650B+ or 29+

[Chrisps]

In a bit of a quandary as to what to get! I am getting a new bicycle for a mix of commuting (5 miles road, 5 miles offroad with a serious climb and a purpose built downhill track), winter riding, less-techy bikepacking (e.g. Trans-Cambrian type route) and the GDMBR next year.

I am quite close to pulling the trigger on a 29+ (http://www.traversbikes.com/russti.html - Michael T has been amazingly helpful). I am 6'3", so 29+ sounds great for monster rollover and the ability to just drop some 2.3s on the rims (I'm planning on getting some nice carbon rims to reduce weight). However, I had a bit of a wobble because of the seemingly waning support for 29+ (not that many tyres, the fact there aren't really any suspension forks), not to mention the price which was getting scary high for a rigid!

That got me looking at 27.5+ (specifically the Sonder Broken Road). One big advantage is its non-boost rear hub, which means I could share 29er wheels with my Salsa Spearfish (which I absolutely love) and also potentially put the 27.5+s with WTB Trailblazers onto the Spearfish to get a different style of ride.

As far as I see it, the pros are:
Broken Road:
Better compatibility with my existing bike
Significantly cheaper
Seems to be the "winning" standard - lots of support, no risk of tyres and forks getting hard to source

29+ RussTi:
Better rollover (anyone able to comment on how noticeable the difference is?
Probably a better "fit" for my tall frame

I have read a few threads about the differences on MTBR, but they all seem to focus on trail riding / thrashing. Any thoughts on here?

Thanks!

[JohnClimber]

Warning very bias reply coming up (ref signature)

I have had the Travers 29er+ in it's rigid form since early 2014

Mine is the Angus which is Rohloff and SS specific


But as I'm getting older I've gone for a Lauf Carbonara fork on the frame (which Michael can get you a great deal on as well)


And it's brought the bike alive, the fork really does absorb the ride and i wouldn't go back to rigid ever again.
In total I've done 4500 miles on it and it's perfect for bike backing, mines a medium frame and I'm 5'8"

The really good thing about this set up is that it's maintenance free, titanium can be left covered in crud and wait for it to dry before you just dust it off (if you can be bothered) before your next ride. A true bike for life.

[Pat]

I've got a spearfish too, which I love!
I've also got a 29+ Trek stache, that I love equally!
I'm a bit concerned about the apparent lack of tyre choice too, but can't help thinking that 29+ is a better bike for what I do....long distance (relatively) XC stuff, as opposed to any jumpy, technical, bonebreaky stuff.
If I could afford it, I would have got the Travers, as a local bike shop mate has a Travers Ti tandem, and it is vaguely exciting!
I think the 650b/+ route has been dictated by the industry, as it is easier to design frames around the format......my tuppenceworth anyway

[whitestone]

Pat - the 650b+ seems to be as much happenstance as anything in that it was luck that they were able to fit into most 29er frames. That's the case with my Mk1 Solaris, Cy at Cotic realised this and the Mk2 has increased clearance for the B+ wheels/tyres. The increased diameter of 29+ wheels probably restricts their use to the taller rider as you need a big frame to take them. The smaller size of 650b+ allows more riders to take advantage so the industry is going to go that route first.

[Pat]

Yeah, it makes sense.... To be fair, I've been thinking about a set of 650b+ wheels for my stache for winter duties, so I can equip them with some dedicated mud tyres and still have decent clearance.... It's annoying, as I bought the stache for winter mud plugging duties and to keep my spearfish nice!

[Mariner]

Do you really need 29+?
My 650b Stooge will take 29er x 3 front and 2.4 max rear.

[GregMay]

Simple reply. With roughly 61,000m of climbing and 4,400km of riding on dirt - chose the lightest bike with the highest rolling speed you can for the Divide.

In my eyes this is neither of your suggestion - it's a 29er with fast rolling tyres.

If you want a fun bike 27.5+ is a nice place to look.
If you want a comfortable bike 29+ is a nice place to look.

Boring point- 27.5+ setup for my Spearfish also work fine in my Cutthroat. But no where near as fast, but more fun for normal MTB riding. I'd not take it on the Divide with the B+ setup. It'll be rolling 29*2.35.

We know my opinions on the flexy lauff forks.

[whitestone]

I think I'd be inclined to agree with you Greg about very long distance rides like the TD. However when I swapped out my regular 29er wheels for 650B+ and did the same test ride up in the Dales I was faster on nearly every part with the B+. I wore an HRM and my top and average heart rates for each segment were all but the same - some were one bpm higher, some one bpm lower. For the whole ride the B+ were about 7% quicker.

There may have been some "new gear halo effect" but I'd had the wheels for a while and I was deliberately trying to ride at the same perceived effort. I only did one lap on each set of wheels so there's no statistical significance. I was fairly certain that some Strava segments would be quicker with the B+ tyres as they are rubbly which suits bigger tyres but to be quicker on nearly all of them was a surprise, most were PBs which is even more surprising.

Downsides - they are heavier, nearly 1.5Kg heavier and that's all rotating mass. Over the course of a full day's riding let alone 20 that extra weight begins to tell. They are non-standard and for something like the TD I would reckon that having something that every bike shop would have spares for is a bonus.

[GregMay]

Interesting, I've pretty much had the total opposite experience over standard courses I test kit on locally. Both on my Spearfish and CT - hence the B+ setup never got a look in on the Divide.

[Welsh Steve]

I ride 650b for pretty much everything and love it. I find a the compromises of a 29er (geometry/flex/wheel flex/extra rotating mass) too much, except.............

.............for anything with longer distance involved. I've done a fair bit of marathon racing and wouldn't consider anything other than a 29er for that.

Not done much Bivi biking yet, but so far I would say the 29er is the weapon of choice. With extra weight on the bike, the disadvantages of the bigger wheels are going to be invalid. The extra tyre size and ease of rolling will help with the extra weight.

Not ridden a B+ bike so cant answer that. The extra tyre volume may help with extra weight, even more so on soft ground. I have ridden a fat bike and didn't like the undamped tyre bounce, but the B+ could be a good middle ground.

Cheers.
Steve.

[Chrisps]

Thanks for the replies everyone - really helpful!

@JohnClimber - Do you ever run 29x2.2 / 29x2.3 on the Traver's frame? What is the BB height like? Does it get a bit sketchy with pedal strikes? The specs sound like the BB is quite low anyway? The Lauf forks look interesting, but I don't have a spare kidney to sell! I also want a fork with Anything mounts really.

@GregMay - My thinking on the TD was that a BikeRadar article (http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/artic ... ers-47047/) suggested that plus tyres seemed to roll better on Fireroad. Also, my feet get beaten up on my 26er hardtail, and having heard horror stories about washboard, it got me wondering.... We won't be racing as such (well, only racing our return flights home!) so have 30 days. If it doesn't look like we will make it, we can bail back to Denver.

Am quite keen to try a 650b+ setup in my Spearfish - sounds interesting! Any clearance issues? Were you using Reba 29 non boost up front? Interesting to know that it is noticably slower.

@whitestone - How did you find the 650b+ vs 29er on fireroad type terrain? On the non-tech climbs, did you feel the extra weight? Good point about being able to find parts!

Obviously the TD is only 30 days of this bikes life, so also very keen on "getting it right" for general UK bikepacking (lets take TransCambrian or HTR type route and an example).

Normally I use my Spearfish as I like the comfort of the rear travel. But Having more front triangle space and no worries about pivots / shocks etc is appealing.

So, for general UK bikepacking, do you reckon 29+ would have a big advantage over 27.5+, weight and rollover considered?

I have to say, seeming lack of support in the fork and tyre department for 29+ does concern me...

Thanks!

[whitestone]

B+ was comfier on tracks that you might characterise as rough gravel. They dealt with the high frequency chatter much better. The undamped suspension of the tyres can catch you out though

[Chrisps]

My understanding is that the 29+ format isn't as bad on being caught out by the lack of damping because of lower sidewalls compared to B+?

[fatbikephil]

If your going rigid 29+ beats 650+ in terms of its ability to ride through dips and holes and through boulder fields. My Krampus does this better than my old 26er '5 with 6" travel forks. People bang on about 650 + being faster accellerating etc. but in real terms it doesn't matter plus on a big frame 29+ looks better too! Most 3" tyre profiles are the same so no difference in sidewall depth between the 2 sizes.

[Bearbonesnorm]

My advice would be get a ride on both.

I enjoy riding either but often end up feeling that a full blown 29+ on the rear is pretty much over-kill for most situations ... however, I should say that I dislike feeling that I'm hauling additional heft around for no reason. I also think that a law should be passed making it illegal to fit + sized wheels / tyres to anything that isn't rigid.

[ton]

29+ is the thing that us +sized blokes have been waiting for. a well know calderdale based bike designer once told me that a mountain of a man needs rims to suit.
50mm with 3'' tyres works perfect with the forces created by a huge load going throught them whilst cornering. no more crisscrossed tyre walls wearing through.

and on a Jones+ they look vaguely exciting.......imho

[ScotRoutes]

As you've noticed, the options for 29+ tyres and forks are sparse. There's just no getting away from the fact that it's a huge wheel and so only really works for larger folk. Little wonder the industry is prioritising a market that's made up of more average sized customers.

As regards the wheel weight thing with Plus bikes, a fatter tyre might mean no need for suspension so you could save 1kg right there.

[Pat]

The weight thing is a myth with chupacabras on my trek.... They are very leightweight and spin up a treat. I notice the wind a lot more on it, but the levels of grip (when the surface is right!) and the ride more than make up for it! I know ton tried the stache and found it flexy, but for me, coming off my spearfish, it feels solid as a rock

[Chrisps]

I tried a 27.5+ at a demo day (a Specilized full sus - probably a Stuntjumper, but can't remember). That was fun around a trail centre, which is kind of what got me thinking beyond "plus, how ridiculous!" I have no idea where I could try a 29+ though, as the local Trek dealer doesn't have a Stash in a vaguely suitable size.

For either 27.5 or 29, i was thinking of getting 38 (32 internal) rims, as this seems to be what Cotic thinks works well on their bikes. It also seems to be a nice compromise to get high quality 29 rims, as you could still run standard 2.3s on the same rims. Any thoughts?

[Bearbonesnorm]

For either 27.5 or 29, i was thinking of getting 38 (32 internal) rims, as this seems to be what Cotic thinks works well on their bikes. It also seems to be a nice compromise to get high quality 29 rims, as you could still run standard 2.3s on the same rims. Any thoughts?

My thoughts are ... 'plus' isn't just about tyres, it's also about rims and unless you run a 'proper' sized rim you aren't gaining the benefits and in some instances, are just carrying additional weight for no real gain.

[Chrisps]

For either 27.5 or 29, i was thinking of getting 38 (32 internal) rims, as this seems to be what Cotic thinks works well on their bikes. It also seems to be a nice compromise to get high quality 29 rims, as you could still run standard 2.3s on the same rims. Any thoughts?

My thoughts are ... 'plus' isn't just about tyres, it's also about rims and unless you run a 'proper' sized rim you aren't gaining the benefits and in some instances, are just carrying additional weight for no real gain.

Yeah, I thought that initially, but the WTB i35 and i29 (front / rear) seems to be what Cotic feels best for their bikes (as opposed to the wider WTB Scraper, I guess)... your feeling is that those inner widths are too narrow?

[Bearbonesnorm]

your feeling is that those inner widths are too narrow?

Cotic, just like any number of other manufacturers don't have a dedicated plus frame, so fitting narrower rims is a way of squeezing in plus sized tyres and not missing the boat*. There's a real difference between riding something fitted with a 3" tyre on a 30mm rim and something with 40mm or wider rims ... just because something will fit, doesn't mean you should or that there'll be any real benefit from doing so.




*I could be a cynical b'sard.

[Chrisps]

Ok, thanks!

[Bearbonesnorm]

If it helps, a 2.4" Conti X-King comes up really big on a 30mm rim, gives lots of volume and doesn't weigh much.

EDIT: Forgot something, If you were happy to run 2.8" tyres such as the Trail Blazer, then the narrower rim should work okay. On a wider rim, the 2.8" gets pulled a little too square, especially for use up front.

[Chrisps]

Thanks... wonder if the x-king would fit in the frame.

How different a ride is the 2.8 Trailblazer compared to say the 3 Chronicle (I am talking in terms of feel from the volume as opposed to differing tread patterns etc)?