Fuzfast


0 points (view top contributors)
> Forum Activity
 

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2.35 or 2.6" tyres? #288924

    Your 2.6″ tires measure 2.4″ because of your rim width.  If you want 2.6″ tires on the bike (not just in name), you will need a wider rim.  Maybe 5mm wider.

    I’d hazard a guess and say the 2.35″ tires will not be much narrower than the 2.6″ tires when mounted on your rims.  The main difference will be the 2.6″ tires mounted will be taller (larger diameter) than the 2.35″ tires.

    in reply to: Trek X-Caliber 8 vs Roscoe 7 vs Stache 5 #266077

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>Thanks! By ‘jacked up’ I meant what Trek did to fit 29×3 tires.  It would seem jacked up with thinner tires, I think.</p>
     

    in reply to: Trek X-Caliber 8 vs Roscoe 7 vs Stache 5 #266050

    Plusbike Nerd,

    Wouldn’t 2.6″ tires turn a Stache into just a regular 29er?

    Would you say this is worse or better than the 29er versions of the Fuse, Timberjack or Chameleon?  They all run 29×2.6, but lack the jacked up geometry of the Stache.

    I think FrankS29 has given the best advice.   I’d say you should change your mindset and stop thinking about buying an XC bike or a 27.5+ bike. Instead, think about  buying a bike that can be either of those.  The Timberjack can do that.   Granted, the Timberjack has more trail geometry vs. XC geometry, but in my experience (at least where I live) there doesn’t seem to be many bona fide XC trails anymore.   Trails just seem to be getting harder and more gnarly.  Partially because there’s a loud contingent of folks railing against the “dumbing down” of trails.  This means a tree falls across a trail, and suddenly that becomes a feature lest the trail gets “dumbed down”.  Also, bikes are so advanced now (29ers, full squish, plus and fat bikes, modern geometries) that smooth trails are undesirable by many.

    I have an SLX 27.5+ (2018 version) and I love it. I debated the 29er version (last year it wasn’t a 2.6″ tire on the 29er, more like 2.35″, I believe), but the 27.5+ is much plusher than my old XC hardtail such that  I consider it the poor man’s full suspension.  The TJ 29er I demoed last year was kind of a harsh ride as well, maybe it’s better this year with 2.6″ tires.  Anyway, my 27.5+ is a much more comfortable ride than a skinny (hardtail), and the grip is immense.  I can ride longer on this bike without feeling beat up. Granted, I’m older  (49), so that’s a factor.  I also have had a few falls in recent years that have made me more fearful and cautious in sand, on loose stuff and off camber roots and such, and those instances of fear are pretty  much completely gone on the 27.5+.   And my 27.5+ is faster than my old bike.

    Regardless, the point is the 27.5+ has definite benefits but if it turned out you wanted to go to a 29er, you’d just have to upgrade the wheelset. This can be pricey, but it’s less pricey than buying a whole new bike.

     

    in reply to: Is the old fart in shape? #241120

    I’m 49, I can ride intermediate trails now at about 8mph.  End of last summer I was at about 11mph.   A winter of fattening up has a price.

    I consider myself in fair shape now, good shape at 11mph.

    in reply to: Best Value All Mountain #240196

    rajflyboy had a good suggestion about 27.5+ hardtail.  Trek Roscoe and Salsa Timberjack can be purchased well below $1500.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)