Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
I really like your rear fender set up. Custom or off the shelf? I was thinking for bikepacking if you could have the front of the fender attach to the seatpost with rear strut supports like you have and the ability to lash on a dry bag it would be the bomb!
Custom rear fender. It attaches to the seatstay "stiffener" right behind the seatpost. I could easily add a rear rack if needed. I think it's stainless steel and fiberglass. Not sure as I got it as a "gift" after I loaned my bike. I think it's a little bit too short as I get some mud on my jacket. Also the calf portion of my pants get muddy.
 
Discussion starter · #23 · (Edited)
69ers were popular and common at the dawn of the 29er era, but people dropped them after more straight 29/29 bikes became available. My own time on various mixed size configurations has convinced me that for XC riding, you basically need the rear wheel to act about the same as the front, different jobs notwithstanding. Even for gravity stuff, your wheels are on the ground the vast majority of the time, and I could never get used to having to plan for each wheel to do different things when rolling over an obstacle.

I think when slapping on a new setup, it's also important to not forget the novelty factor. A new bike, or dramatically new setup is FUN, because it's novel and makes things feel different and interesting. That doesn't mean that when you swap back in 6 months you won't be amazed all over again by how great matching wheel sizes is.

But at least we have choices these days. You can end up with all kinds of whacky combos now due to the crazy diversity of wheel and tire sizes. Fun times.

-Walt
Nice positive spin, thanks Walt :)

Yes, it could easilly be the placebo effect, but I'm gonna run with it.

Dropped my fork to 130mm, angleset at +1 deg, 10mm increase in stack from the taller tire, a few mm for the lower gimbal, so hta is nearly back to stock; 67deg.

5/2/16 Edit: Just got back from a first ride with the revised suspension, what I notice most is that the bike is way quicker with 67 deg HTA vs the 66 deg HTA, I kinda miss that slack front end ;)

The 130mm of travel works fine, a little on the short side; 150mm was a little on the long side, so I think 140mm is the magic for a pedal bike like the Mutz.

As to the mixed wheels, I don't notice tha the rear wheel is smaller than the front other than it seems to cut a tighter turn and it's a little easier to manipulate than a 29" rear wheel. I find having a 29" wheel on the front is better for rollover and straight line stability at slow and fast speeds, it also seems to stick better in turns with far less wash out than a 27.5.

Whether the differences I'm noticing are real or not, I like the feel of the bike better with a mixed wheelset that either 27+/27+ and 29+/29+.

I suppose one of the things "anyone" could do is to run 29+ in front and 29 regular in the rear, that wold give some height difference and a narrower profile out back would make it easier to manipulate the rear wheel. The downside being less traction and cushion.
 
I'm going to go with all the guys who say mixing tyre sizes can be great and fun. I first tried it on my rigid Monkey running a 2.4" 29er on the rear and 29+ on the front, all of a sudden alot more comfortable, able to attck the rough even harder, but the 29er outback still lacked.

Built a 650B+ wheelset using WTB Asym i35s with a 2.8" Trailblazer for the rear and 3.0" Trailboss for the front to run on the Paradox and liked it, but the much wider 3.0" on the front seemed weird, but the 2.8" in the back really gave some extra needed cush. Had a full tour one day and had to put my XL Paradox in the pool, so swapped on some normal 29er wheels and tyres and put the 650B+ on the back of my rigid Monkey paired with 29+, never thought about it, just rode and had fun, did notice the extra cush, did not notice the what should have been lesser roll over.

Would really like a matching 2.8" 29er to run on the front of the Paradox which has a sus fork and would like a bigger 3.5" for the front of the rigid for even more plush.
 
Discussion starter · #26 ·
How about bigger diameter tire in back and smaller diameter tire in front?

Theoretically in my mind that should = better traction and a tighter turning radius.
No, that wouldn't do much for traction as contact patch is more significant than wheel size. A taller wheel in back would probably create some suspension jacking and push you over the bars, possibly causing the front tire to break loose.

I'm trying to think of instance where a taller wheel in back was used... nothing comes to mind.
 
I have a few mutt bikes I've been playing with over the winter and into the spring. Can run anything from 29 x 2.5, 27.5 x 4, and 29 x 3.0.

Horses for courses and all that.

The only thing that's clear is that shorter than 29" and narrower than 2.5" are dead to me, unless we're talking about road.
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
...

The only thing that's clear is that shorter than 29" and narrower than 2.5" are dead to me, unless we're talking about road.
Yeah, I've come full circle, did the 27+ gig, now halfway back to 29, though I don't mind a shorter wheel out back.

So Mike, for winter are you going 27.5 x 4... I hadn't heard anything about 29 x 4's ;)

I'm gonna build up a multipurpose hard tail fatty in Fall, probably use a Ventana El Gordo (I like the dropouts) and a Lauf, it'll be 29+ three seasons/27.4 x 4 winter.
 
Well dang, I wanna play!

Just threw on the Roval SL38 in the back for the bottom pic. In the top pic i'm running a Kappius 40mm ID with 29x3 Chupy up front and 29x2.6 FBN out back (no, it's really a 3.0 but it's way undersized and truly a 2.55in at the knobs).

I've ridden this bike in every combination i own and each is fun in it's own right. Need to take it out in the 29+/27.5+ now.

I've also closed the chapter of my riding life in regards to anything under a 2.5" tire

John
 

Attachments

I like matching tires but since I can't match width on the rear end of my 29er since it won't take a 3.0 I would like to know are there any 29x2.5 inch tires out there? The Ardent 2.4 doesn't seem like a 2.4 to me. Would like to go wide than that.
 
I like matching tires but since I can't match width on the rear end of my 29er since it won't take a 3.0 I would like to know are there any 29x2.5 inch tires out there? The Ardent 2.4 doesn't seem like a 2.4 to me. Would like to go wide than that.
The Ardent 29x2.4 is very true to size... at least on my Kappius 40mm ID rim. First pic is at knobs, second at casing.

The FBN is a 2.5-2.6 tire depending on the rim you choose. I have only ridden mine about 100 mi but it doesn't seem to be growing. Bottom pics are the FBN at knobs then casing. My caliper don't go deep enough to get the widest part of the casing but it's not much wider. On a personal note... I'd not recommend these tires unless you truly need a 29x2.5 size. I have had (3) of them thus far and each has been different in terms of size and quality. All of them have a high spot when you spin the tire... looks like the tire is jumping for lack of better words. The bead seat around the rim is not uniform on any them despite inflating them slowly to the point where they just "pop" into place. Yes they are light, but the sidewalls are crazy thin. Anyway, I can take this rant elsewhere.
 

Attachments

The Ardent 29x2.4 is very true to size... at least on my Kappius 40mm ID rim. First pic is at knobs, second at casing.

The FBN is a 2.5-2.6 tire depending on the rim you choose. I have only ridden mine about 100 mi but it doesn't seem to be growing. Bottom pics are the FBN at knobs then casing. My caliper don't go deep enough to get the widest part of the casing but it's not much wider. On a personal note... I'd not recommend these tires unless you truly need a 29x2.5 size. I have had (3) of them thus far and each has been different in terms of size and quality. All of them have a high spot when you spin the tire... looks like the tire is jumping for lack of better words. The bead seat around the rim is not uniform on any them despite inflating them slowly to the point where they just "pop" into place. Yes they are light, but the sidewalls are crazy thin. Anyway, I can take this rant elsewhere.
Cool, thanks!
 
The Ardent 29x2.4 is very true to size... at least on my Kappius 40mm ID rim. First pic is at knobs, second at casing.
true, the Ardent 2.4 is one of the bigger casing tire I know of, speaking of non plus 29er tires.

The FBN is a 2.5-2.6 tire depending on the rim you choose.

On a personal note... I'd not recommend these tires unless you truly need a 29x2.5 size.

I have had (3) of them thus far and each has been different in terms of size and quality. All of them have a high spot when you spin the tire... looks like the tire is jumping for lack of better words. The bead seat around the rim is not uniform on any them despite inflating them slowly to the point where they just "pop" into place.
my FBN on i45 rim is 72mm wide so more than 2.8". still undersized but not that much.

i'd say if you truly need a 29x2.5 size then the FBN will not fit. it's way taller than a 29x2.5 too.

I can confirm on their bad quality.
 
"To slack with the bigger front wheel"

That makes sense. If you are raising the front by installing a bigger wheel, you get a 'double whammy' effect on handling:

Trail increases because of the slacker head-angle,
and it increases even more due to the larger wheel diameter.

Since the larger wheel also raises your bottom bracket, it seems to me that the best way to accommodate multiple wheel sizes is an adjustable travel fork.
Tall fork on a small wheel keeps trail going enough and bottom bracket high enough. Low setting on big wheel keeps the BB from raising to high and the trail from getting to long.
 
Probably not as relevant since I don't do much off-road riding, but when I set up my Troll, in the interest of getting it on the road in advance of building up my 26" wheelset, I put on my 700c x 40 wheels/tires and got rolling. Then I got my rear wheel built up, but the front hub was in postal limbo for months, so I compared my 700 x 40 rear wheel to my 26 x 2" (or maybe 2.15") and found the diameter was pretty much the same, so I swapped them out. Spent a few weeks riding a 700 front and 26 rear and didn't really notice much difference except in the width. Once I finished the front wheel, the only noticeable difference was due to going from 40mm to 2". Diameter was pretty much the same, so bottom bracket was pretty much the same. I feel like the grip improved, and the bike feels more planted on the occasional off-road stretch with the wider front, but for my normal pavement commute, the 700 x 40 worked fine.

Now I'm thinking about some other tire combinations. I'd like to build up a fat-as-can-fit 24" set and 700/29er set for something in 40mm area. If I get them all built up, I can play with some weird combinations.
 
still searching for the perfect 29+ tire in the front,
do ride mixed wheels, 29+ front 27.5+ rear
rear 27.5+ vee crown gem, syntehis sidewall, ~2.9, like it
also vee trax fatty 3.25 is good
vee bulldozer 3.0 27+ is usable
front 29+
- wtb ranger, got the light, to flex on sidewalls
- transformers are ok, but rounded profile
- vee trax fatty, don't like
have not tried 29+
maxxis chronicles, minions DHF , DHR II
vee bulldozer 3.25
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts