Steven Knoetze (sk27) Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Prepare to have your mind blown:27.5+ wheels on 29ers. Seems it is pretty doable.Heres some reading material:http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-gear/how-to-convert-your-29er-to-a-27-5-all-trail-bike/
Samurai Pizza Cat Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Plus bikes are great for muddy or loose, not to deep sand type conditions. Not really a problem here in Gauteng. ( It might be useful in January, after the December rain.) It's similar to a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon or pimped up LR Defender. Great as a third car, but I don't want one as my only option for everyday use. Those Scott bikes are gorgeous!
the nerd Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Plus bikes are great for muddy or loose, not to deep sand type conditions. Not really a problem here in Gauteng. ( It might be useful in January, after the December rain.)It's similar to a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon or pimped up LR Defender. Great as a third car, but I don't want one as my only option for everyday use. Those Scott bikes are gorgeous! Are you riding a + bike currently?
Ryanpmb Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 No, it's just fat takkies on the normal wheel sizes, 26", 27.5", 29". Just not as big as FATBIKE tyres Not entirely true... The rim width standard is wider than normal... proper plus wheels won't necessarily fit all standard 26", 27.5" or 29" frames. So, yes, kind of another standard - or more standards - 26"+, 27.5"+, 29"+...
Odinson Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Not entirely true... The rim width standard is wider than normal... proper plus wheels won't necessarily fit all standard 26", 27.5" or 29" frames. So, yes, kind of another standard - or more standards - 26"+, 27.5"+, 29"+... To touch on what Ryan is saying, there are new "standards" creeping in regarding hub sizing. In the front, the new plus forks run 110mm spacing, as opposed to 100mm for regular forks. Also, many manufacturers are adopting SRAM's Boost hub spacing, which has 148mm at the back. Not all plus bikes will be incorporating the new spacing, but it is a definite trend, as it purportedly allows for better clearance and additional stiffness. Right now, there isn't much consensus on how wide the rims should be and as such there are different manufacturers running wider rims than others.
Chro Mo Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Prepare to have your mind blown:27.5+ wheels on 29ers. Seems it is pretty doable.Heres some reading material:http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-gear/how-to-convert-your-29er-to-a-27-5-all-trail-bike/You beat me to it!
popcorn_skollie Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Back in the day you could slap 2.7 tyres on your downhill bike and nobody called it 26+
Flowta Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 To touch on what Ryan is saying, there are new "standards" creeping in regarding hub sizing. In the front, the new plus forks run 110mm spacing, as opposed to 100mm for regular forks. Also, many manufacturers are adopting SRAM's Boost hub spacing, which has 148mm at the back. Not all plus bikes will be incorporating the new spacing, but it is a definite trend, as it purportedly allows for better clearance and additional stiffness. Right now, there isn't much consensus on how wide the rims should be and as such there are different manufacturers running wider rims than others. Though 110mm is not a new standard. 148mm is just stupid when 150mm already exists
Ryanpmb Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Prepare to have your mind blown:27.5+ wheels on 29ers. Seems it is pretty doable.Heres some reading material:http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-gear/how-to-convert-your-29er-to-a-27-5-all-trail-bike/ Yip... Here's the On-One Parkwood in similar guise... http://9to5bike.com/2015/02/17/first-photos-on-one-launching-650-parkwood/
Flowta Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Not entirely true... The rim width standard is wider than normal... proper plus wheels won't necessarily fit all standard 26", 27.5" or 29" frames. So, yes, kind of another standard - or more standards - 26"+, 27.5"+, 29"+... I'm running my plus tyres on my "standard" (to me anyway) 32mm wide rims that I've had for 5 years now. WRT frame spacing, some new frames barely manage 2.4" and some old frames handle way bigger. My Steelhead being a prime example. So not really a standard, but wider in some areas is not a bad thing
Odinson Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Though 110mm is not a new standard. 148mm is just stupid when 150mm already exists Don't complain to me, buddy. Send an email to Trek and SRAM. They had that brainfart together.
Ryanpmb Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Back in the day you could slap 2.7 tyres on your downhill bike and nobody called it 26+ Probably cos back in the day big brands weren't battling to sell bikes and didn't have to find new marketing spins to sell stuff... Or back in the day everyone was riding their pigeon hole bikes and not scratching the surface of other interesting niche styles. Or back in the day DH was a niche that the masses weren't paying attention to. Or back in the day 3.0" was still regarded as plus size...
Ryanpmb Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 I'm running my plus tyres on my "standard" (to me anyway) 32mm wide rims that I've had for 5 years now. WRT frame spacing, some new frames barely manage 2.4" and some old frames handle way bigger. My Steelhead being a prime example. So not really a standard, but wider in some areas is not a bad thing That's your bike... not an industry norm. More a ghetto, make this work, scenario. And it does, which is awesome. Similar to guys running 27.5+ wheels setups on 29" frames to make the spacing work... But, as Odinson has eluded to too, there are certain standards coming to the fore when it comes to plus wheels...
Ryanpmb Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 I'm running my plus tyres on my "standard" (to me anyway) 32mm wide rims that I've had for 5 years now. WRT frame spacing, some new frames barely manage 2.4" and some old frames handle way bigger. My Steelhead being a prime example. So not really a standard, but wider in some areas is not a bad thing As an aside, I'm pretty amazed they're running A-OK on 32mm rims... is this the inner or outer width? Do they not "roll" when cornering and running low pressures?
Chro Mo Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 27+ may be the sweet spot for some - no doubt. Feedback is overwhelmingly positive. Does one need it? Absolutely not. Won't stop it being seriously fun. I am in the 29+ camp at the moment - purely due to my current cycling interests, but that doesn't mean that I won't go on this tangent at some point either. Probably the least constructive post in this thread, but oh well
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.