27.5+ dying??

Shaggz said:
SIR 9, SS Rigid! not sure if gathering dust in the garage constitutes riding...
Click to expand...

This is all I own. I ride it just about every weekend. I run a set of 29”x2.4” XR3’s on it. The 2.4” tire is a great width. Still trying to decide what my next bike will be. Maybe I will get a 27.5+ tire bike so I can be so retro.
 
SIR 9, SS Rigid! not sure if gathering dust in the garage constitutes riding...
ibike73 said:
This is all I own. I ride it just about every weekend. I run a set of 29”x2.4” XR3’s on it. The 2.4” tire is a great width. Still trying to decide what my next bike will be. Maybe I will get a 27.5+ tire bike so I can be so retro.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.....We might be twins. I occasionally go from a Hans Dampf to an Xr3.
 
I wonder how the contact surface of 29x2.6 compares to 27.5x2.8? I would think the longer contact surface from the 29 closes the overall gap of the wider .2 inches on the 27.5? I'm sure someone can draw it out with a bunch of numbers lines and symbols I don't understand in my simpleton brain box.

Edit: also, does the longer surface equate to better grip than wider surface?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim
stb222 said:
The 26/24, 69er (26/29) never stuck. Only way mullet bike could is because the frame is likely made for 27.5+ and you could run either.
Click to expand...

I am thinking about a 29x2.4 front and 27.5x2.8 rear. Been doing some internet reading about this setup. Suppose to steer great and tons of traction.
 
ibike73 said:
I am thinking about a 29x2.4 front and 27.5x2.8 rear. Been doing some internet reading about this setup. Suppose to steer great and tons of traction.
Click to expand...
Stuff the industry comes up with to have you buy more wheels . Maybe this setup in a hard tail to get alittle more squish? But if you are on a FS, seems pointless
 
stb222 said:
Stuff the industry comes up with to have you buy more wheels . Maybe this setup in a hard tail to get alittle more squish? But if you are on a FS, seems pointless
Click to expand...

Seems to be big in the Santa Cruz Chameleon community. I had I 27.5+ Ike that loved the rear traction. But did not like the front end handling. It was a Salsa Timberjack, sold the bike because I hated the over the top slack geometry. Felt like I was riding a wheelie with the front tire still on the ground.
 
ibike73 said:
I am thinking about a 29x2.4 front and 27.5x2.8 rear. Been doing some internet reading about this setup. Suppose to steer great and tons of traction.
Click to expand...
I have a Kona Big Honzo set up with 29x2.4-2.6 front and 27.5x2.8-3.0 rear, it is slightly quicker to turn but the plus in the rear provides a little extra cushion to make trails a lil smoother. I’ve been very him happy with that setup
 
Juggernaut said:
The industry is “outthinking” itself into oblivion. Which is a real shame as so many components are light years ahead of where they were 5 years ago.

It might serve them better if rather than reinvent the mousetrap, some thought was given to actually baiting it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

You know it’s all BS to sell you more. Just look back at the 29’er intro - were riders’ abilities SO bad that they had to have a larger wheel to roll over obstacles? Sad if true.

Next we’re sold screwy geometry that was only made to accommodate larger wheels.

Just remember, these are all things you need…
 
one piece crank said:
Exactly.

You know it’s all BS to sell you more. Just look back at the 29’er intro - were riders’ abilities SO bad that they had to have a larger wheel to roll over obstacles? Sad if true.

Next we’re sold screwy geometry that was only made to accommodate larger wheels.

Just remember, these are all things you need…
Click to expand...
Yes the newest is you need a 75.6 seat tube angle .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom