Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Big wheels keep on rollin
Joined
·
368 Posts
old news ;) ... I want to know when WTB will release this tire. The conversion of existing 29ers that will fit that tire is the big news I think.

mike
 

·
Rocking on a Rocky
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
Rocky Mountain 2.0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
I really like the idea of this tire size as well... Having a 29er already that easily clears some pretty fat tires, I'm thinking that a 27.5x3" tire would be a simple and balanced conversion!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
Can't say I really understand the need. I mean I guess compatibility is good, but if you're looking for the ultimate in rollover, 29x3 is a pretty good idea. If you want ultimate flotation and reasonable acceleration, 26x4 or whatever is pretty good. I don't see what problem 650beef solves. If people were complaining about the handling of 29+ I could see pursuing it, but it seems like this is just maximizing the 650b gold rush.
 

·
aka bOb
Joined
·
8,813 Posts
Can't say I really understand the need. I mean I guess compatibility is good, but if you're looking for the ultimate in rollover, 29x3 is a pretty good idea. If you want ultimate flotation and reasonable acceleration, 26x4 or whatever is pretty good. I don't see what problem 650beef solves. If people were complaining about the handling of 29+ I could see pursuing it, but it seems like this is just maximizing the 650b gold rush.
People like me don't like the handling of the 29+. I'm kinda excited about the 27.5 plus.
 

·
Most Delicious
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Can't say I really understand the need. I mean I guess compatibility is good
That's the point. The 29+ is tough to shoehorn in to rear ends and under forks. 650E or whatever they call it makes it easier to get some extra volume with minimal if any changes to existing 29ers.
 

·
Big wheels keep on rollin
Joined
·
368 Posts
That's the point. The 29+ is tough to shoehorn in to rear ends and under forks. 650E or whatever they call it makes it easier to get some extra volume with minimal if any changes to existing 29ers.
and since the height of the 2.8" 650B wheel is just about the same as a 2.2" 29er wheel, it will fit a lot of bikes. If you want a 29+ ride
you have to buy a new frameset. This gets 90% of the ride of the 29+ for the cost of a new wheelset.

mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,460 Posts
As market trends go 29+ is at least 5 years away from enough tires, frames and forks to become viable for the masses. It is less about maximizing the 27.5 "goldrush" as it is piggy backing it via the existing 650b 35mm/+ rims necessary to handle + volume tires that have compatibility out of the gate with existing 29" products.

Hard to believe that other companies won't get on board also but kudos to WTB for being on top of it, much like they were back in 99'. Thanks Mark!
 

·
Most Delicious
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
and since the height of the 2.8" 650B wheel is just about the same as a 2.2" 29er wheel, it will fit a lot of bikes. If you want a 29+ ride
you have to buy a new frameset. This gets 90% of the ride of the 29+ for the cost of a new wheelset.
The other key thing - it's about the widest tire you can run with a standard chainline 1X crankset and full range 135/142 rear hub.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
I'm excited by this tire size as well. I emailed WTB, and they told me Aug/Sept/Oct time frame. I like MikeC's date better! Also, for those who haven't seen it, Vee Rubber showed a 27.5 x 3.2 tire at the Taipei show a few weeks back, the Trax Fattie I think. Probably too big to fit most 29er frames, but should fit in a bunch of forks.
 

·
Big wheels keep on rollin
Joined
·
368 Posts
Do you have a sense of the actual width? I've got maybe 80mm between the fork legs and stays to play with, and this might be as big and fat as I'll be able to manage.

Thanks.
... the prelim drawing I saw showed 68 mm wide. Of course that depends on rim width. I've only got about 77 mm at the rear seatstays so I'm prob going to use 35 Blunts and hope it fits ok.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,137 Posts
I think where this tire size will shine is for people with fat bikes wanting a better rolling summer setup. I just put a 29+ setup on my Fattie, and am loving it. Does raise the bottom Bracket noticeably though, so I think 27.5 will be a sweet spot and not change the geometry to much on a fat bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
the height of the 2.8" 650B wheel is just about the same as a 2.2"
29er wheel with a 2.2" tyre = 622+(55x2) = 732mm
650B wheel with a 2.8" tyre = 584+(71x2) = 726mm

It is *very* close.

Does raise the bottom Bracket noticeably though, so I think 27.5 will be a sweet spot and not change the geometry to much on a fat bike.
Interestingly, a 3.8" tyre on a 559 rim = 752mm; a 3" tyre on a 622mm rim is 774mm; if anything running a 2.8" 650b tyre on a fatbike will lower the BB slightly.

I think 29+ may turn out to be the wrong answer; 29ers are already stretching geometry for those of us who are under 175cm, and a wheel nearly 5cm bigger is only going to make that worse. 650B+ looks really promising for fatter tyres on a 29er (or, as above, faster tyres on a fat bike), and IIRC Stan's are already doing a 650B fat bike rim.
 

·
Team Captain
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
I hate to say it, but I wish that Surly would've gone down the B+ route instead of the 29+ route, mainly for toe overlap and chainstay length reasons
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top