Reccomend a 650b Plus Steel Frame?

[Escape Goat]

I'm looking and struggling to find a steel MTB frame that will take 650b x 3 inch tyres. Does anyone have one in mind they can share with me? I'm not looking too expensive at all, may end up with an alloy frontier if I can't find much.

Many thanks!

[woodsmith]

I absolutley love my Surly ECR 27.5. Only available up to medium size though.

[Supernova]

Genesis Longitude

[middleagedmadness]

I had a longitude , absolutely loved it but it got nicked, don’t think you’ll get 3” in the rear as the 2.8’s can start to clean your chain if it’s completely caggy, Mr Northwind put a 3 in the front but not sure what he got in the back maybe worth messaging him if that’s what your interested in , it rode lovely , but not the best for lifting over gates when loaded

[Charliecres]

Stooge - all but Mk1 will fit 27x3 in the back, I think. Mk1 should take a 2.8.

Kona Unit?

Brother Big Bro?

[Alpinum]

I had a longitude , absolutely loved it but it got nicked, don’t think you’ll get 3” in the rear as the 2.8’s can start to clean your chain if it’s completely caggy

Because 3" requires boost?

I'm looking and struggling to find a steel MTB frame that will take 650b x 3 inch tyres. Does anyone have one in mind they can share with me?

I could name many 27.5 x 3" steel frames, but google can do the same. Bikepacking.com, for one, has a list of plus steel frame.

Once you have a few in mind you can go further and look for tyre clearance photos and comments to make sure it's true.

I have a Surly Krampus and a Pipedream Moxie. Both will take a 27.5 x 3" tyre.

My Moxie will just about take Maxxis 27.5 x 3" tyres on i35 mm and the newer Version have 10 mm longer chainstays, so have a tad more space. I can highly recommend this bike. A real 3" on a 40 mm rim may not fit though.

Most will be fooled by the numbers of the Moxie, but they just don't know it better and haven't tried how it actually rides.
10 x more fun to ride on any terrain than the Krampus. Frame finish is a different class too.
Surly is just cheap made stuff sold expensive thanks to good marketing and courage.

I know a few who ride Nordest Sardinha and say good things about it. Same for Kona Unit and Honzo.
A mate rides a Stanton Sherpa, likes it too.
Another got a Tumbleweed Prospector, but isn't too happy with it, huge amount of clearance with 27.5 x 3". He might sell it.

I rode some of the above and Kona Honzo amd Stanton Sherpa where by far the best feeling bikes. Fun inducing, simple and pure fun and comfy geo for long rides. Especially with Kona you get loads of bike for the money. The Tumbly Prospector rides awful and is expensive for what you get.

There's many out there. I guess I'd focus the question to 'what specific tyre and rim combination' and then finding the suitable frame. Maxxis 3" are more like Schwalbe 2.8" and I can imagine when you're looking for a 3" capable frame, it should also fit the widest of plus tyres, like Vee's 3.25" offerings. And that's where things narrow down.

Edited since I missed the verb "know".

[Supernova]

I’m running 3” Nobby Nics in my Longitude at the moment with room to spare.

Mine is the 2017 version so there may be some variance there.

It’s the most comfortable bike I’ve ever had!

[Escape Goat]

Thanks all. Been looking for about a month in and off, 2.8 is really found, but theres one or two brands mentioned above I didn't think of.

[lune ranger]

Salsa Fargo. In the older Frames (?pre 2018) you can squeeze 27+ just about.
On newer models you can run 27+ with no issues at all.

[lune ranger]

Because 3" requires boost?

No it doesn’t.
My old green Krampus is 135mm QR standard with a 68mm BB and runs 3” tyres on 55mm rims (i49mm)
The clearance isn’t super wide but is perfectly adequate for a Dartmoor winter.

[Alpinum]

No it doesn’t.

Cheers.
Wasn't sure and too lazy to look it up/use my brain.

[Bearbonesnorm]

My MKI Stooge will happily accept 3" on 40mm rims Allen.

[Mr conners]

Karate monkey
Bloody brilliant bike. Takes 3” with the rigid fork but I’m not sure if you can get a sus fork to take this size tyre.

[AlasdairMc]

If the frame is designed right, you can get away with a 135mm rear hub on a fat bike. Just need to build it asymmetric and dish it to hell.

There was a Shand in the classifieds which is now on eBay - sadly it’s a 170mm rear

[fatbikephil]

Karate Monkey, Jones SWB, Cotic Solaris max.

[ssnowman]

Veloheld Iron. A very nice looking German frame.

[woodsmith]

It would seem (sadly) that 27.5 x 3.0 is on its way out in favour of 2.8,, so buying a frame which will "only" clear 2.8 may not be a real issue in the future.

[Hamish]

I have a Mk1 longitude and it struggles with 29 x 3" tyres. I have gone down to 2.6 at the back for this reason. So, how do you get a non boost to properly clear a 3" tyre without terrible chainline? 650b wheels would surely suffer from worse chainline as the angle between the rim and the biggest gear is even steeper.

I was thinking of going back to 2x on it and forgetting the innermost sprocket. Boost doesn't seem to push the big sprocket out that far so swapping the frame for a boost frame hardly seems worth it.

Interested to hear some negative things about the Tumbleweed which I have been eyeing up for a while.... Does it ride badly unladen because it is built stiff and heavy for riding loaded or is it something else?

[Escape Goat]

Few more decent suggestions there! Stuffs looking pretty pricey though. Thanks for all the suggestions though!

[woodsmith]

I was thinking of going back to 2x on it and forgetting the innermost sprocket. Boost doesn't seem to push the big sprocket out that far so swapping the frame for a boost frame hardly seems worth it.

Interested to hear some negative things about the Tumbleweed which I have been eyeing up for a while.... Does it ride badly unladen because it is built stiff and heavy for riding loaded or is it something else?

Can't speak to the chainline as I use a Rohloff ( 54mm chainline) but I think the Tumbleweed should be very similar to my ECR. They have very similar geometry, the Tumbleweed having a slightly longer wheelbase and a BB drop -8/+4mm different to the ECR depending on the position of the EBB

https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geomet ... 0017243004

[jameso]

https://bikepacking.com/bikes/tumblewee ... or-review/
Tubleweed review here. Seems to be more of the all terrain touring shape than progressive MTB but that's no bad thing, depends on what you're looking for. The set screw EBB design is a negative for me but plenty use them w/o issues, I just don't like that fixing method vs the alternatives. Designing a bike around +tyres and IGH to use std cranks and chainline is a good idea.

So, how do you get a non boost to properly clear a 3" tyre without terrible chainline?

As I think you're suggesting, possibly by getting hold of a cassette that can lose the smallest sprocket (the 11) and lockring fit to the 12 or locktite-d against the 13T. Add a spacer behind the cassette to shift it over to the frame side.

[Alpinum]

Does it ride badly unladen because it is built stiff and heavy for riding loaded or is it something else?

Cramped position when sitting and utterly cramped when standing despite a huge seat and head tube.

Nervous handling up front.
Unnecessarily stiff in the rear, yet still quite some lateral movement of the rear wheel, soft in the front and fork. QR surely didn't help.

It's also a good example of how long chainstays take life out of a bike.
It felt dead.
Also the XT cranks struck the chainstay under forceful inputs.

Seems to be more of the all terrain touring shape than progressive MTB

My most all terrain bike has a 66 ° ha, 77 ° sa, 491 mm reach and rides lovely, loaded or not. Obviously, I'd have gone shorter on the cs, but going full fat to accommodate 5" tyres asks for some space, 452 mm in the shortest position.
Rode this for most of the time during a 6 week holiday. Fully loaded, high handlebar position. I've never ridden in so much comfort. Lovely.
Rode it later lightly loaded, lower handlebar position. Still lovely.
Thanks to the short ht I can adjust bar height freely (opposed to most touring bikes) and fit any type of fork to the bike.

All terrain touring shape, progresssive MTB... where's the difference? Perhaps the understanding of comfort and handling are simply old fashioned for some with a touring background and no or little overlap into mountainbiking? Some might need to accept that the long, low, slack works really well not just in steep alpine terrain during short stints.

I'll just lean back and wait 'till more touringbike building traditionalists start using what some - even after 3 - 4 years - still call progressive/modern/aggressive MTB geo. Gravel bikes are going through that transition right now. More touringbikes will surely follow. As is already the case with a few companies (eg QBP brands).

[jameso]

Cramped position when sitting and utterly cramped when standing despite a huge seat and head tube.
Nervous handling up front.
Unnecessarily stiff in the rear, yet still quite some lateral movement of the rear wheel, soft in the front and fork. QR surely didn't help.

Yet it's longer reach than my rigid bikepacker MTB and I'm a bit over 6'. It's slacker than my bike by half a degree with a bit less offset. And the stays are about the same length as my bike, a bike which proves that 'life' and chainstay length aren't linked in the way many suggest. It's also QR. And I 'kin love my bike, have done big rides and plenty of technical riding on it. What I'm getting at is it's all so subjective, we can't say one bike is wrong because we prefer something different for our own use.

I'll just lean back and wait 'till more touringbike building traditionalists start using what some - even after 3 - 4 years - still call progressive/modern/aggressive MTB geo. Gravel bikes are going through that transition right now. More touringbikes will surely follow. As is already the case with a few companies (eg QBP brands).

A transition where it will be interesting to see what sticks. I've been riding gravel bikes with those MTB-ish sort of numbers for a fair while but it just wasn't an 'ah-ha!' like the forward geometry influence was on MTBs. Just a pro-con thing. imo/ime geometry can't fix the set of opposing needs and balances with gravel bike range - not in the way that LLS has moved FS + HT MTBs on. I mean, yes we could build an aggro LLS rigid 29er with drop bars and some could call it a gravel bike, I'll just call it an XC 29er with bad bar choice : )

RE 'Progressive' , could call it alternative - progression suggests improvement, it's an improvement in unloaded MTBs yes, for other bikes in some situations sure maybe maybe not. Some builders will move their designs on and some won't. Neither is wrong, the one who's wrong is one who can't justify why they do what they do and hasn't tried the alternatives. There's a lot of 'the new school invalidates the old school' thinking in bike geometry, always has been. Nothing is sacred and equally there's a lot that's been learned and fine-tuned and is there to build on rather than think everything is waiting to be disrupted.

Only this lunch time I was riding a bike with classic bend road bars on, thinking how much more I like them than the compact curve lowers of the last 10 years or more. It's a bit like that line about how as I get older my Dad's taste in music seems so much better

[Alpinum]

Cramped position when sitting and utterly cramped when standing despite a huge seat and head tube.
Nervous handling up front.
Unnecessarily stiff in the rear, yet still quite some lateral movement of the rear wheel, soft in the front and fork. QR surely didn't help.

Yet it's longer reach than my rigid bikepacker MTB and I'm a bit over 6'. It's slacker than my bike by half a degree with a bit less offset. And the stays are about the same length as my bike, a bike which proves that 'life' and chainstay length aren't linked in the way many suggest. It's also QR. And I 'kin love my bike, have done big rides and plenty of technical riding on it. What I'm getting at is it's all so subjective, we can't say one bike is wrong because we prefer something different for our own use.

I'll just lean back and wait 'till more touringbike building traditionalists start using what some - even after 3 - 4 years - still call progressive/modern/aggressive MTB geo. Gravel bikes are going through that transition right now. More touringbikes will surely follow. As is already the case with a few companies (eg QBP brands).

A transition where it will be interesting to see what sticks. I've been riding gravel bikes with those MTB-ish sort of numbers for a fair while but it just wasn't an 'ah-ha!' like the forward geometry influence was on MTBs. Just a pro-con thing. imo/ime geometry can't fix the set of opposing needs and balances with gravel bike range - not in the way that LLS has moved FS + HT MTBs on. I mean, yes we could build an aggro LLS rigid 29er with drop bars and some could call it a gravel bike, I'll just call it an XC 29er with bad bar choice : )

RE 'Progressive' , could call it alternative - progression suggests improvement, it's an improvement in unloaded MTBs yes, for other bikes in some situations sure maybe maybe not. Some builders will move their designs on and some won't. Neither is wrong, the one who's wrong is one who can't justify why they do what they do and hasn't tried the alternatives. There's a lot of 'the new school invalidates the old school' thinking in bike geometry, always has been. Nothing is sacred and equally there's a lot that's been learned and fine-tuned and is there to build on rather than think everything is waiting to be disrupted.

Only this lunch time I was riding a bike with classic bend road bars on, thinking how much more I like them than the compact curve lowers of the last 10 years or more. It's a bit like that line about how as I get older my Dad's taste in music seems so much better

Hear hear...

it's all so subjective, we can't say one bike is wrong because we prefer something different for our own use.

Sorry man, I speak for everybody and spawn objectivity everytime I break wind.
You have to accept that.

[Alpinum]

Off to go shopping. Choice is 64.3 or 63.2 ° ha. The flatter must be better.
Not touching the bike with 68 °, since it's unridable according to how my words are understood.