Wheel/tire upgrade path, what do you think?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    433

    Wheel/tire upgrade path, what do you think?

    Might get some fatter tires and wheels, but my frame will only fit 2.2 in the back.

    So, what about 29+ in the front and 27.5+ in the back?

    Kinda like a 69er but not quite as kinky, seems like it would have its advantages. I was all sold on 27.5+ front and back, but other than a slight geo change, I'm not sure why I shouldn't have a big fat tire up front and a little extra cush in the back. Have cake, eat it too.

    Is that crazy? Am I insaaaane? Is the cake a lie?

    Guess I could post this in the tire forum, but it really has to do with riding a rigid ss over bumpy stuff, roots and ruts. I figured you guys would understand.

  2. #2
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,349
    If you can only fit a 2.2, what makes you think a 27.5+ (~3") tire will fit?

    Assuming you have a 29er, and that the tires will fit, what you are proposing will actually significantly change the geometry to the tune of a degree to a degree and a half of slacker head/seat tube angle. That will be quite noticeable; whether you'd like it or not is hard to say.

    -Walt

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    28
    I agree with Walt. You can't really go 27.5/29 plus with only a 2.2 clearance in the back. Smallest tires for 27.5 plus would still be 2.7-2.8", so that totally won't work.

    I'm guessing the bike is a 29'er? From the name I'm guessing your in Tampa?

    Given the trails around there, here are some options...
    Maxxis Aspen rear /Ikon 2.35 front
    Ikon 2.2 rear/Ikon 2.35 front
    Ikon 2.2 rear/Ardent 2.25/2.4 front
    ardent race 2.2 rear/Ardent 2.25/2.4 front

    Maxxis aspen is a great tire for FL trails too and would make a fantastic rear tire as the casing is pretty high volume, rolling resistance is super low, and it has a surprising amount of traction on roots and sand (I rode aspen 2.2 rear/ardent 2.25 front in FL for 2 yrs). The ikon 2.35 is pretty high volume and has much more pronounced side lugs than the same tire in 2.2" so would make a great front tire.

    Another option given your frame constraints is to go with a slightly wider internal width rim (think 25-30mm internal) like the stan's flow, velocity blunt SS, etc. You'll get more volume out of the tire itself and be able to run a lower pressure without burping which will make the rigid singlespeeding way better on the roots and ruts and will markedly improve cornering.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    159
    IIRC from another thread, you have a Superfly SS, no? Have you actually tried a 29 x 2.4 on the back? Should fit fine and will be a better match for the 29+ up front than a 27.5+. I doubt you'll get anything wider than a 27.5x 2.8 on the back, so it would to sit well lower than a normal 29er. Raising the front and lowering the rear might be too dramatic a change to the geo. Remember the 69er frames where designed with the combination in mind; these weren't. The 29+ front alone will make it a bit slacker without throwing things completely out of whack.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    433
    @Johnny: yep and yep, there's room for a 650bx2.8, but I see what you and Walt are saying.

    @spatchy: thank you for your thoughtful reply. The Aspen looks really good, I like that idea a lot. Also appreciate your comments about wider rims, have also been thinking about going with blunt 35's front and back, and maybe that was the best idea. Tires are cheap, wheels aren't. Don't want to run down a blind alley wheel-wise.

    @Walt: appreciate your reply and your presence on these forums a great deal. The rough trails I'm thinking about are pretty tight and I don't know if I want to slow down the steering much. The superfly frame is a tad slack to begin with, HTA 69.3, trail is 83mm with stock tires. It works as is, but but I'd be messing with both of those parameters. Believe it or not, with a short stem the bike feels a little on the sharp side so I got this idea in my head that a little change won't hurt anything. But, I really don't want to be "diving into turns" as you've mentioned elsewhere. Never fully wrapped my head around why G2 geometry works, I figure it must be magic. Maybe I shouldn't mess with it huh.

  6. #6
    I have Flat Pedal shame.
    Reputation: Thustlewhumber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    790
    I have a Trek 69er SS that I ride regularly, and I think that your idea is actually pretty awesome. Shorter chainstays, lower bottom bracket, and a slacker headtube angle PLUS the 27.5 will spin up a little easier AND you will get a little extra "gush" in the rear end - what's not to love? I am actually thinking of buying a new Stache and doing this exact same thng
    We don't ride to add days to our life, we ride to add life to the days we have left here.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    433
    ^Well that's the question.

    I'm working on a 69er build, I think the idea has merit. The benefits you mention work with a small frame where the rear end is built for a 26 or 27.5 wheel. Ideal platforms then would be the Carver or Trek frames, the Troll. Nobody's talking about the Planet X 456 frame but that should work like a charm.

    We are totally screwing up the front end geometry, and my suspicion is, that may or may not matter, depending on how you ride. If you like to go fast and countersteer through turns, I think the short wheelbase and high bottom bracket will make you happy, and the steering quirks might not bother you.

    On my bike:
    - I'm starting out with 29er length chainstays
    - Tire diameter is almost the same (27.5+ is almost 29") so I'm not reducing weight or angular momentum
    - Not really changing bb height very much

    The perceived benefit of my idea is more cush in the back and front while at the same time take advantage of wheel physics by running 29+ up front. Maybe a bridge too far, because I'm messing with the front end without compensating elsewhere. (Walt, hope you're still reading this cuz I just pulled all that right out of my fanny). There is no cake.

    That said, bet Walt could build up a nice steel frame that'll actually do precisely that, b+ out back and 29+ up front, that handles real sharp. Now, that could be the shiznit. Think about the promise, and the problem with the 456 concept. You can run a variety of wheel sizes up front without your hta getting too far out of line. The wild card is, you'll never have your rake just right. Even swapping out to a fat tire will throw your trail numbers off. The ability to put a custom fork on that thing is the key. Size that sucker up to 650b with room for a mid-fat tire out back, and brother that would be rigid ss bliss in my mind.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: A1an's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,927
    Has anyone actually tried to fit a 650 wheel/tire of that size in that frame? There isn't a whole ton of room to play with.
    Signature

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    433
    Haven't read of it. The stays are pretty straight and from measuring a 2.8 should fit.

    This isn't the first time I've been advised to look at wider rims and I think that's going to be part of the answer. Not sure what I think about 650b. The idea of converting 29er frames to b+ is pretty cool imo. 27.5x2.8 rear, x3.0 front might work eh. But, nothing technically wrong with current setup, 2.2 rear/2.35 front. When is enough enough? Heck I dunno.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,964
    I think the biggest problem, as Walt said, will be the geometry change, specifically the slacker headtube. The 27.7x2.8 Trailblazer is not really 2.8", more like a 2.6". And the diameter is probably like an inch smaller than what you currently have. So with the setup you are proposing, the rear will drop down by around 12mm, and the from will go up by around 25mm. Your BB height actually wouldn't be that different, but the HTA will be way slacker.

    I doubt anything bigger will fit in the back, but the next bigger tire would be the Vee Trax Fatty 27.5 x 2.8, which is a real 2.8" tire.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,470
    I know someone who has a trek superfly SS and runs Roval Traverse SL Fattie rims (30mm internal) with a 29x3.0 Bontrager Chupacabra up front. Seems to really like it. I can't remember the size of the rear tire though.

Similar Threads

  1. wheel tire combo upgrade Q's
    By jeeper006 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-20-2012, 09:22 AM
  2. Upgrade path for 2012 Hardrock
    By reedfe in forum 29er Components
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-08-2012, 04:03 AM
  3. Wheel and tire upgrade
    By Qtep in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 04:30 AM
  4. Cheap Upgrade Path for FR/DH 29er
    By PaintPeelinPbody in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-02-2011, 02:52 AM
  5. SSC p4 upgrade path?
    By DrD in forum Lights DIY - Do It Yourself
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 07:19 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.