27.5 x 2.8 vs 29 x 2.6

Hello, anybody out there?

Ok, i'll bite. I'm 6'1" and in the 205# range.

I have a steel hard tail running 27.5 x 2.8 rekons and a 150F/140R 29er running 29 x 2.6F 29 x 2.4R tires.

I am absolutely faster on the 29er, but I find my self riding the hard tail more. My steel hard tail feels more like an adult BMX to me. I will be trying 29 x 2.8 this year, so I can't comment on that setup yet. I ride fat bikes a lot also, so I am generally leaning to the wider is better crowd.

Mk3Rider said:

Ok, i'll bite. I'm 6'1" and in the 205# range.

I have a steel hard tail running 27.5 x 2.8 rekons and a 150F/140R 29er running 29 x 2.6F 29 x 2.4R tires.

I am absolutely faster on the 29er, but I find my self riding the hard tail more. My steel hard tail feels more like an adult BMX to me. I will be trying 29 x 2.8 this year, so I can't comment on that setup yet. I ride fat bikes a lot also, so I am generally leaning to the wider is better crowd.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's very helpful!

Keep in mind there is also a comfort / ride quality characteristic that a steel hardtail and 27.5+ wheels produce. I find it very similar to my old 100/80mm FS 29er.

Grinchy8 said:

This is a fun bike.
29x3 and 27.5x2.8 in this pic. I have a cushcore plus in the rear.
Have since put on a 29x2.8 front to drop 350g and try something new. Not too many miles on the slightly smaller front but seems pretty comparable. Have heard the Maxxis runs a bit small.
View attachment 1964662

Click to expand...

Nice! I did this similar with my Krampus. Thou I went with 27.5 x 3.0 in the rear to keep it closer to 29 diameter. On front I agree as well I went from 29X3.0 to 29.2.8 to drop some weight and also did not notice much difference once I got my tire pressure dialed in.

I always wondered what a nimble 9 would be like in this mode with the short chain stays! I have a Gen 2 nimble 9, but on that version is not enough clearance to fit a true size plus in slammed. mode. I assume, like my Krampus it is just a machine! My favorite all around bike in my quiver.

Last year i was on 27.5 and i did 2 months on 2.6, than 2.8 than 3.0.
This is a great size, depending on the season you have a lot of tires to choose from.
I would vote for that HT option. Now i am happy on 29 but i went from medium
frame to small so it is not a fair comparaison. I wish there were more 29x2.8.

In my experience with sandy logging roads and trails, my favorite, other than a fat bike has been 29x3 on a Surly Krampus, but 27.5x2.8 has also worked well and if the bike can go 27.5x3, even better.

I have done the 29x2.6 and it's a nice balance between going all out plus and a standard 29er, but I have washed out with this size in some sand traps I would have handled with a 2.8 or 3. That said, I really like the 29x2.6 as a do it all size. Just wish I could squeeze that size in my vintage Anthem 29er.

33red said:

Last year i was on 27.5 and i did 2 months on 2.6, than 2.8 than 3.0.
This is a great size, depending on the season you have a lot of tires to choose from.
I would vote for that HT option. Now i am happy on 29 but i went from medium
frame to small so it is not a fair comparaison. I wish there were more 29x2.8.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I am recommending to him the 2021 Commentcal Meta HT AM Essential. It's 27.5+ x 2.8 front & rear with a Yari fork and dropper post for $1999.00. Seems like a great value for a first bike that will handle the dry washes, dirt roads, and some trail riding.

@Chris2fur, dont forget to go check out the RSD Sergeant.

Mk3Rider said:

@Chris2fur, dont forget to go check out the RSD Sergeant.

Sergeant V4 Aluminum - Fat Bike | Mountain Bikes Toronto | Online Bicycle Store - RSD Bikes

rsdbikes.com

Click to expand...

Very nice option. Good fork and components for the money on that one, too. It's about $450 more though, and shipping is bound to be more coming from Canada to the southwest US (quoted shipping for the Meta HT is $149).

I'd probably do 29 x 2.6 for the simple fact that plus tires are getting harder to find, and the price is high on what options are out there.

29x3 if your frame can handle it. If not, The 29x2.6 is still better than the 27.5x2.8

azjonboy said:

29x3 if your frame can handle it. If not, The 29x2.6 is still better than the 27.5x2.8

Click to expand...

Besides roller over(& lesser extent speed) how would 29x2.6 be better than 27.5x2.8? I'm asking this as someone who just sold a Beyond+ in a 27.5x2.8 setup & is currently having a Sherpa in 29x2.6 built up.

Funoutside said:

Besides roller(& lesser extend speed) over how would 29x2.6 be better than 27.5x2.8? I'm asking this as someone who just sold a Beyond+ in a 27.5x2.8 setup & is currently having a Sherpa in 29x2.6 built up.

Click to expand...

There are a ton of factors that come into play.
A general rule is a wider tire is slower, we all know the difference between a 23/25mm
and a 4.8. But on the other side some are fasters on a plus tire because they have more comfidence.
There is where we ride, many consider the plus better in some areas but the thinner better in other areas.
Just like i have a 21 pounds XC HT wich is fine in summer when grip is plenty but my other heavier bike
is what i prefer in spring and fall. We can simply change size to have a different experience.

33red said:

There are a ton of factors that come into play.
A general rule is a wider tire is slower, we all know the difference between a 23/25mm
and a 4.8. But on the other side some are fasters on a plus tire because they have more comfidence.

Click to expand...

Getting a little tired of people saying this. It is not a general rule. Many, many people who have actually done a test on dirt have found wider tires are equal to, or faster than, narrow tires going downhill and on the flats. It is not a confidence thing, it is the result of how they interact with soft or rough terrain. Wide tires at the lower pressures they allow result in less energy loss to hysteresis of the soil, as well as intermittent contact with the terrain (rebounding on the back side of trail irregularities).

On climbs, narrow tires may indeed be faster, but only because they are lighter.

Below is an example of one such test. Multiple others can be found, even on a gravel road, wider tires outperform narrow tires on a roll down test.

To put it simply:
Wider tires run at lower pressure provide more traction due to a larger contact patch.
They are also faster because the lower pressure allows them to conform to terrain features better than a tire running higher pressure. Tires run at higher pressure are more likely to be bounced off line since their conformation is less.

Yes, there are multiple studies proving this. Look them up.

I tend to smash rims with plus tires cause if I run them at a low enough pressure to have more traction it’s easy to get rim hits and dent or break them and if I have more psi there isn’t a point keep in mind im a aggressive rider so more likely for that to happen

Oops just realized this thread is a year old