# 29+ vs 27.5+



## Hibonite (Jan 16, 2019)

I'm a long time road touring cyclist looking to get into off-road touring and ready to buy a new plus rigid bike like the Jones Plus SWB. I'm leaning toward 27.5+ mainly for ease of transport. Is this even an issue that I should be concerned about?


----------



## injected59 (Aug 14, 2016)

Hibonite said:


> I'm a long time road touring cyclist looking to get into off-road touring and ready to buy a new plus rigid bike like the Jones Plus SWB. I'm leaning toward 27.5+ mainly for ease of transport. Is this even an issue that I should be concerned about?


Yes, I have a Kona big Honzo that came with 27.5 but I also have a 29r wwheelset. I am 5'6" tall and the bag rides pretty close to the rear wheel with the 29's. The bike also came with 2.8 but I am slowly moving away from those I rode 2.6 is this summer and I am going back to 2.3 next summer with my 29's the only thing the pluses are good for, in my opinion is for wet roots slippery rocks and stuff like that where the plus tires give you a little extra traction otherwise and you're just lugging extra weight and lower pressures. The bigger guys seem to like the plus tires better butwith my smallish frame I just seem to work harder. I know people are going to disagree with this but like I said this is just my take away.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HerrKaLeu (Aug 18, 2017)

why not buy the LWB that also can fit 29+?
with eh variable BB you can adjust Bb height a bit.

there are many reasons to choose one of the wheel and tire sizes. but transporting isn't one of them unless we talk about a folder with 20" wheels. It is all about riding.... fitting a 27+ or a 29, or 29+ in your car etc. will be nearly equally hard. the jones has a long wheel base anyway.


----------



## Hibonite (Jan 16, 2019)

Well, that's why I'm asking the question. I'm having a hard time deciding between the two wheel sizes. The biggest practical benefit I see with the slightly smaller wheel is maybe it is easier to pack for shipping, is lighter, and better handling. The only benefit to the larger wheel size is slightly better ability to roll over obstacles, but that is certainly not a unanimous opinion. The actually timed riding tests that i have seen show negligible benefits. Hence, my question.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Hibonite said:


> Well, that's why I'm asking the question. I'm having a hard time deciding between the two wheel sizes. The biggest practical benefit I see with the slightly smaller wheel is maybe it is easier to pack for shipping, is lighter, and better handling. The only benefit to the larger wheel size is slightly better ability to roll over obstacles, but that is certainly not a unanimous opinion. The actually timed riding tests that i have seen show negligible benefits. Hence, my question.


What is your height?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

bsieb said:


> What is your height?


That's the deciding factor, along with the frame in question. 29+ is the.best.rolling.tire. If you can fit it, get it.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Hibonite said:


> The only benefit to the larger wheel size is slightly better ability to roll over obstacles,


I've never wanted a smaller wheel especially on a rigid bike. For bikepacking 29+ is a great wheel/tire format. If you ride rough terrain the roll over benefit of 29+ is huge.


----------



## A/C in Az (Jan 14, 2019)

Hibonite said:


> Well, that's why I'm asking the question. I'm having a hard time deciding between the two wheel sizes. The biggest practical benefit I see with the slightly smaller wheel is maybe it is easier to pack for shipping, is lighter, and better handling. The only benefit to the larger wheel size is slightly better ability to roll over obstacles, but that is certainly not a unanimous opinion. The actually timed riding tests that i have seen show negligible benefits. Hence, my question.


I have a Trek Stache with 29+ and 27.5+ wheels. The main difference between the wheels is the 29+ does noticeably roll smoother over all obstacles. The rolling resistance when climbing is more affected by tire brand and type than 29 vs 27.5. Down hill rolling the 29+ does ultimately gain a bit more speed (there is a 1/4 mile grade up from my house to the trails I ride, so I usually just coast home after each ride) but not enough to be a great advantage.

I have both wheels sets set up tubeless. The weight difference between the 29 vs 27.5 is too small to consider in my opinion. A couple ounces isn't going to make a difference when shipping or traveling.

Riding with tubes is another story. The ride uphill with the 29+ is much more difficult than with the 27.5+ when both had tubes.

The Stache originally came with the 29+, I bought the 27.5 wheels because our trails are very technical single track. If we lived in an area that was more cross country type riding, or if we were gravel riding, rolling trails, etc, I would choose the 29+

For carrying a loaded pack, I think the 29+ would be a better choice.

I'm 5'7" on a M Stache and also a M Marin Pine Mountain 2. 
You don't need to be 6' to benefit from 29+.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

A/C in Az said:


> The Stache originally came with the 29+, I bought the 27.5 wheels because our trails are very technical single track. If we lived in an area that was more cross country type riding, or if we were gravel riding, rolling trails, etc, I would choose the 29+


All you did was lower the BB height and add rolling resistance. The handing is determined by the geometry, which is influenced by the tire size for packaging reasons, but ultimately the frame determines the handling.

The only thing a 29+ Stache doesn't like is high speed gnar (because it's still a HT), low speed gnar and high speed smoother trails is where i shines.


----------



## A/C in Az (Jan 14, 2019)

richde said:


> All you did was lower the BB height and add rolling resistance. The handing is determined by the geometry,


Since you have never ridden the same bike with the 2 different wheel sizes on the same trails repeatedly, you wouldn't know.

I have ridden the same trails more than a dozen times with each size. The 29+ rolls better and maintains a straight line better, the 27.5+ does turn much differently, it is quicker turning and more responsive. There are a couple of switchbacks that I ride repeatedly and they are MUCH easier with the 27.5+ than with the 29+ tires.

The geometry hasn't changed, all angles and measurements of the frame are unchanged. The BB and axle heights are lower, but they are in the exact same relationship to each other.

Get off your keyboard and go ride. Buy a set of rims for your bike and then post an opinion

Basics physics 101: A bicycle tire is a gyro. As the tire diameter is increased, the gyroscopic forces increase according to the square of the increase in radius. Gyroscopic forces are stabilizing forces that keep a bike moving in a straight line, that is why it is easier to keep your balance and go straight at 10 mph than at 1 foot/minute. That same gyro effect makes the tire more difficult to turn and also increases the effort required to turn a bike.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

My $0.02 after riding both setups on 2 rigid bikes, is that nothing beats 29+ for good old XC/long rides, the light weight loss of going to B+ is very much negated by it's lack of roll over and cush compared to 29+. Get a bike with the right geo for XC/Touring, run 29+ and your handling will not be slow, you will have great roll over and cush.


----------



## DougA (Apr 3, 2008)

vikb said:


> I've never wanted a smaller wheel especially on a rigid bike. For bikepacking 29+ is a great wheel/tire format. If you ride rough terrain the roll over benefit of 29+ is huge.


Agreed.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

A/C in Az said:


> Since you have never ridden the same bike with the 2 different wheel sizes on the same trails repeatedly, you wouldn't know.
> 
> I have ridden the same trails more than a dozen times with each size. The 29+ rolls better and maintains a straight line better, the 27.5+ does turn much differently, it is quicker turning and more responsive. There are a couple of switchbacks that I ride repeatedly and they are MUCH easier with the 27.5+ than with the 29+ tires.
> 
> ...


I know that a 29+ wheel can be more than agile enough when in the right frame.

If you find the inertia too great to turn quickly, I'd question your ability to turn the pedals. But I don't think that's the case, stop looking at your bike and just ride it.


----------



## c_kyle (Sep 2, 2005)

I've ridden and bikepacked on road, fire and dirt road, gravel, gentle, flowing and technical singletrack with the following tire sizes 26x2.4, 29x2.35, 29x2.2, 27.5x3.0, 27.5x2.8 and 29x2.6. I've settled on 29x2.6 as the king of tire sizes. You get the float of a 27.5+ and the fast rolling of a 29er. The only downside right now is the small number of available tires. I like more fast-rolling XC tires and there is basically just one available right now.


----------



## A/C in Az (Jan 14, 2019)

If the 29x3.0 or 3.25 will fit, they are even faster rolling than the 2.6
If you run them tubeless, they aren't very heavy.


----------



## A/C in Az (Jan 14, 2019)

c_kyle said:


> I've ridden and bikepacked on road, fire and dirt road, gravel, gentle, flowing and technical singletrack with the following tire sizes 26x2.4, 29x2.35, 29x2.2, 27.5x3.0, 27.5x2.8 and 29x2.6. I've settled on 29x2.6 as the king of tire sizes. You get the float of a 27.5+ and the fast rolling of a 29er. The only downside right now is the small number of available tires. I like more fast-rolling XC tires and there is basically just one available right now.


Your impressions are not substantiated by the facts when testing.

https://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/are-275-wheels-and-tyres-better-than-29ers-47047/

In all offload sections, the 27.5+ beats the majority of 29er tires. Only on paved roads do the narrow 29er tires win.

An interesting point in the test shows the lighter and thinner 29er did worse than the heaviest 29er tire everywhere buy on pavement.

Personal seat off the pants tasing once again is invalidated by controlled side by side controlled testing with a stop watch.


----------



## azjonboy (Dec 21, 2006)

Ride in lots of rocky terrain every ride. I’ve ridden 29+ on a rigid bike since the Knard was available. 

Ive ridden 27.5+ and 29+. I swore off the 27.5+ as a waste of time since there is no where they outperform a 29+ tire. 

I have 2 custom 29+ rigid bikes. I have a ‘18 Stache 9.7. The custom bikes take both wheels sizes. Anyone want to buy a set of Hadley’s laced to Scraper I40 rims with CX Rays in 27.5. They are much slower overall than 29+ in my humble opinion. 

The Stache, like a lot of todays frames, has a horribly low bottom bracket. Lowering it further with a 27.5+ boggles my mind.


----------



## mrclortho (May 12, 2009)

Hibonite said:


> Well, that's why I'm asking the question. I'm having a hard time deciding between the two wheel sizes. The biggest practical benefit I see with the slightly smaller wheel is maybe it is easier to pack for shipping, is lighter, and better handling. The only benefit to the larger wheel size is slightly better ability to roll over obstacles, but that is certainly not a unanimous opinion. The actually timed riding tests that i have seen show negligible benefits. Hence, my question.


You nailed it. I have two Scott bikes, one with 29's and one with 27.5+. I am only 5'-8" on a good day and don't race.

The 27.5+ is a much more enjoyable trail bike for me, more nimble, sticks better, handles better, etc... The 29er is faster and better for longer rides that are not overly technical, again for me.

If I am doing a 20+ mile, mild to moderate ride, the 29er is better. If I am hitting the trails, flicking around, and having fun, the 27.5+ is much better.

If I had to pick one, it would be the 27.5+ for sure.


----------



## oren_hershco (Mar 11, 2006)

A/C in Az said:


> Basics physics 101: A bicycle tire is a gyro. As the tire diameter is increased, the gyroscopic forces increase according to the square of the increase in radius. Gyroscopic forces are stabilizing forces that keep a bike moving in a straight line, that is why it is easier to keep your balance and go straight at 10 mph than at 1 foot/minute. That same gyro effect makes the tire more difficult to turn and also increases the effort required to turn a bike.


It's not "basic physics". It's what people who don't know physics believe. The two are usually quite far apart.

A bike is not stabilized by the gyroscopic effect of the wheels:

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonzalez/Teaching/Phys7221/vol59no9p51_56.pdf


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

oren_hershco said:


> It's not "basic physics". It's what people who don't know physics believe. The two are usually quite far apart.
> 
> A bike is not stabilized by the gyroscopic effect of the wheels:
> 
> http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonzalez/Teaching/Phys7221/vol59no9p51_56.pdf


Did you read the whole article you just linked to? He's saying that there are other forces at work as well as the gyroscopic forces. Gyroscopic forces absolutely are at work here.

I have also experimented extensively with different wheel sizes on the same bike, and my findings are exactly the same as A/CinAz. With 27+ wheels, the bike changes direction easier and is easier to navigate through techy sections that require quick steering inputs and line changes. And the 29+ obviously has better rollover and is smoother. For the techy trails in my local park I ride 27+, for longer rides and bikepacking, 29+ all the way.


----------



## c_kyle (Sep 2, 2005)

A/C in Az said:


> Your impressions are not substantiated by the facts when testing.
> 
> https://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/are-275-wheels-and-tyres-better-than-29ers-47047/
> 
> ...


LOL, OK. I believe I said, "I've settled on 29x2.6 as the king of tire sizes.", as in, it is what I like the best for bikepacking. I'm not a fan of how plus tires feel, and that is enough to keep me off of them. Whether or not some bike radar article says plus tires are faster doesn't mean much to me at all.


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

All I can say is when I switched from 27.5+ to 29+, it solved all of my problems. The same thing happened when I switched back from 29+ to 27.5+.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I have run the same bike frame
27.5+
29
29+
and now 29x2.6

29+ had by far the best rollover and is the ONLY configuration I would ride rigid. The tires were good enough to almost make rigid riding fun. I say almost because after few hundred miles I went back to suspension fork with 2.6 tires. 

The 27.5+ were more plush than 29, but that was about it. The downside was they were slower to get rolling. The 29x3.0 were not easy to get rolling, but once you did nothing stopped them. It was amazing how they would roll through minor chunder and grip in turns on loose sh!t. However their max DH speed was limited when running a rigid fork. For me it was too much work to loft very rock to prevent rim strikes. Personally I am happier with 2.6 and the fork. Almost plush enough to keep the fork locked out for smooth stuff as it provides some of 3.0 cushion and rollover, but not a bouncy and pressures sensitive as the 3.0 where a change of 1 psi was major in how the bike rode. 

I never had a chance to bikepack with the 3.0 rigid, but it can work. Ultimatly I pulled it off after doing a long ish rocky ride. The climbs were fine, but the DH were so much work to mind the front end it took the fun out of it. I could get fork that fits the 3.0, but weight is ever increasing. My current fork is Fox 32Step cast and about as light as they come. And somehow it fits a 2.6 XR2 on 35mm wheels. It just might be the happy middle ground I want.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

I suggest try stuff because we're all different sizes, weights, and ride different places. I've ridden Fargo with plus and 29r and do so much more pathway, paved and easy trail that I would not want the plus tires but thought about it when I was riding my trail bike on the Colorado trail and realized that was a spot where touring with plus would have been an advantage. 

FWIW, our Fargo with 29r Race King Protection version has a lot of float, a lot of speed, and makes it a ride all over bike the can carry stuff too. That's a MTB tire with much better than average rolling resistance and good resistance to puncture.

Last summer I tried rental and demo bikes with 29 x 2.5 and 2.6 on wider rims. They impressed me a lot. Then we re-built one of our bikes with wider 30 mm inside width rims. My opinion, of course but that setup doesn't feel as sluggish or heavy as plus tires and has some watch out for you and comfort traditional sizes don't have. A fast 2.2 and a big 2.5 both work on those rims. My suggestion is check out that sort of setup. I think the current Fargo moved to having big 29r tires, and lots of trail bikes will have them to try out.


----------



## Salubrious (Dec 21, 2015)

Hibonite said:


> I'm a long time road touring cyclist looking to get into off-road touring and ready to buy a new plus rigid bike like the Jones Plus SWB. I'm leaning toward 27.5+ mainly for ease of transport. Is this even an issue that I should be concerned about?


I have a Jones Plus with 29+ tires. I'm 5'11".

It rules in single track. I've taken it on some pretty long rides (+750 miles) bikepacking and the comfort level is the best I've had on any bike. So I've managed to get the wheels into some pretty small cars (I have a Honda Insight) and in boxes for the airlines, so I wouldn't worry about the 29+ being too big.

DH is a gas- the bike is effortless and easier to manage than my Cutthroat, which I had equipped with a suspension fork. Tire pressure of course is a big deal; I weigh about 200 pounds and the bike was about 55 with all its gear; I had 14-15 pounds in the front.


----------



## alias (May 9, 2005)

Don't forget that any steering changes felt are also related to the change in effective Rake and Trail measurements which are a direct result of the wheel diameter change. This is not the only difference, but its a significant one if simply swapping 29+ to 27+. Also note that anyone here trying to compare their experience to yours in this case are not really helping as the changes described above are of course directly related to head angle fork length and offset....meaning bike specific.


----------



## climbingryan (10 mo ago)

Salubrious said:


> I have a Jones Plus with 29+ tires. I'm 5'11".
> 
> It rules in single track. I've taken it on some pretty long rides (+750 miles) bikepacking and the comfort level is the best I've had on any bike. So I've managed to get the wheels into some pretty small cars (I have a Honda Insight) and in boxes for the airlines, so I wouldn't worry about the 29+ being too big.
> 
> DH is a gas- the bike is effortless and easier to manage than my Cutthroat, which I had equipped with a suspension fork. Tire pressure of course is a big deal; I weigh about 200 pounds and the bike was about 55 with all its gear; I had 14-15 pounds in the front.


Can you fit your bike and wheels in a Honda Insight?! I've only been able to just squeeze my road bike inside my 2001 Insight!. I've been wondering a better system to possibly fit bikes somehow given todays fuel costs!


----------



## Salubrious (Dec 21, 2015)

I have an Insight, but its a 2019. I had a 2013 as well; the Jones fits in either.


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

Hibonite said:


> I'm a long time road touring cyclist looking to get into off-road touring and ready to buy a new plus rigid bike like the Jones Plus SWB. I'm leaning toward 27.5+ mainly for ease of transport. Is this even an issue that I should be concerned about?


29 is more available.


----------



## Salubrious (Dec 21, 2015)

29" usually has a better roll over. I took my Jones on the Colorado Trail this last summer and the roll over was very helpful! 2.5" to 2.6" has become a more common size for use on 29ers and the Jones handles that just fine.


----------

