the NOT SO official 27.5+ thread.

[Kirt]

I don't think 29er is dead and the race scene will make it survive since the point is to finish first despite the bike feel good. Most likely the industry will try and eliminate normal size tires (anything under 2.4) and a few years from now come back around to normal size tires. I can see 27.5+ surviving all of this and fat bikes going out of style when people realize that they are stupid for just normal trail riding. @jimvreeland is the exception here because he is at a different level.

I'm going to disagree here. I got to watch @woody kill it all summer on his brothers 30lb plus Fatboy. He had no trouble keeping up on the hammer rides and rode everything and more on the tight & techy stuff. They're no longer a winter only bike and do make good trail bikes.

I think the point Jim was making about the death of the 29er is that the XC crowd is a really small group. Most people just go out to ride their bike for fun and these fatties make riding easier which is more fun to most. I think the 27.5+ is going to take off & possibly be the norm for trail bikes in a few years.

 

[Magic]

In our area, the thought of riding a fat bike all year for potential a few good snow rides a year makes no sense in my book.

Although I agree, I'm refering to the bike industry as a whole as to what I believe will be staying and not our area. I'll continue to ride my 29er with 2.5/2.3"...

...until I crack another frame, then I may go 27.5+.

 

[stb222]

I'm going to disagree here. I got to watch @woody kill it all summer on his brothers 30lb plus Fatboy. He had no trouble keeping up on the hammer rides and rode everything and more on the tight & techy stuff. They're no longer a winter only bike and do make good trail bikes.

I think the point Jim was making about the death of the 29er is that the XC crowd is a really small group. Most people just go out to ride their bike for fun and these fatties make riding easier which is more fun to most. I think the 27.5+ is going to take off & possibly be the norm for trail bikes in a few years.

I am not saying you can't ride it every where and not saying it isn't fun, but while I may be able to swallow these mid fat tires, the 4 and 5 inch tires will likely never make sense for the way I like to throw a bike around, similar to the wagon wheel feel of 29ers.

 

[UtahJoe]

I'm going to disagree here. I got to watch @woody kill it all summer on his brothers 30lb plus Fatboy. He had no trouble keeping up on the hammer rides and rode everything and more on the tight & techy stuff. They're no longer a winter only bike and do make good trail bikes.

I think the point Jim was making about the death of the 29er is that the XC crowd is a really small group. Most people just go out to ride their bike for fun and these fatties make riding easier which is more fun to most. I think the 27.5+ is going to take off & possibly be the norm for trail bikes in a few years.

After riding that trek farley at jungle...this makes perfect sense to me...Woody normally rides a ridgid 29er....While riding that fatbike my only thought was "well I guess it sucks less than a rigid 29er would here" But goddam, compared to my trigger at jungle Or my scalpel, or that habit I rode, or basically any full suspension bike I have owned since 2008? Its not even a comparison.

That horsetheif set up does look interesting. I have a 2.5 minion on the front of my trigger, pretty sure that 27.5x3.0 would fit. Not sure about the rear though. I did ride a carbon fatbike with a set of 27.5 nextie wheels and 3.5 tires on it a few weeks ago...it also had a bluto fork. I thought it rode pretty well considering im not much for hardtails anymore. I thought it was better than most 29er hardtails I have ridden. Would be interested to try those wheels on a FS bike for sure.

29er for racing isnt going anywhere...that 27.5 habit, the anthem 27.5 are great bikes, but they are just not as good as the scalpel for XC imo.

 

[Norm]

Most people just go out to ride their bike for fun and these fatties make riding easier which is more fun to most.

I don't think that's the case with too many people. Anyone who rides a MTB eventually wants to ride it faster. Trails are more fun when you go faster. This is what most people conclude if they ride enough - racer or non-racer.

Just look at the road bike scene. The vast majority of people do not race a road bike yet people spend oodles of money buying the fastest bike for the local sprint up the 200' hill. People will always want to be faster, racing or not. I don't see a scenario where people willingly choose a slower bike. At least not as a standard. Some subset may do that. But I don't think it will be the standard.

Maybe this finds a place as an entry-level bike if they come in at a reasonable price point, say $2000.

 

[Jeremy]

. If you buy a $750 bike and bring it to a MTB race you may die. The entry level cost for racing a MTB is like $3000 at least, if not higher.

You could find a race worthy used hardtail for $1000. No doubt. 3k is an exaggeration.

 

[Norm]

You could find a race worthy used hardtail for $1000. No doubt. 3k is an exaggeration.

How many people are just getting into the sport and have access to any real marketplace resource like that, or even know what they're getting into? In order to buy a used bike you need to have some knowledge of the market. By definition that pretty much means they are not a beginner/entry-level.

But on that note my 2 most successful years on the cross bike were when I raced on a $225 Fuji frame. The point still remains. What MTB frame are you getting on for $225 and racing at Jungle Habitat? I mean shit, your shoes are worth more than that.

 

[The Kalmyk]

You could find a race worthy used hardtail for $1000. No doubt. 3k is an exaggeration.

Yes. If I were someone wanting to get into mtb racing and read a 3k bike is baseline, I'd be turned off

 

[Kirt]

I don't think that's the case with too many people. Anyone who rides a MTB eventually wants to ride it faster. Trails are more fun when you go faster. This is what most people conclude if they ride enough - racer or non-racer.

Just look at the road bike scene. The vast majority of people do not race a road bike yet people spend oodles of money buying the fastest bike for the local sprint up the 200' hill. People will always want to be faster, racing or not. I don't see a scenario where people willingly choose a slower bike. At least not as a standard. Some subset may do that. But I don't think it will be the standard.
.

I don't think the 2 disciplines compare. In mtn biking most would rather go downhill fast or nail that real tought rock garden and the fatter tires make that possible and safer. They don't really care about speed on the uphill, just making it to the top especially if its a techy climb is enough and again, fatter tires make that easier. Look at the real fat bikes and how many you see out on the trails, even places like 6 Mile & Allaire. Why, cause they are more fun for them. In road riding what else is there except speed up or down.

I am not saying you can't ride it every where and not saying it isn't fun, but while I may be able to swallow these mid fat tires, the 4 and 5 inch tires will likely never make sense for the way I like to throw a bike around, similar to the wagon wheel feel of 29ers.

You you are 1 of the exceptions cause of your back round but you said that fat bikes will die when people figure out that don't make good trail bikes. You are not the market these companies are going for.

 

[skyrokz]

To each is own is more than well suited for this thread! Me personally after riding my enduro full sus 160mm travel plus bike for a few weeks now I can with confidence say that I am faster all around, I don't use my brakes as much on the same downhill sections as I used to, I have so much more grip and confidence on both ups and downs, the large volume soaks up any roots and rocks I come across. Line choosing isn't as important any more as I can just point and shoot over everything. I honestly can't see my self going back to a thinner tire any time soon. My bottom line view on plus size tires is this, if you want more grip, if you want something a little faster than a fatbike or you are a beginner trying to get a little bit more confidence than plus is for you. As the "fun" factor is so subjective I can't say plus is more fun for everyone but for me it's fun enough to hack up my 4k ibis and slap some plus size tires on it. Up to date 27.5 plus has been the best mountain bike setup I have ever ridden. I would strongly suggest that if speed/rolling resistance isn't the 1st priority on your list, you take a plus size for a test ride, but I'm not here to say you might not be as fast or even faster on the semifats. And most importantly those 3" tires just look badass!

 

[jdog]

I will continue to ride my 29er and see where this goes. I could ride. 27.5plus but not full suspension.

Larry loved the Ponyrustler. He had been riding a fully rigid mukluk and haro marry SS with a fox fork as his main 2 bikes for the last few years.

After yesterday I think he is reconsidering full suspension and of course 27.5+. I can only bet that you (spence) would dig this bike.

http://salsacycles.com/bikes/pony_rustler/2016_pony_rustler_carbon_x011

The interesting thing here is that the debate really won't end. I think budget plays so much into this conversation. The bikes we rode yesterday sell for about $5500. This is of course not the average price point for many.

 

[soundz]

I remember having the same discussion about 27.5 few years ago. Now 27.5 is dead.

 

[Norm]

I don't think the 2 disciplines compare.

To a point I would agree with you. But I am told by people at bike shops (Marty's especially) that Fat Bikes are being sold primarily (or in considerable numbers) to roadies that want to get off road for winter/etc. So there must be some carryover there. I think the discussion is crossing streams a bit. We're talking 2 different groups - entry-level and people already in the sport.

The people already in the sport - ie, all of us. How many of us are going to go out and drop $5500 on that bike Larry rode yesterday? Not sure that number is real high. Is Jeremy going to buy that bike and then not be able to come close to the KOMs at CR? Are you? Am I?

Likewise, those beginners on the HG ride (or Martys Fat Group Ride) are riding some of the easiest trails in the state. They are not cleaning that rock garden at JH, because they are not going there. They are not going downhill fast because there are no hills on PP.

I am not anti-anything in this discussion even though I know people will get defensive. I am arguing against the idea that 29ers are dead, and the concept that fat bikes are faster, and the ever-increasing price point to enter the sport, and the fact that race numbers are down, and my perception that group rides and social rides are down. I think this is partially cost-driven. I think we are pricing our sport way too high.

 

[stb222]

I am not anti-anything in this discussion even though I know people will get defensive. I am arguing against the idea that 29ers are dead, and the concept that fat bikes are faster, and the ever-increasing price point to enter the sport, and the fact that race numbers are down, and my perception that group rides and social rides are down. I think this is partially cost-driven. I think we are pricing our sport way too high.

I think you hit it on the head that some of these costs for these bikes are wacky. I am not sure when an entry level MTB became $1,500 - 2,000 consider not that long ago entry level was $750-$1000 for a hardtail with a fork. I also think we are ignore the entry level "junk" that we know isn't worth it and are identifying what we think is entry level based on our experience.

 

[skyrokz]

That

I am not anti-anything in this discussion even though I know people will get defensive. I am arguing against the idea that 29ers are dead, and the concept that fat bikes are faster, and the ever-increasing price point to enter the sport, and the fact that race numbers are down, and my perception that group rides and social rides are down. I think this is partially cost-driven. I think we are pricing our sport way too high.

I agree 29ers aren't dead, that's why 27.5 plus in my opinion is so great, because for the most part you can slap a 27.5 wheelset on your existing 29er frame and have 2 completely different riding bikes just by switching the wheelset. There are also cheaper 27.5 plus bikes like the specialized stumpjumper 6fattie which is a full sus 3.0" tire bike that will also accept a 29er wheelset and even a 29+ tire for around 3k. So the new 27.5 bikes have probably the most versatile frames out there. I know you can put smaller tires in fat bike frames also but that just looks like you have a pitchfork up front and a wheelbarrow in the back.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Well said @Norm.

In no way do I speak for the sport, but the fat thing has allowed me to refresh my cycling experience and do something new. After 21 years of riding and doing the trail bike thing, urban assault thing, downhill race thing, freeride thing, single speed thing, getting hurt thing, internets shopping thing....the fatbike was the next thing. But I am in love. And there are many others like me.

If I were to be riding rocks and pushing for the strava KOM thing in parks outside of Ocean/Monmouth Counties my bike of choice would be a 29" F/S (Rocky Mountain Instinct or Santa Cruz Tallboy LT), unless of course I were looking into the DH or Enduro thing. If I was dedicated to the Ocean County KOM thing my bike would be a rigid 29"+.

Mostly likely we will have a plethora of wheel and tire size choices for years to come. In fact, there is a good chance they are not done with marketing offerings.

In my travels I find more people that are into the shopping "thing" rather than the improve their riding "thing", hence the reason all of these wheel and tires choices continue to evolve. As a community, the majority of our sport is more interested in the next craze rather then mastering what they currently ride.

Ride what ya have an be happy, or don't and sell it to me cheap🙂

 

[Johnny Utah]

I think you hit it on the head that some of these costs for these bikes are wacky. I am not sure when an entry level MTB became $1,500 - 2,000 consider not that long ago entry level was $750-$1000 for a hardtail with a fork. I also think we are ignore the entry level "junk" that we know isn't worth it and are identifying what we think is entry level based on our experience.

Agreed, it is getting hard to justify multiple high end MTB's in the stable with their initial cost vs. their depreciation schedule.

 

[jumpa]

While I see your view for sure, I was thinking more that standard 27.5 makes even less sense after riding 27.5+. I was already thinking how I would love this wheel size on the DH bike.

I don't think 29 is likely to fade with anyone in Lycra pinning a number to their bike. It is still faster in my view, albeit way less controlled via traction loss comparably.

As a side note, we also rode the buck saw carbon. (26 fat dual sus) and it made no sense to me personally. I noticed little traction gains over 27.5+ but in my eyes it just felt slower and excessive.

My current feeling on true fat is that it is best to go really fat if you do. I also stumble with the wide bb and noodley Bluto fork. Both are deal breakers for me. My knees were killing me from the noticeably wider Stance. Larry however needs a wider stance and he loved the wide be.

At any rate it is a very tough time to choose a wheel size platform. It is however hard to argue the increased versatility of any bike that works with 2 sizes.

Found myself clipping my heel on the chainstays my first time on a fat bike, that width deff has some getting used to

 

[Supermoto]

I like the idea of the full suspension 27.5+ bikes if you aren't going FS fatty. I don't care for HT or rigid bikes, no matter what the tire size. Even fat bikes, they just aren't as comfortable or have as much control when HT or rigid compared to FS. Which leaves me to; is 27.5+ going to be faster than a 4" FS fatty. If it is, will the difference be enough to make it worth buying another bike? At this point, for me, I don't think so. What would I be gaining that would make the decrease in traction worth it? Faster up hill, only if I don't lose traction. Faster in a straight line on hard pack, on the street, meh.

For me the FS fatty is the one bike, and with how much they cost, sometimes you can only afford the one bike. But since I purchased it, I don't care to ride my 29 FS or HT fatty.

 

[Steve Vai]

I'm going to disagree here. I got to watch @woody kill it all summer on his brothers 30lb plus Fatboy. He had no trouble keeping up on the hammer rides and rode everything and more on the tight & techy stuff. They're no longer a winter only bike and do make good trail bikes.

I think the point Jim was making about the death of the 29er is that the XC crowd is a really small group. Most people just go out to ride their bike for fun and these fatties make riding easier which is more fun to most. I think the 27.5+ is going to take off & possibly be the norm for trail bikes in a few years.

I think one of the hardest factors to get past is that fat bikes aren't just good in the snow. They're super fun to just ride around and run things over. At this point I can count on one hand the number of non-fat trail bikes we've sold in the shop in the last 2-3 years. People don't even come in asking for non-fat/semi-fat bikes anymore, not even beginners.

I'm obviously on the extreme biased side of this equation, but I'll argue that a 20-pound fat bike is just as fast as any XC FS29er on the planet. What does a Scalpel weigh? 25 pounds? Can someone that rides actually argue that a bike weighing 5 pounds less with unlimited traction is going to be slower?