What does /n/ think of 27.5+ bikes? I'll be getting pic related in about a week.
>>961864
>fatbike with suspension fork
into the garbage it goes.
Fatbikes were interesting when they were an alternative to XC skis for backcountry winter touring.
These days people seem to regard them as a "lifestyle choice". Some kind of bizarre fashion statement. "Look at me, I'm so RANDOM and DIFFERENT XD"
Okay m9. If that's what girds your giggles.
But it's fucking stupid.
>>961870
It's not a fatbike you nog, it's a thickbike
>>961870
I find that people that tend to buy fatbikes are just dudes browsing through a random sporting goods store and like the big wheels then slap a padded seat on it
Too big. 26+ would be better but the component choice is too small and it's mostly old stuff.
That said maybe it's just because I dislike most new shit that's introduced for no reason other than to squeeze more money out of gullible idiots.
>>961881
tbqh senpai, I demo rode this guy's full suspension cousin and it was pretty unreal. Traction everywhere, i felt a lot faster on it and it was a ton of fun
>>961884
Shut the fuck up, nothing new is ever good.
>>961884
And a 26" bike with fat tyres would have just as much grip whilst being lighter and stronger, have more suspension travel in the same size, handle better in general, have lower gearing, and probably some other advantages that I've forgotten.
I'm not against large tyres, when the situation calls for them, it's the pointless new standards that I dislike.
>>961890
Are you the guy who thought that testing 559 mm, 584 mm and 622 mm wheels in a frame designed for 622 mm would be a fair test?
>>961893
that would not be me. Also, the sizes are 26, 27.5 and 29 you fucking eurosperg
Please please for the love of God. If you're getting a xc bike, get a 29r, there is no reason you need a smaller tire for xc, even on down hill 29r handles really well and they have a noticeably lower rolling resistance over slee and rocky section
>>961877
Nah. They're either:
Fat dudes with beards that are all about defining themselves with overplayed trends riding paved trails between bar & brewhouse listening to shit rock on their outboard speakers talking to anybody that'll listen about the latest microbrew double ipa they had. They seem to fancy themselves 'urban lumberjacks' as an excuse for being fat and too lazy to shave.
Or
50something semi-retired casual cyclists that drive 15 miles with their fatbike on the back of their suburban (Audi, if their wife needs the suv to run errands) to go hit the trails on the weekend and feel 20 years younger because they rode in 35 degrees & snow flurries for an hour before returning to their 2007 built ""mansion"", parking in their 3-car garage next to their s5 and golf clubs. They'll have to drop the fatbike off at the bike shop on Monday for a tuneup cause the drivetrain started skipping a little towards the end.
To their credit: the latter is actually off-roading on something that's not the first bike they've owned since adolescence.
>>961898
Your bike is a piece of shit. And I don't want an XC bike, I want an AM hardtail.
>>961910
are you retarded? That would not be a fair test at all. And OK, I fucked up, this is me
>>961914
It would be a fair test of the differences in the wheel size, probably the most fair practical test you could do.
>>961898
You are literally retarded and your bike is a piece of shit.
>>961915
>It would be a fair test of the differences in the wheel size
A frame designed around 29'' wheels would behave radically different when using 26'' wheels. Keeping the frame the same for all tests doesn't mean it's a good way of comparing wheel sizes.
>>961901
>go hit the trails on the weekend and feel 20 years younger
How do you make this sound like a bad thing?
>>961898
You are so fucking wrong it hurts.
29ers are shit for XC because their chainstays are too long, which inhibits your ability to manual - which is the single most important thing to be able to do when riding XC on a hardtail.
You drank the coolaid. Don't try to vomit it into other people's mouths.
>>961919
>A frame designed around 29'' wheels would behave radically different when using 26'' wheels.
No shit, thus demonstrating the differences in the wheel size.
>Keeping the frame the same for all tests doesn't mean it's a good way of comparing wheel sizes.
Yes it does. You want to test the differences between the wheel sizes and just that, nothing else. There has to be some level of control otherwise any results are worthless.
>>961925
Having a 29er frame on 26" wheels would just be retarded. It wouldn't handle nearly as well as a frame designed for 26" wheels. The chainstays would be stupidly long, the BB would be stupidly low, and you'd be stupidly dumb to try it
>>961926
But it would be a fair comparison of wheel size. Changing the frame would then introduce other factors, such as chainstay length like you mentioned, and thus the differences in how the different wheel sizes ride could not be solely attributed to just the wheel size.
Answer me this, is it also a fair comparison to compare carbon 26" rims against aluminium 29" ones? Is it also fair to do the test with 1.9" tyres on the 26" bike and 2.4" on the 29" one? How about making the 26" bike fully rigid and giving the 29" a suspension fork? No.
>>961928
>You can retain frame geometry at any given scale.
The simplest way to achieve this is to test using the largest frame. The only things that would change is BB height and stand over height, two minor factors that would have the least affect on the test. If you can find two frames that share geometry exactly then that's even better.
>>961931
BB height is NOT a minor factor on a mountain bike. It is extremely important in a number of ways, including but not limited to the way the bike turns.
Think about how you ride a bicycle. You don't usually turn by moving the bars around - you turn by moving your center of mass to the left or to the right. Like a pendulum. As your BB gets lower, the arc described by that pendulum changes dramatically and the bike feels totally different.
>The simplest way to achieve this is to test using the largest frame.
Typical "scientist". Devise a test that is convenient to you, rather than one that is useful. Fuck off and die screaming.
Some of the MOST important benefits and detriments of wheel size have to do with frame geometry.
Basically you are arguing from a point of almost total ignorance.
>>961932
>BB height is NOT a minor factor on a mountain bike. It is extremely important in a number of ways, including but not limited to the way the bike turns.
It has less effect than changing the wheel size, at the minor differences in height caused by changing the wheel size. As I said finding two exactly specced frames would be ideal but likely very difficult. Changing the BB height is the best compromise and beats all the other changes that would come about if you tested two differently sized frames.
>Some of the MOST important benefits and detriments of wheel size have to do with frame geometry.
True, one of the advantages of 26" over the larger wheel sizes is it allows for more compact frame geometry. However I'm trying to be fair to the larger wheel size by taking away those advantages.
After all, it is quite possible for a 26" frame to have chainstays just as long as a 29" frame, even longer. People can choose to ride a 29" frame with 26" wheels if they so wish.
The fairest comparison that can be made is to test the direct changes, not the indirect ones.
>>961935
>The fairest comparison that can be made is to test the direct changes, not the indirect ones.
That is arbitrary and completely nonsensical.
There is no "fair" or "unfair". We're talking about something objective.
I look at them and think first about all that extra tire weight. And check the chainstay near the bottom bracket there.
For 1500+ I'm expecting a lot from a bike. What kind of trail conditions are you on where you want to ride that anyways?
>>961961
It's fairest in the sense that it tests only the direct effects of varying wheel size, not the indirect effects that wheel sizes can have on frame geometry. If you find that nonsensical then I honestly don't know what to say.
>>961964
pre-packed snowshoe trail or singletrack is about the only place they make sense. You can't ride them in powder.
Supposedly they also do reasonably well in sand.
>>961970
What would the point of such a test be? Indirect effects are not irrelevant. If you're not testing real bikes that people actually ride, you're not getting information that's relevant to anyone, you're just doing theoretical wanking.
>>961976
>What would the point of such a test be?
To see if there is truly a benefit to having larger wheels.
>Indirect effects are not irrelevant
Of course, but they're not always definite. Whilst a 26" frame can have more compact geometry than a 27.5" or 29" frame it's not always the case and not always desirable and one can choose to have the expanded geometry of the larger frame with smaller wheels.
> you're not getting information that's relevant to anyone, you're just doing theoretical wanking.
The same way that people say that 29" has better "roll over" than 26". Theoretically true but unnoticeable in the real world and my proposed test would show that absolutely with no other factors to muddy the results. I think that's relevant to everyone, they need to realise that not all the marketing is true so they stop buying into bullshit.
If you want to compare one bike to another and they have different wheel sizes then fine, but realise that you're comparing the bikes as a whole and not the wheel size and if one rides better than the other it may not be a result of the wheel size.
>>961901
The only person I know who owns and rides a fat bike is the most hardcore old cyclist dude in the world.
I think he mostly rides road but I have seen him on his fat bike on MUPs in the summer and I know he rides it in the winter on a frozen lake.
The point here is that you are full of shit.
>>962021
>fatbike
>MUPs
>hardcore
Observation Bias: The Post
>>961922
Jesus christ. Did you really just say 29ers are shit for XC?
Do you follow professional cycling at all, or are you just stupid?
>>962027
>Do you follow professional cycling at all
Why would I? It's a joke.
>Professional cyclist know what works best
>Appeal to authority
No. They ride what they're given, and tell people it's great - or they lose their sponsorships.
>>961870
That's not a fat bike you retardo motherfucker.
>>961981
>To see if there is truly a benefit to having larger wheels.
All that test would accomplish is seeing if there's a benefit to having larger wheels, on that particular frame, which was designed for larger wheels. That's a completely pointless test, and you're still trying to think of this as a competition. The only competition between 26ers and 29ers and whatever in between is invented by marketing departments. They are design parameters, and there is no better or worse in a vacuum. There are bikes that are better for some things, and bikes that are worse, and the only way to know the difference is to ride 'em.
Think of the same scenario with cars: you've got a passenger car, and then a truck. You want to know which wheels are "better", and you can't very well put the truck wheels on the car, so you try both on the truck. Obviously, it's going to perform like shit with the smaller wheels. If somehow you managed to get the truck wheels onto the passenger car, it would also perform like shit. Is this a useful test of anything?
>>961864
That DR looks like it's about to snap
>>962065
>All that test would accomplish is seeing if there's a benefit to having larger wheels, on that particular frame, which was designed for larger wheels
The fact that the frame can fit larger wheels is irrelevant. The point is to determine the difference between the wheel sizes and that can be done regardless of the frame. Say for example the larger wheel size excelled in a certain area, even if the frame sucked in that area the larger wheel would still suck less than the smaller one.
>The only competition between 26ers and 29ers and whatever in between is invented by marketing departments
I'm glad you understand. Perhaps you've misunderstood and think I actually have a desire to see this test done, I don't. I know there's no practical difference between 26 and 27.5 (29 is a larger jump, noticeable for sure compared to 26 but not really better) and I don't need the test to prove it to me. It's really just a theoretical idea to prove it to other people, but really they'd need to try it themselves before they'd believe it.
> There are bikes that are better for some things, and bikes that are worse
I agree and have never once said otherwise. As dumb as 27.5" is there are good components and bikes that use it, and if someone likes that particular bike then by all means buy it regardless of the stupidity of the wheel size. What I am against is someone thinking something is better BECAUSE it's 27.5, because the simple fact is if someone swapped them out for 26" without them knowing they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Totally down with this plus sized thing as long as frame manufacturers design them around running another wheel size (eg. 29er that can be ran 27.5+). The idea that I can run high volume tires for the really loose stuff, like snow and shale, and then swap over to a lower volume tire for prime trail riding conditions just makes sense. I haven't sipped the koolaid yet but I think that we're really starting to see more and more bikes being designed and produced with a kind of "multi tool" approach.
There is definitely room for these bikes and I think it's going to appeal to riders looking for a good do-it-all that'll be flat out fun.
>>962071
What is the DR
>>961896
ETRTO, motherfucker. Describe sizes by a defining common feature (bead seat diameter) instead of some arbitrary made-up number.
>>962170
>some arbitrary made-up number
I heard 29's are just 28's with a bigger tyre...
>>961898
>there is no reason you need a smaller tire for xc
uuuh, like
>bike is much lighter
>bike is much more agile
>wheels can take much more punishment
>some parts commonality with full suspension bikes means cheaper tyres and wheels (full sus 29er are shit)
>if you're not a tall fuck, 29er might be too large for mtb
Honestly I think the 29er fad will slowly die out. If 26" didn't die out, we'd have 26 full suspension bikes and 27.5 XC bikes and the world would be happy.
27.5 full sus are alright though, 29ers are just a very niche thing that shouldn't have the mainstream success it got.
>>962128
Sorry, RD
Also for anyone doubting the usefulness of fat tyres:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dBDypIFs74
I don't like fat bikes much, but this video shows that they have their uses.
>>961925
>>961925
This just in: 29" frames are just scaled up.
You can scale it down for 26" with the same geometry and it'll be the same bike, but the pros/cons of 26" wheels.
>>962224
Geometry also includes chain stay length, altering which can have a fairly large affect on handling. It's also the area that's most likely to differ between 26" and 29" frames because most people like them as short as possible. It also changes the wheelbase, as does using a different length fork (another likely difference when changing wheel size).
>>961964
I work at a shop, getting it on prodeal for 1100 Canadian. Just gonna ride it like a normal mountain bike, on technical trails and whatnot. That's what it's designed for.
>>962174
It's true, you can swap out 700C and 29" tires no problem.
>>962220
excuse you
I think plus bikes can be lot of fun and are awesome especially on a hardtail or rigid bike. More traction is usually more fun and extra dampening will let you go faster in chunky stuff. However most new large tires are made very thin cuz muh grams and suffer from durability issues. Pic related is my 26+ bike with 4 lb triple ply tires for maximum puncture resistance. I can run them around 10 psi and the traction is immense. I also run lighter Dirt Wizard 2.8 tires for more pedally riding.
>>961864
in pics how do they get the bike to stand upright like this?
is the pic fake and gay?
>>962355
They use an infinity background, several soft boxes and fishing string to suspend the bike upright. The fishing string is either edited out later or you don't see it due to the lighting. If you look at older catalogs that are pre-Adobe Photoshop you will see the fishing string.
>>961877
^^^this
>>962355
Stick under the NDS chainstay hidden behind the tire or shopped out. Or they hang the bike upside down and invert the pic (see chain).
>>961864
You're going to love it, ignore everything anyone as in this thread. I had a Fatboy but switched to a Fuse because it's such a better bike
>>962022
Nice reading comprehension, g.
>>961901
I feel that's more 29" MTB riders and less bike store fat bike owners
You know the kind that ask sporting goods store employees if wd40 is enough to keep a bike maintained
>>962355
My friend does product shots for a living.
White canvas hanging from the ceiling then sloped so no hard edges.
Reflectors and light trees everywhere so no shadows
Product is suspended, or supported and the support is removed in post.
We do a lot of work with cosplay girls too of acne, self harm, hair, sloppy makeup, sloppy costume construction is cleaned up and we apply filters to make these girls look prettier than they are
>pic of bike in nature
>no pedals
Does this trigger anyone else? At least slap some aluminium platforms on it, make it appear plausible that someone has ridden it there and you didn't just drive a display model into the middle of the woods to take a couple of photos, put it back in the carton and take it to the store.
>>961898
omg dude that wheelbase
>>962481
>cosplay
>self harm
Arent those terms mutually dependent anyway?
>>962231
Well, the frame clearance would be a problem, would it not?
And if it's the same fucking thing, basically, why making it a ""new"" fucking thing (except from trying to sell the same fucking thing to the same fucking people a second time)?
>>962409
>Or they hang the bike upside down and invert the pic (see chain).
Neat.
I'll be looking for those from now on.
>>962572
Another way to spot it is if the far chainstay is hidden behind the other one or close to it, that means the camera was about level with it which they probably wouldn't do if the bike was the right way up (because the camera would be down near the floor.
There are other things that can tell you the height of the camera too, such as being able to see both sides of the handle bar and in that particular photo you can even see the underside of the seat.
>>962570
Yeah, on road bikes, 29er tires would be a problem for frame clearance. But on some bikes, like dropbar touring bikes that will be taken off road, you can fit in a 29x2.0 tire no problem
Never change /n/iggas. never change.
I take a break, and you fuckers are still arguing about wheel size and judging people with money for liking things you don't like.
>>961898
>Conspicuously vertical crank arms
Nice toe overlap, friendo
>>962963
Yeah, totally valid, my buddy has a Specialized Awol with 1.9 Fatboy slicks on it, it rips in the city
I've got a 29+ bike which I just ride everwhere
now, shit is so fucking fun and comfy. Best touring bike ever.
>>962963
I've tried 2.5" grifters on the 50mm rims and they were sick fun. Vee make a 2.8" plus tyre now which also looks sick.
>>962257
27tpi Knards are pretty burly tyres with decent rolling. Mine suffer without complaint and my current rear tyre is still hanging in despite being almost totally bald. Still has hell traction. I've seen dudes bitching about the 120tpi version being flimsy, but they're just for weightfags.
>>962211
There's room for two wheel sizes. Despite being fine, 26" is dead. An aside of the rise of 27.5 is 650b popping up again on the road side, which is cool.
>>962211
>29ers are just a very niche thing that shouldn't have the mainstream success it got
>most comfortable easy rolling bikes for casual riders not obsessed with weight
>which happen to be 99% of the bike market audience
Do you live in an alternate reality or something?
>>961874
it aint'a thickbike, you bikestealer, it's actually a chubbybike, slightly different from a curvybike
>>963817
>most comfortable easy rolling bikes
False. If anything they're worse as it takes more effort to accelerate larger heavier wheels, and the smaller the rider is the more likely that a 29er will be uncomfortably large. For the same weight a 26" bike could have larger more comfortable tyres with better grip too.
>for casual riders not obsessed with weight
Casuals generally go for cheaper bikes, 29er's are usually overpriced gimmick shit. Casuals are also likely to be weaker, whilst they may not care about weight (probably due to ignorance, not because they wouldn't want a lighter bike) they would benefit from it.
29ers are for non-manlets who want to go fast (due to the higher gearing from larger wheels and slightly greater inertia) on fairly tame terrain. They certainly have a purpose but I would also consider it a niche, they're not some sort of super bike that can roll over obstacle significantly better than smaller wheeled bikes.
>>963830
>due to the higher gearing from larger wheels
>>962409
>invert
I still don't see how it's standing upright.
>>963823
I wish I had a curvybike.
>>963840
Seems like an attainable goal.
>>963837
Do you really not understand how gears work?
Oh, /n/...
>>963844
Do you not understand how building and riding bikes work?
>>963837
Are you trying to say that is false? If so you're an absolute idiot.
Plus bikes are definitely a lot of fun. I love riding full rigid and plus wheels add a lot of extra enjoyment. FS bikes just make it too fucking easy and I can only chuckle to myself when I see guys in full-kit riding carbon FS bikes on blue trails, with their gopro and iphone mounted, knowing that they drove to the trail.
Me, I'll ride to the trail, do some clean runs on a full rigid and ride home. That's riding.
>>963841
needs a shorter stem imo
>>962478
Haha you are so full of shit. 26" riders these days are faggots who still think 26 is superior. I know so many 29er riders that would absolutely demolish any 26" """""""rider""""""" besides downhillers and even they are riding 27.5 more. And these 29er riders all would be proficient at downhill.
These arguments are so stupid. You'll go fast on any bike you ride if you have the talent/skill. 29 is just objectively superior as it climbs better and descents just as well unless you're doing DH-tier descending, in which case you wouldn't use any old 26.
So go outside and see that most mtb use 29. Confirmed for not actually a bike rider.
>>964279
I ride a 29er.
It's shit. Handles way worse than even a 90's full-rigid.
I haven't switched to something else because
>You'll go fast on any bike you ride if you have the talent/skill
the bike I'm on doesn't matter that much.
But my 29er is still the worst MTB I've ever owned.
>>964279
26" and 27.5" are practically identical in riding characteristics, the only difference is component choices and price, and both are superior to 29" in every way other than gearing. Stick a fast 29" rider on a smaller wheeled bike and they'll be faster at any sort of technical riding.
>>964284
>wheel size determines gearing
what is this meme
>>964356
We call it "basic geometry"
>>964356
It does. 44:16 is going to be a lot slower on a BMX than on a 700c road bike.
>>964359
I could see that would be a big issue if the industry was only capable of producing chainrings and cogs in one size.
>>964359
and I guess those are the only gearing options you have no matter what the wheel size.
>>964361
>>964364
Okay then, so what you're saying is it would be possibly (without custom parts) to get a bike with 20" wheels to go as fast as one with 700c wheels?
Nope, didn't think so. Mountain bikes generally don't have chainrings any larger than 44t and these days they're a lot smaller (due to ground clearance, weight, and chainstay clearance for wide tyres). As you can only make a cassette go so small that means that if you want to go faster you need larger wheels.
If you wasn't such a retard you'd think about this logically and see why larger wheels have a speed advantage.
>>964366
44/11 is 45 km/h with 90 cadence on 26" wheels. You won't be maintaining that speed for any meaningful time. If you actually rode bikes instead of reading comparison charts on the internet you'd know that.
>>964369
But bikes don't even use 44t these days, as I said. Most new bikes are going to be 32t if not smaller (now that integrated chainrings are becoming popular).
Regardless, larger wheels do have higher gearing. Nice strawman attempt though.
>>964372
Maybe because people who ride them decided they have enough range with 32 teeth, you fucking retard.
>hurr bigger wheel can go higher
So fucking what when you can't push such a ratio.
>>964393
>Maybe because people who ride them decided they have enough range with 32 teeth
Maybe, and then those that need higher gearing decided to get 29ers, you fucking retard.
>So fucking what when you can't push such a ratio.
Are you some sort of babby? 32:11 is 23mph at 90rpm, or if we say 32:10 because 11 speed that's still only 25mph. If you only ride on flat ground then fair enough, it's probably too high for you, but down even a slight incline it's not hard to go that fast and riding off road tends to involve a few hills.
>>964404
>and then those that need higher gearing decided to get 29ers
No, they put double cranksets on their bikes.
>>964413
I don't see what relevance doubles have, I'm guessing what you mean is larger chainrings. As I've said there are reasons as to why some people might not want to do that. It's certainly an option, as is using larger wheels. At no point was I trying to suggest that 29ers are the only option, I was just giving a usage case for which they actually make sense.
By the way, don't think I haven't noticed that you've steered the discussion away from your initial argument that wheel size doesn't affect gearing after you were proven to be wrong.
>>964416
The word was "determine" and thank you for agreeing with me that it doesn't.
>>964419
Try that again and make sense this time.
>>964422
Wheels are only one part of the gearing. You can change the chainrings and cassette to work with whatever you need you fuck.
>>961864
these make more sense than fatbikes if you just want one mtb year round
the only time fat bikes are fun in snow (if you have any sort of grades to climb) is when you ride on a groomed trail, you don't need fat tires for that and these skinnier tires do well on that surface and the bike isn't a fucking behemoth in the summer
fat bikes are only good for about 2 inches of powder with grades
they are a fucking pain in the ass to ride in anything more on flat ground, bike 3mph pushing 400w, go up 1% grade, no traction, fall over, hike 35lbs bike up 1% grade
>>964426
I never said that wasn't the case. You tried to imply that wheel size doesn't affect the gearing which was false. Using larger wheels for higher gearing is perfectly valid.
>>964429
He's not me, just a side observer stunned by your stupidity.
>>961907
>am hardtail
2007 called
jokes aside, 27.5 plus would be good on a hardtail. I haven't ridden one but my friend demo'd one and said the tire rolls and deforms heaps (not in a good way) when you hit berms hard. Manufacturers usually make the side walls thin to save weight because they are larger tires and so you get a shit load of flats
>>964468
You have to adapt your riding style for plus tyres. It also pays to tune your pressures depending on your weight and riding style. Flow trails benefit from a whiff of extra air. Just 1psi can make a massive difference to handling.
>>961864
I just bought one. Can't honestly tell the difference.
>>964356
A bike with larger wheels will have taller gearing than a bike with smaller wheels, given the same gearing
>>964608
Good thing gears come in different sizes, no?
A 2 tooth larger chainring will give a 27.5 taller gears than a 29er, the idea that someone would base their choice of wheel size on what gearing they want is assfuck retarded.
>>964730
not the guy you are replying to, im not into mtn bikes but I thought the whole reason for bigger wheels was it went over obstacles easier. Bigger bumps you dont have to account for just like a monster truck
>>964740
In practice the difference between 26 and 27.5 is completely unnoticeable, 29 may have a slightly noticeable difference to some riders but it's not the sort of thing that's going to make you be able to ride things on a 29er that you wouldn't be able to just as easily on a 26er.
>>964730
I never said it was a good reason or suggested that someone do it, I was just saying that it is a legitimate reason.
>>964742
I think the difference is pretty subtle. As an extreme example I have a Brompton and that thing will rattle your teeth out riding over a brick-paved surface. Whereas I don't even notice it on my 700c bike.
>>964903
Are the tyres too thin/too inflated, or is it just not something that a smaller tyre can manage?
>>964990
Angles. A smaller tyre will have a steeper "bow" that slams into irregularities rather than rolling over them.
Also, an air spring is not linear but progressive. The less air volume you have, the more that starts to show. Even if (loaded weight) air pressure and contact patch is the same, a larger volume tyre will feel more plush due to more air giving a more linear air spring rather than "bottoming out"(=non-linear damping), and more tyre carcass having more total give, further smoothing the air suspension.
On the other hand, if you run very large tyres but at very, very low pressures you might need a bit of that progressiveness to keep from denting your rims all the time. Then a stiff, "dead" tyre cord and smaller rim diametre might be the best thing.
Everything always depends. It sucks.
Is 650b rivenweenie / velo dorkange still allowed? Or is it no longer special snowflake enough now that the entire MTB industry is running the precious 650b as "27.5" now? lol
>>964990
Nice wide tyres on the Bromptons, pretty smooth on most surfaces but you can really feel those bricks. I also have a 29+ MTB and you can barely tell when you move off the road onto the gravel shoulder, besides the noise. Goddamn I love that fuckin bike.
personally I'm just glad that since now 26" wheels and their associated bikes are totally obsolete and embarrassing to be seen with at the trails, I can get them for mad cheap
>>964742
>In practice the difference between 26 and 27.5 is completely unnoticeable, 29 may have a slightly noticeable difference to some riders.
Depends on the terrain you're riding really. On ultra buff smooth fast trails you won't notice much of a difference. If you ride extremely rocky, rooty, chunder laden trails even a small difference of rollover makes a pretty big difference. Of course geometry makes a big difference too.
Plus sized tires aren't for railing berms on perfectly smooth trails.
>>965119
>even a small difference of rollover makes a pretty big difference.
If you mean between 26 and 27.5 then no. There was an article that got posted here a lot ages ago where pro and non-pro riders where tested to see how small a difference in deflection angle they could detect and the difference between 26 and 27.5 was well below the limit. I think the 26 to 29 difference was noticeable by pros but only a small amount of the more casual riders.
However, whilst 29 may have a detectable difference it's only going to be in the feeling, a bit less vibration or a slightly smaller shock. The difference in the height of the object that you could feasibly ride over (imagine a really high curb) is going to be tiny and you'd likely run into other issues before reaching that limit (available grip, power, chainring clearance, etc.).
You have to set you expectations for plus tyres. I see a lot of newcomers not really getting it and talking about "cush" and weight. So they underinflate their tyres like a fatbike and end up with a wallowy, pinchflatty or burpy wheel. You have to set your pressure for contact patch, because the point of plus is grip. Sure they eat up rattles but that's it, they'll pinball you if you ride them like a FS.
Also the weight/gottagofast weiners who get "supple" lighter tyres, run them too low pressure and wonder why the sidewalls die, don't be that guy.
If you ride plus for a while you'll get it.
>>961864
literal meme bikes
>>965007
Check out this memelord. It must suck to be such a butthurt poorfag.
Speaking of dumb memes, can people explain this whole 1x10 thing to me? I don't see how it's possible to get your full range with a 1x set up.
>>966918
It depends on what you're riding. For road it's not going to be enough range even if you go with a MTB cassette, which is also going to have large jumps, but for off road riding it could be enough especially if you get one of those 40/42t expander cogs.
>>966918
Helps with clearance for the recent short chainstay meme, also help chain retention. I'll stick with 2x thanks marketers.
>>966918
Two words: no front mech.
>>966943
Also better ground clearance, lighter, cheaper, simpler to setup and use, and more reliable/durable. If someone doesn't need the extended range then it can make a lot of sense and actually be advantageous.
>>966948
It definitely makes sense for the mainstream of MTBers who drive to the trail and roll down curated singletrack with FS carbon bikes.
For people who actually ride their bikes, it's not so hot.
29er vs 26
Remember that /n/ is full of 140 lb feminine males and shorties before taking 26 seriously.
>>969651
If you're not doing long steep climbs and have decent leg power and you're okay with rolling some of the steeper hills instead of pedalling for a bit of extra speed then 1x can have plenty of range, especially if you step up to 11 speed.
>>969655
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post but 26 is better for shorter and lighter riders. 29 is more suited to the taller riders but they can still do fine on the smaller wheels. It's easier to make a bike bike with small wheels than it is to make a small bike with big wheels.
>>969660
>not doing long steep climbs
Why even ride?
>>969672
Some people prefer shorter technical stuff. If I wanted to do long climbs I'd jump on my road bike, same goes for fast descents.
>>969682
>technical stuff
>full suspension bike
Why not just ride a motorbike?
>>969707
because you've missed the point entirely
>>969707
Who said anything about full suspension? That's irrelevant anyway, you can still ride technical stuff with full suspension. Just take a look at Akrigg and Macaskil.
In five years the mainstream will be plus and we'll all chortle at the pizzacutter garbage that fags buttache for today, just like we guffaw at v-brake hangers on.
I think 27.5+ looks cool but i think it occupies a pointless gap between fat tires and normal size.
They are too narrow to be useful in full fat terrain and anything i can handle on a plus size i can handle just as well on normal size.
It would have to be some HIGHLY specialized terrain where + would be optimal.
>>970266
What sort of terrain is that?
>>970294
That's the point. I DON'T KNOW.
No doubt someone will come up with an example of where plus size hits the sweet spot, but it's sure not where i ride at least.
Why aren't there any 20" x 3" fat tire roadie bikes?
Same total circumference, massive graveling gainz?
Why come it not a thing?
>>970394
Same circumference as what?
To have an appropriately size bike with 20" wheels would look ridiculous. Also the tyre selection is extremely limited, you'd need to go with a 19" rim and have the limited choice of ~2.5-3.0 trials tyres (I don't even know if anyone makes 3 inchers anymore).
>>970391
Full suspension would be better for that.
>>970394
Road plus is a thing. All the pizzacutter shit of years past is going down the drain.
>>970440
>Road plus
I love it but I'm thinking acceleration rate is hurt by large spinning mass
need to go past 650b.... go full 26" or 24" or 20" to have fast-start roadies with fatty tires
imho
>>970460
>>970440
26"
>>970417
I should have said chunky, and loose. Tires have more of an effect on traction than suspension alone, and they also provide a different type of dampening than suspension.
I really enjoy my 26 x 3.0 tires for loose and untamed terrain, and I get more traction than buddies on nice full-sus rigs when it comes to riding scree.
>>961864
They're great for having fun along trails. People can shit on specs all they want. But they're really more like fatter mountain bikes than they are skinnier fat bikes. And they're tons of fun
>>970462
That's it mane. 650b randos have been doing it for years.
>>970615
Damn straight, they're the sweet spot for dirt riding fun. Maybe the FS+2.2/2.4 is where it's at for racing, but if you're not racing don't be a tryhard fag.
>>970643
You're right, i haven't.
I'm interpolating between normal bikes and fatbike.
>>970649
Plus bikes are their own thing. A better thing.
>>970654
>That's what they said about fatbieks too.
Fatbikes are fun too. All bikes are fun.
Plus tyres give you retarded levels of grip. If you don't need the float of 4", enjoy getting retarded.*
* by retarded I mean fucking awesome!
You know berms, those things they put in to keep you going around a corner? Don't need em, all you need is grip.
>>970297
Sandy field roads. Not beach deep sand, but enough to make 29x2.2 tires sink in and fishtail.
At least that's my guess, I've never ridden a plus bike.
>>970721
You'll never understand until you ride a plus bike. A plus bike feels good on everything.
With my plus tire hardtail, I ride lines this with great pleasure! these burly ass ones are highly endangered and almost exinct 26+... I had to stock up and buy a bunch.
>>970721
i ride this kind of road every day on my 29x2.25 racing ralphs without any trouble. cute little warmup route down by the river with some nice little cuts down next to the water that act like switchbacks with short, steep descents towards the river into berms that you can pump through back up to the road. few of them have deep ruts and large-ish roots that you have to manual or bunny over and onto the berm, which is fun.
>>971043
I liked Surly's thinking with 26+, as it would allow a plus fit to 27.5 frames using the widely extant 26" rims. Instead we get 27.5" + wheels in 29er frames.
Regardless, 29+ is the bestestest.
I want 32+ to become a thing.
OP here. You're all niggers.
>>971151
wut ?
gotta have a 39er tho for that ultimate straight line stability
