Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 579
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeJ View Post
    Eye roll. Even if it's not your thing, those other sizes have their place.

    I do agree this + shit is stupid, though.
    Of course. Doesn't make them any less sluggish to me

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    T.ride
    Posts
    1,813
    Three things come to mind. One is Doug Coombs. Watch him ski anything on skinny skis and you never think that equipment needs any improvement at all.

    Two is a scene from "where the trail ends" where they are talking about finding the perfect dirt. Places that arent too soft so they endo everywhere. Reminds me of how skinny skis rip deep pow... if the conditions are juuust right. Big tires open up the off trail riding immensely and I could see how this could become a problem near high populations.

    Third is I think the people who are going to see major benefits of larger tires are the more let's say "classically built" fellows like myself. I'm 6'2" and pushing 240 lbs. When I'm on my fatty I've probably got the same relative grip/float as some twink on 2.4s. (No offense to twinks) It takes alot of rubber to stop a Mack Truck.

    I don't really have a dog in this fight. First off I'm a skier and have never been a 'serious' mtn biker although I've biked all my life. Nothing in biking has ever felt more like skiing than riding my fatbike down a steep ass dune using tufts of grass like moguls and choosing my line as I go. That experience isn't possible on any other bike and I'm excited to see what people with real bike skills can do in those situations rather than my beater ass.

    I guess I've kind of steered the debate away from 27.5+ tires specifically but I feel actual trailless mountain biking is where the sport is going(for me anyways) no longer are we at the mercy of our trailbuilders! See it, ride it! Huzzah!
    Last edited by rip; 07-01-2015 at 06:13 PM.
    ...tricks deserve applause, style deserves respect

  3. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    People's Republic of OB
    Posts
    4,407
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    2.8 tires on trail bikes are mostly appealing to the market segment who never already tried this on dh bikes.
    ^^ This exactly

    2.8 and 3.0 Gazzi's were all the rage on the north shore back in the day (along with Monster T's and 50lb Norco's) until everyone realized the small bit of extra grip vs. 2.5 did not justify the extra weight.

    I also don't get the benefit of 27.5 over 26. I finally broke down and built a 27.5 hardtail recently since its getting hard if not impossible to find the part spec I want for a 26". Maybe riding them back to back, I can tell a bit of difference between the two. But after 5 mins they both feel the same to me. I have my doubts that the majority of people can tell any difference whatsoever.

    Ride whatever you want to, but it sucks for people who want to but cannot upgrade parts on their current bikes because they are just not available anymore. Would be awful nice if the industry would make things more backward compatible. Hopefully a healthy industry can develop to make problem solvers and adaptors to keep us on the trails.

  4. #29
    Finstah Guest
    This is the third time this summer you have started essentially the same thread, Damian.

    I feel for ya man. I hope some day you find happiness and contentment in your new-to-you 26"er. Nobody here cares what you ride on or what your MTB "needs" are, so I don't know why you trip so hard on what others choose to ride and spend their money on.

    It is in fact the bike INDUSTRY, and as such they are going to continue to bring new products to the market. If you don't like the sound of that one bit, I would advise you to avoid MTB websites and save yourself the stress.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,612
    You diaper wearers do realize that all these "new" wheel sizes aren't new at all don't you? The norm used to be dozens of different diameters and widths for a given purpose and size of riders. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rim-sizing.html

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,690
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronWright View Post
    You diaper wearers do realize that all these "new" wheel sizes aren't new at all don't you? The norm used to be dozens of different diameters and widths for a given purpose and size of riders. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rim-sizing.html

    Shit, my bad. I thought we were talking about mountain bikes.

    That tabular history of the safety bicycle and its various wheel iterations is quite fascinating though. Touring london with all the scorchers at the turn of the (twentieth) century must have been positively thrilling with all the new developments. How was the 800 gram 3.0 nobby nic regarded the first time it came around in the already standardized mountain riding bicycle circles of the 1920s? I couldn't find a reference to it.

    I mean in a thread titled "brand new wheelsize like nothing the world has ever seen, shit's insane right?" just like this one is, such information would be most valuable!







    I got to use 'scorcher' in a sentence.
    Stoked!
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,070
    Ride whatever you want to, but it sucks for people who want to but cannot upgrade parts on their current bikes because they are just not available anymore. Would be awful nice if the industry would make things more backward compatible. Hopefully a healthy industry can develop to make problem solvers and adaptors to keep us on the trails.
    This.

    I am so over trying to find a new Fork for my ancient 2008 Ellsworth. Imagine me actually thinking that a 2100.00 frame set should be ridden for more than 8 years.

    Yeah I can find one, but it is 2x the price of a Tapered fork.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,612
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    Shit, my bad. I thought we were talking about mountain bikes.

    That tabular history of the safety bicycle and its various wheel iterations is quite fascinating though. Touring london with all the scorchers at the turn of the (twentieth) century must have been positively thrilling with all the new developments. How was the 800 gram 3.0 nobby nic regarded the first time it came around in the already standardized mountain riding bicycle circles of the 1920s? I couldn't find a reference to it.

    I mean in a thread titled "brand new wheelsize like nothing the world has ever seen, shit's insane right?" just like this one is, such information would be most valuable!







    I got to use 'scorcher' in a sentence.
    Stoked!
    The wheels sizes aren't new. The "26 inch" mountain bike wheel and tires size was adopted from children's bikes. Variety is good and more choices are better. A "29er"(700c) mtb can be designed better for taller people like me. These options used to be common and I think it's great they're coming back.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,690
    I think you're still kind of missing what everyone's getting at. Yeah 27.5" wheels aren't brand new. That's not what this thread is about. What was brought up was the movement to get 3" tires on trail riding mountain bikes. Modern mountain bikes that get pedaled uphill, over great distances, sometimes for many miles, with all the bells and whistles that make going downhill on them really good over scary rough shit. Not something that existed in mostly townie/roadie bike contexts of the past.

    That is new. And it is taking away resources from other elements of the sport that tend to be what geniunely drives technological progression.....helping people go faster, farther and longer. This isn't about that. And it's coming from the industry, not from athletes sitting there going "help me do this, I know it's possible but I'm limited" which is what normally drives real change, in any sport. This is about selling more shit to to people because fat bikes have sold fairly well, and then justifying it by saying 'it's for beginners' as if there were never beginners before. That's not the same thing as saying "look at this brand new wheelsize" which seems to be catching you up. No one is saying that. It's a movement (or an attempt at movement that no one asked for) of baseline standards within the industry. It's different.

    If you say 'they're not new" and quote sheldon brown again, I'm going to find a way to make fun of that and use a penny farthing to do so.
    Last edited by kidwoo; 07-01-2015 at 10:16 PM.
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    I think you're still kind of missing what everyone's getting at. Yeah 27.5" wheels aren't brand new. That's not what this thread is about. What was brought up was the movement to get 3" tires on trail riding mountain bikes. Modern mountain bikes that get pedaled uphill, over great distances, sometimes for many miles, with all the bells and whistles that make going downhill on them really good over scary rough shit. Not something that existed in mostly townie/roadie bike contexts of the past.

    That is new. And it is taking away resources from other elements of the sport that tend to be what geniunely drives technological progression.....helping people go faster, farther and longer. This isn't about that. And it's coming from the industry, not from athletes sitting there going "help me do this, I know it's possible but I'm limited" which is what normally drives real change, in any sport. This is about selling more shit to to people because fat bikes have sold fairly well, and then justifying it by saying 'it's for beginners' as if there were never beginners before. That's not the same thing as saying "look at this brand new wheelsize" which seems to be catching you up. No one is saying that. It's a movement (or an attempt at movement that no one asked for) of baseline standards within the industry. It's different.

    If you say 'they're not new" and quote sheldon brown again, I'm going to find a way to make fun of that and use a penny farthing to do so.
    As a side note, I feel the whole industry push for 27.5 and 29, at the expense of 26", follows the same trend. They took different larger alternative sizes, which have some minor advantages, and talked them up while talking down 26", which has many major advantages for most types of real mountain biking. Why? Pretty much to sell more bikes. The only people genuinely clamoring for 29 are XC racers, and 27.5 is just straight up BS. I would not be pissed off if everyone wasn't lied to by the industry about 26", and it was still offered as a mainstream (and imho superior) wheel size.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The greatest N. New Mexico resort in Colorado
    Posts
    2,188
    Full squish 29er fat e-bikes for everyone!

    Just to push the ski analogy a bit further, yes, rockered fat skis have influenced improvements in ski technology in the last several years more than anything since emulating snowboards. But what worries me about "plus-size" is exactly what happened in the ski industry: rocker/fat is better for powder, so all of a sudden its better for everything, to the point where you can't fucking buy a production ski that isn't race stock without some amount of rocker in it. Remember how everyone was going to start skiing slightly longer skis when everything started getting rockered? That's cool, unless you're over 6'. Try finding anything with a running surface longer than 160cm. Seriously. Its innovation for the sake of creating a need, and in some cases its changed the sport for the worse.

    My concern is in four years, only hybrids, XC spandex sleds and Al hardtail beginner bikes WON'T be fat. They've certainly got their uses, but is it an improvement for more than niche applications? I think not.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    5,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion View Post
    This.

    I am so over trying to find a new Fork for my ancient 2008 Ellsworth. Imagine me actually thinking that a 2100.00 frame set should be ridden for more than 8 years.

    Yeah I can find one, but it is 2x the price of a Tapered fork.
    Yeah, that just sucks. Change can be good, but the constant change becomes too much and just dumb.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by ZomblibulaX View Post
    Full squish 29er fat e-bikes for everyone!

    Just to push the ski analogy a bit further, yes, rockered fat skis have influenced improvements in ski technology in the last several years more than anything since emulating snowboards. But what worries me about "plus-size" is exactly what happened in the ski industry: rocker/fat is better for powder, so all of a sudden its better for everything, to the point where you can't fucking buy a production ski that isn't race stock without some amount of rocker in it. Remember how everyone was going to start skiing slightly longer skis when everything started getting rockered? That's cool, unless you're over 6'. Try finding anything with a running surface longer than 160cm. Seriously. Its innovation for the sake of creating a need, and in some cases its changed the sport for the worse.

    My concern is in four years, only hybrids, XC spandex sleds and Al hardtail beginner bikes WON'T be fat. They've certainly got their uses, but is it an improvement for more than niche applications? I think not.
    Scary, eh? I've literally got a large quiver, plus a stockpile of race construction midfats with no rocker, enough to last until 2030 at current useage levels. LOL. Just bought a 196 blizzard bodacious on closeout, since I was worried the 186 would ski too short. The number of people skidding around the east on fat skis is out of control.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Matchbox 20
    Posts
    2,313
    I'm assuming that someone has tried a 27.5+ and actually liked it - alot - and sufficiently - a lot - to warrant producing new standards and going full production with them.

    But that would be making a Boost 148 ass out of you and me

    There is no doubt that 27.5+ will be a big contender for my next bike.

    A fat bike not so much for where I ride.
    OH, MY GAWD! ―John Hillerman  Big Billie Eilish fan.
    But that's a quibble to what PG posted (at first, anyway, I haven't read his latest book) ―jono
    we are not arguing about ski boots or fashionable clothing or spageheti O's which mean nothing in the grand scheme ― XXX-er

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,612
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    I think you're still kind of missing what everyone's getting at. Yeah 27.5" wheels aren't brand new. That's not what this thread is about. What was brought up was the movement to get 3" tires on trail riding mountain bikes. Modern mountain bikes that get pedaled uphill, over great distances, sometimes for many miles, with all the bells and whistles that make going downhill on them really good over scary rough shit. Not something that existed in mostly townie/roadie bike contexts of the past.

    That is new. And it is taking away resources from other elements of the sport that tend to be what geniunely drives technological progression.....helping people go faster, farther and longer. This isn't about that. And it's coming from the industry, not from athletes sitting there going "help me do this, I know it's possible but I'm limited" which is what normally drives real change, in any sport. This is about selling more shit to to people because fat bikes have sold fairly well, and then justifying it by saying 'it's for beginners' as if there were never beginners before. That's not the same thing as saying "look at this brand new wheelsize" which seems to be catching you up. No one is saying that. It's a movement (or an attempt at movement that no one asked for) of baseline standards within the industry. It's different.

    If you say 'they're not new" and quote sheldon brown again, I'm going to find a way to make fun of that and use a penny farthing to do so.
    I don't really see a push for 3" tires for all performance mtbs. I certainly don't want them, until two seasons ago I was using a "monster cross" bike for the type of riding you're talking about. Even my 29" hardtail with 2.25" tires is a dog for long distance cross country riding. I don't have any problems finding skinnier "knobby" tires for my bikes. Do the posters here?

    I went back and read what the op said and he talked about rim width and tire width. He talked about how his wide rim and wider tire weren't significantly better than the narrower rim and tire. What wasn't mentioned is that the wider rim can be used with narrower tire and that is a better combination. I really don't see a reduction in options when it comes different sizes for rim diameter and width and a plethora of really great tire for the three different mtb diameter wheels. I think it's great that there is so much choice for mtbers right now.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cuntecticut
    Posts
    1,814
    Not industry related, or 27.5+, but...

    Recently tried a 2.75 Surly Dirt Wizard out. Resounding meh. Now, it was on a narrow-ish rim, so might have been a different experience on something wider.

    Heavier but not by a ton than my regular tires. Much, much slower than my regular tires. Traction wasn't bad - lotsa' grip, but seemed most beneficial on slow speed techy rock crawling stuff.
    Where I'd just be more inclined to take that fatbike anyhow, if it's gonna' be a ride with lots of that sort of thing.

    I can see them working out well thrown on the fatbike for summer riding when not wanting the full fat experience, particularly if you're one of those people with only one bike. Have it be a frame/fork that would be able to fit them, just for the option, but not a totally separate bike. Or if you're fat curious but don't want to commit to a full fat bike. Throw a set of these on your ride and go have rock crawly fun.

    Compared to my norm, a Schwalbe 2.4 Fat albert.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronWright View Post
    I went back and read what the op said and he talked about rim width and tire width. He talked about how his wide rim and wider tire weren't significantly better than the narrower rim and tire. What wasn't mentioned is that the wider rim can be used with narrower tire and that is a better combination. I really don't see a reduction in options when it comes different sizes for rim diameter and width and a plethora of really great tire for the three different mtb diameter wheels. I think it's great that there is so much choice for mtbers right now.
    I tried 26x2.25 maxxis ardent's on my wider rims (28mm internal) some time around 2009. They sucked. 2.35" DHF's were far better, and the 2.5" DHF's on there now are the best. The wide rim thing is very misguided. 2.5's are best on 23-28mm (internal) rims, and 2.35 are best on 21-25mm rims. If you're running a single ply tire tubeless on a light rim, you need enough pressure to keep from pinch flatting, which will also keep the tire from folding over.

    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    Not industry related, or 27.5+, but...

    Recently tried a 2.75 Surly Dirt Wizard out. Resounding meh. Now, it was on a narrow-ish rim, so might have been a different experience on something wider.

    Heavier but not by a ton than my regular tires. Much, much slower than my regular tires. Traction wasn't bad - lotsa' grip, but seemed most beneficial on slow speed techy rock crawling stuff.
    Where I'd just be more inclined to take that fatbike anyhow, if it's gonna' be a ride with lots of that sort of thing.

    I can see them working out well thrown on the fatbike for summer riding when not wanting the full fat experience, particularly if you're one of those people with only one bike. Have it be a frame/fork that would be able to fit them, just for the option, but not a totally separate bike. Or if you're fat curious but don't want to commit to a full fat bike. Throw a set of these on your ride and go have rock crawly fun.

    Compared to my norm, a Schwalbe 2.4 Fat albert.
    Thanks for the heads up, doesn't sound like an advange over my 2.5" DHF's.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronWright View Post
    I think it's great that there is so much choice for mtbers right now.
    Well.....choice is great, but the level of refinement is far more important. I recently built wheels with a 425g, 25mm internal, tubeless ready 26" rim, which is strong enough for trail riding and light AM. Paired with 2.3" 700-750g tubeless tires, tape tubeless, this is a grippy agressive setup that still rolls and accelerates well, and climbs great. It's amazing to me that this wheel set is only slightly heavier than what I had on my XC bike in the late 90's, but has far more performance.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian Sanders View Post
    I tried 26x2.25 maxxis ardent's on my wider rims (28mm internal) some time around 2009. They sucked. 2.35" DHF's were far better, and the 2.5" DHF's on there now are the best. The wide rim thing is very misguided. 2.5's are best on 23-28mm (internal) rims, and 2.35 are best on 21-25mm rims. If you're running a single ply tire tubeless on a light rim, you need enough pressure to keep from pinch flatting, which will also keep the tire from folding over.
    .
    A wider rim and a narrower tire will give more sidewall support and allow lower pressure and be less prone to pinch flats. Maybe the combo you tried wasn't due to some inherent limitation but a crappy tire?

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronWright View Post
    A wider rim and a narrower tire will give more sidewall support and allow lower pressure and be less prone to pinch flats. Maybe the combo you tried wasn't due to some inherent limitation but a crappy tire?
    Ardents are widely regarded as pretty good tires.

    What you are repeating about the rim width thing is the "industry line" and internet forum pseudo science. Wider rims do not actually provide any more support to the sidewall, against pinching the sidewall - that is physically impossible. More air volume will reduce pinch flats at the same air pressure though. They will also keep the tire from folding over a bit, but test show it's only a slight difference. More importantly, they put the tire in the wrong shape, so you can't lean the the bike to corner agressively with the tire. DH racers run 25mm internal rims, for a reason - end of discussion.
    Last edited by Damian Sanders; 07-02-2015 at 11:46 AM.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    12,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian Sanders View Post
    Ardents are widely regarded as pretty good tires for randomly washing out and falling on your face.

    .
    Fixed it for you

    With all the dentists here, it is a good tire.. for business.
    www.dpsskis.com
    www.point6.com
    formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
    Fukt: a very small amount of snow.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian Sanders View Post
    Ardents are widely regarded as pretty good tires.

    What you are repeating about the rim width thing is the "industry line" and internet forum pseudo science.
    It may be the current industry line, but it's something I've been using on road, cross and mtb for about 20 years now. It works, and the change in tire shape you're talking about is insignificant. The amount of lean it would take to make a difference is never achieved in mtbing.

    Are bicycle tires, mtb tire specifically, some how magically different than other types of pneumatic tires? In any application, a rim(wheel) that is wider will support the sidewall better and prevent rolling. A 2.25" tire has the same volume whether it's mounted on a 25 mm rim or a 28 mm rim.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacationland
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    Not industry related, or 27.5+, but...

    Recently tried a 2.75 Surly Dirt Wizard out. Resounding meh. Now, it was on a narrow-ish rim, so might have been a different experience on something wider.

    Heavier but not by a ton than my regular tires. Much, much slower than my regular tires. Traction wasn't bad - lotsa' grip, but seemed most beneficial on slow speed techy rock crawling stuff.
    Where I'd just be more inclined to take that fatbike anyhow, if it's gonna' be a ride with lots of that sort of thing.

    I can see them working out well thrown on the fatbike for summer riding when not wanting the full fat experience, particularly if you're one of those people with only one bike. Have it be a frame/fork that would be able to fit them, just for the option, but not a totally separate bike. Or if you're fat curious but don't want to commit to a full fat bike. Throw a set of these on your ride and go have rock crawly fun.

    Compared to my norm, a Schwalbe 2.4 Fat albert.
    Scrub, you try the Wiz on the front or back? I just got one, thinking about a set of blunt 35's with this in my Trance 26r. May not work in the rear but def in front.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,690
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronWright View Post
    It may be the current industry line, but it's something I've been using on road, cross and mtb for about 20 years now. It works, and the change in tire shape you're talking about is insignificant. The amount of lean it would take to make a difference is never achieved in mtbing.
    weeeeeeeee


    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,779
    Quote Originally Posted by grskier View Post
    Fixed it for you

    With all the dentists here, it is a good tire.. for business.
    Interesting. I was just thinking about this because I got a new whip (first in 10+ years), have about a dozen rides on it, and I am absolutely terrified about the front tire washing out after a few near misses on super dry and not that sharp of corners.

    I had figured there was at least a 90% chance that it's happening because I am lord king of the beater kooks, but maybe I can just blame it on the Ardent that came up front?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •