.

    Your frame complaint is valid, snow bikes should have excellent standover. That's partly why I went down in frame size. Fortunately Kona designs the Wozo to be long and low, so it works well with big wheels.

    I suppose you have to ride one to feel the difference. I didn't think it would matter until I rode it.

    Is their a bike that comes stock with these tires?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    445
    delete
    Last edited by ak-rider; 01-08-2018 at 09:23 PM.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,203
    Well, what you're advocating is another couple of inches on the side wall (times two for both sides) and another couple of inches width on the tread if I'm understanding your proposal. That is going to add a _lot_ of weight to the tire. After riding the 4.5" and 3.8" x27.5, (less than an inch in tread difference) and about the same sidewall, I'm pretty sure that the rotating weight is going to go up way too much -which is probably why it hasn't been done.

    I also don't think you'd get enough float out of that to make it work in the specific application you're seeking. Tracks behind a snowmobile just don't set up enough for this to work. You need to compact it a little more than a single pass. I ride those kinds of tracks here all the time and am pretty sure I understand the surface you're talking about. If you like to make your own tracks, just run over them a couple of more times and they should be ok, I'd guess. Maybe make a weight sled to pull behind. You'd still get your own trail pretty quickly and you'd have no issue.

    But, be that as it may, I doubt you're ever going to see the tire you're looking for.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    280
    I have a "Bontrager 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi tire new in package" and a "Maxxis 27.5 x 3.5 tube" Fore sale or trade , I don't want to separate the tube and tire if possible.

    Lemme know what you've got laying around!

    mikeestexas

    at

    geeeeeeemaildotcom
    Mikee Likes It!
    @gordosbicycleclub

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: in the trees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeetheviking View Post
    I have a "Bontrager 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi tire new in package" and a "Maxxis 27.5 x 3.5 tube" Fore sale or trade , I don't want to separate the tube and tire if possible.

    Lemme know what you've got laying around!

    mikeestexas

    at

    geeeeeeemaildotcom
    Whatcha looking for?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeetheviking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    280
    i pmd u

Similar Threads

  1. How are the Bontrager Barbegazi 4.7 tires?
    By chesswiththedevil in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-17-2016, 12:59 PM
  2. 4.7" Barbegazi on a Surly Pugsley (Yes, It Fits!)
    By mdilthey in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-12-2016, 01:32 PM
  3. Do they hang low, do they wobble to and fro, do they light up?
    By dbhammercycle in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-15-2015, 10:06 PM
  4. An enormous sense of Well Being
    By Twimby in forum Riding Passion and Stories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 02:17 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-15-2012, 09:26 AM

Members who have read this thread: 173

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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.