-
Posts
-
-
Does anyone have any experience with the new plus size tire bikes? I have just moved to Arizona and there is quite a lot of sand on the trails that I’ve been riding here. I’m currently riding an old stumpjumper, 26″ wheels, steel frame etc. but it does have shimano xt component. Do the newer lower end components hold up better than the old stuff?
-
Plus tires do make sand a little easier to navigate, especially the deep stuff.
Your second question is an interesting one! My gut says the low end components are better today than they used to be but I don’t have a lot of first hand experience. I know Aaron has been running SRAM’s GX group and it’s worked well. Now there’s an even lower 1×11 groupset called NX. It’s heavy for sure but I’m also interested to know if it’s more or less durable than say 2×10 X5 was…
-
Hey there – I just tried my first 27.5+ bike this weekend. Shockingly good and much easier to ride than my Santa Cruz hard tail. It had the 2.8 size tires rather than the 3.0 – most companies have found the 2.8 size have better all ’round performance. The bike was a Pivot Switchblade – yes the price tag is not for the faint of heart ($6400 base price). I was mostly interested in testing out the + sized tires – and granted this was as good a platform as one could get – but they really delivered. Over roots and rocks it was just a blast, not the normal weaving around obstacles, but just obliterating them with confidence. I’ll be looking for a bike that can handle multiple sizes of tires – the 29 x2.5 looks mighty interesting as well.
Cheers!
-
I second Muley’s statement about the 2.8″ size. That seems to be where optimal performance lies. You get a lot of additional confidence and capagility from the greater width without going overboard on weight of losing playfulness in maneuvering and cornering.
One of my bikes is a high end frame with a GX drivetrain. The GX is holding up and performing exceptionally well. I’ve also demoed a lot of bikes with this lower end drivetrain and they have all performed well. My experience is similar to Aarons and I’m totally sold. -
John,Jeff and mulehead. Thanks fo your response all very helpful. As I can’t and don’t want to spend 3 or 4K on a bike. So it’s good to hear that at least “some” of the new lower end components are much better than they were, back in the day. Right now I’m still leaning toward a 27+ but am hearing good things about 29’s. The search continues. Meanwhile the old stumpjumper keeps rolling along. Thanks again.
-
John,Jeff and mulehead. Thanks fo your response all very helpful. As I can’t and don’t want to spend 3 or 4K on a bike. So it’s good to hear that at least “some” of the new lower end components are much better than they were, back in the day. Right now I’m still leaning toward a 27+ but am hearing good things about 29’s. The search continues. Meanwhile the old stumpjumper keeps rolling along. Thanks again.
-
I’m a huge fan of 29″ wheels. However, one of the cool things about 27.5+ bikes is that many will accommodate 29″ wheels without a significant change in geometry. The reason for this is that the 27.5+ tires have a taller profile than regular 27.5 tires so the actual outer diameter of the tire is pretty close to 29″. On the flip side of that coin though is the fact that the 27.5+ frame should have Boost spacing so installing standard 29″ wheels (i.e., without Boost spacing) ain’t going to work. Just more food for thought. Oh, and I agree that 2.8″ is probably a better choice than 3″ for versatility.
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.