[Tjaard]

Well it seems like plus size tires are fast dying out again. I blame the magazine reviewers and their Enduro-bro focus combined with, at the time, weak casings and low traction treads.
The irony is, now that there are finally plenty of plus sized tires available that are suitable for wetter or rockier trails and more aggressive riding, they have been banished from the pages of the magazines and off production bikes.

It is nice to see that some people haven't given up on checking into them yet:
Here is a great article from Seb Stott, testing the different tire sizes:

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/whats-the-fastest-tyre-size-for-mountain-biking/

 

[mikesee]

No.

 

[Nurse Ben]

The article wasn't terrible, N of 1, the conclusions work for me

I suspect the main reason why wider tires aren't as popular is because the curb appeal is lower (look fat and heavy), the cost is higher (both for the tires and designing a bike to accomodate the tire), and the accountants found that the fatter tires didn't sell as well.

I ride 27.5 x 2.8 and 29 x 2.6, very different rides, very different bikes: 29 is a 120/140 XC bike, 27.5 is a 160/140 enduro bike, like em both in different ways. I could see going narrower on the 27.5 to gain some carvability and flickability but I'd miss the cushion. I could see going wider on the 29 to gain some cushion, but I'd miss the carvability and flickability.

I do find it funny that folks angst over 2/10", but whatever, in the end we can only buy what is available.

 

[Tjaard]

No.

What do you mean with "no"?

 

[mikesee]

What do you mean with "no"?

Your original premise is flawed: They aren't dying out.

Sure, hipster skinny jeans wearing lumbersexuals are predominantly running smaller tires, and riding with a different style/ethos. That's what's sexy to the media outlets for some odd reason. But it doesn't reflect nor necessarily impact what john q. public is riding out there right now.

 

[Schulze]

"2.6in is not the “best-of-both-worlds” as some have claimed, but is a compromise, offering some benefit over a 2.3in but not as much as a 2.8in tyre."

Ok...but the 2.8 was a 2.66 so 2.6 really is the best....tyre.

 

[mikesee]

"2.6in is not the "best-of-both-worlds" as some have claimed, but is a compromise, offering some benefit over a 2.3in but not as much as a 2.8in tyre."

Ok...but the 2.8 was a 2.66 so 2.6 really is the best....tyre.

Every tire size, casing, tread, and pressure is a compromise.

 

[levity]

Hey Mike,

may I add your quote to my signature line?

Every tire size, casing, tread, and pressure is a compromise.

with attribution, of course

 

[mikesee]

Hey Mike,

may I add your quote to my signature line?

with attribution, of course

Ha. Sure. When I first got the notification I assumed you meant the skinny jeans one...

 

[Tjaard]

Your original premise is flawed: They aren't dying out.

Sure, hipster skinny jeans wearing lumbersexuals are predominantly running smaller tires, and riding with a different style/ethos. That's what's sexy to the media outlets for some odd reason. But it doesn't reflect nor necessarily impact what john q. public is riding out there right now.

Ok dying out was probably to strong, that would mean dissappearing completely, and I agree that won't be happening.
But perhaps the phrase: "back to the margins" is better.
It does seem to me that brands have (for commercial reason I'm sure) shifted away attention from developing plus bikes.
For example, in my local shop: Specialized, Salsa, Santacruz and Trek. Only some older years models from Trek and Santacruz still come stock with plus wheels/tires. Scott was another brand that offered a lot of plus bikes, but now has none I believe.
The good news is that many bikes, including some new ones, are compatible with plus tires.
But do you think the John Q Public is/will be still riding plus bikes to the same extent they were a year or two ago?

Just to be clear(obviously, because I am on this forum) I am a firm believer in plus tires. \It just seems to me that the industry is moving away from plus tires, which is a shame for the many :"general" riders who would be well served by plus tire bikes, and for us, because I fear it will limit availability if both bikes and tires as time goes on.

 

[tweeder82o]

"2.6in is not the "best-of-both-worlds" as some have claimed, but is a compromise, offering some benefit over a 2.3in but not as much as a 2.8in tyre."

Ok...but the 2.8 was a 2.66 so 2.6 really is the best....tyre.

Every tire size, casing, tread, and pressure is a compromise.

I was just thinking about this the other day, as I was curious about the 2.6", trying to justify fitting them on my 41mm internal rim (I don't think it'd fly)

But one question/observation I had was that the 2.6" tires are still just "normal" tires that are wider; whereas the "plus" 2.8" tires are not only wider but also taller? and maybe "beefier"? am I correct with with those obersvations?

and if so, would a "plus" 2.6" tires be desired?

P.S. I got a 2018 timberjack last august and I'm all the stock WTB rangers on 41mm rims. not due for new tires, but do have the itch.

 

[Tjaard]

But one question/observation I had was that the 2.6" tires are still just "normal" tires that are wider; whereas the "plus" 2.8" tires are not only wider but also taller? and maybe "beefier"? am I correct with with those obersvations?

I would not say so. 2.8 tires are definitely not beefier, whether you mean tougher casing or bigger knobs. That simply depends on each tire.
As far as proportion, again you can't really make blanket statements. Some tires are wider, some are taller and rim width has a lot to do with that.
In general, if you go to a very wide rim, the casing width will increase, the tread width will stay similar and the height might decrease.

I was just thinking about this the other day, as I was curious about the 2.6", trying to justify fitting them on my 41mm internal rim (I don't think it'd fly)

P.S. I got a 2018 timberjack last august and I'm all the stock WTB rangers on 41mm rims. not due for new tires, but do have the itch.

I would say it doesn't seem like a good idea to try 2.6 tires on your 41mm internal rims. Can you maybe borrow some narrower rims from someone if you really want to try narrower tires?
At the same time, there is so much more to tires than just listed width, so if you want onto experiment with tires, there is still a world of 2.8 and 3.0 listed size tires that are probably worth checking into to see what they might offer you different than your WTB rangers.

 

[slapheadmofo]

Ha. Sure. When I first got the notification I assumed you meant the skinny jeans one...

Dude, I am definitely stealing 'lumbersexual'!

Too friggin' funny.

 

[the mayor]

These Plus ( and fatbike) tire threads sound like the 29er tire threads 12 years ago.

People said 29s were a fad. Yet here we are....

Some tires...which were great in 26 models, weren't very good when designed into 29ers ( heavy, slow. fragile, etc)

Tires are inconsistent in size from mfgr to mfgr...or model to model. Hell, a 60 tpi tire may ride totally different from the same model in 120 tpi ( and usually does)...

And then you have demo days....where bikes sometimes have the wrong tire choice for the local terraine....or have 30psi in them. So some one tries a plus bike....and says "they don't work"

 

[prj71]

Your original premise is flawed: They aren't dying out.

Sure, hipster skinny jeans wearing lumbersexuals are predominantly running smaller tires, and riding with a different style/ethos. That's what's sexy to the media outlets for some odd reason. But it doesn't reflect nor necessarily impact what john q. public is riding out there right now.

So much this.

That bike radar article is pile of garbage.

 

[vikb]

Fatbikes got hyped by the MTB media and then receded to the fringes. Plus went the same way. That's just how the MTB media hype cycle works. By comparison to peak hype frenzy a normal level of attention [based on actual user numbers] seems like a letdown, but there are still plenty of fatbike options and there are still lots of plus options.

Sure they may get dropped by some of the major brands, but that just means more oxygen/sales for the smaller specialty brands that really get the particular niche in question.

Where I live neither fat nor plus really ever became a thing so not much has changed out on the trail.

The great thing about the internet for bike niches is that interested riders can connect and discuss these bikes and smaller brands can also reach potential customers without a huge sales/marketing budget making specialty products more viable than in the past.

 

[MrIcky]

I think there is some localization going on with plus. They work much better in some locations than others. And they work better in some locations in different times of the year than others. You'd think if you watch the youtubes that 90% of mountain bikers are in Squamish or Bellingham.

I also think 27.5x2.8s are just normalized now so bike manufacturers don't make a big deal out of it.

Also, now that MTB geometry is basically 'mature' where you are only looking for marginal gains, everything becomes cyclical. For example, 3 years ago everything was short chainstay! Then that morphed into long and slack, now longer chainstays are making a comeback and the outer edges of long and slack seem to be dialing it back a little. So I think there is going to be some trending back and forth on tire size based on what the current hot-shot mtb influencer is running. Look at Martin Maes and now there are several threads popping up about 29-27 hybrids. How very 2000's.

It's 80 out, I'm stuck at work- so I'll make a post that only makes marginal sense. My point is, 3's will be back in flavor soon enough.

 

[MrIcky]

Oh ya, I'll add 6ish years ago, trailbike tires went from 2.1 to 2.35. Something like a weirwolf at 2.55 was freakishly big. Now 2.35-2.6 is a normal range- so the width is being pushed up over time imho.

 

[slapheadmofo]

Oh ya, I'll add 6ish years ago, trailbike tires went from 2.1 to 2.35.

I dunno; I've been running 2.35 for almost 25 years myself, since the days of Ritchey WCS pinkies. There have been larger tires around, just seems less people are sucked into the whole weight weenie thing these days.

 

[joecx]

Mricky said:
I also think 27.5x2.8s are just normalized now so bike manufacturers don't make a big deal out of it.
^^^^^^^
I just bought a new Minion DHF 2.8 and saw that the hot patch is now the same size as the"normal" tires as opposed to the huge yellow MAXXIS we are used to seeing.

I guess Maxxis is trying to normalize plus or is in some kind of marketing gambit to sell more tires.Or both.I'm just glad they did,now my 2.8/2.6 combo will look "normal". Haha