# WTB Trailblazer 2.8



## intheways (Apr 19, 2004)

I can't wait to try some of these bad boys. I'm not in love with 29+, but these look perfect for is mid size folks.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Links are usually a pretty good thing to have.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2014)

Slow Danger said:


> Links are usually a pretty good thing to have.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...2246204.1073741834.23307501203&type=1&theater


----------



## intheways (Apr 19, 2004)

nvphatty said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...2246204.1073741834.23307501203&type=1&theater


Muchas gracias


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

That's their 27.5+ tire.


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

Since they are 4 mm shorter in overall wheel height than a 29 x 2.2" tire you could have an "almost" mid-fat bike if they fit. I went right out to the garage and measured.

I've got about 77mm of space at the seat stays... so depending on height of actual tire they would just fit on my 29er..... with 650B wheels of course.

mike


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

I think I read that Vee was coming out with a wide 27.5 tire as well…like 3.0-3.2 or something. I expect we'll be seeing a number of other players in the mix as well in the next year.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

senor_mikey said:


> Since they are 4 mm shorter in overall wheel height than a 29 x 2.2" tire you could have an "almost" mid-fat bike if they fit. I went right out to the garage and measured.
> 
> I've got about 77mm of space at the seat stays... so depending on height of actual tire they would just fit on my 29er..... with 650B wheels of course.
> 
> mike


The reason it is a 2.8 instead of a 3.0 or 3.25 is because at the slightly lesser volume it improves its chances of fitting in to existing 29" frames without modification allowing for a chance to experience + style volume for just the cost of a set of wheels and tires, which arguably is plenty these days.

The reality is that it due to it's actual diameter being so close to 29"es it won't change a conventional 29"ers geometry much if any and there are lots of suspension forks that will accommodate it. RM is billing this as an adventure tire but I feel it is more than that and can become the everyman's entry in to higher volume for whatever their needs may be.


----------



## slowride454 (Jan 11, 2014)

I want to try this in the back of my SS rig. I have a Krampus fork on it so maybe a knard in front and the trailblazer in the back for winter commuting.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Living in the land of zero traction, this sized tire/wheel combo is interesting to me as a front wheel only, conventional 29er in the back...... more traction, still decent rolling....


----------



## RockyJo1 (Jul 23, 2012)

Wonder if they will fit my Altitude?


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

Does anyone have any info on availability ??


----------



## intheways (Apr 19, 2004)

Give WTB a call. Mine should be here by Wed!


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

Intheways, what frame are they going on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## intheways (Apr 19, 2004)

I just ordered one for sizing. Initially it will go on an Misfit Dissent, but I'm currently looking at FS frames. I'm rehabbing a knee surgery and won't be riding offroad for about 6 mos. This is a project to occupy me in the meantime.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

I was thinking of making my SC Tallboy into a 27.5+. Looks like I have enough room. Lots of Sandy trails on Cape Cod. It would be a low fat bike vs my ML'r. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## intheways (Apr 19, 2004)

thecanoe said:


> I was thinking of making my SC Tallboy into a 27.5+. Looks like I have enough room. Lots of Sandy trails on Cape Cod. It would be a low fat bike vs my ML'r.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is one frame that I'm looking at. Let us know if you try it out.

My biggest dilemma right now is what rim to try. My first thought was a Blunt 35, but I don't know how well it will play with the Trailblazer.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Just in case you guys missed this: WTB Trailblazer 27.5 X 2.8" Tires: Exclusive B+ Review Intro


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

Slow Danger said:


> Just in case you guys missed this: WTB Trailblazer 27.5 X 2.8" Tires: Exclusive B+ Review Intro


Yeah I think the idea is solid, but if people read the above review the tester can't fit the B+ rim on the appropriate 45mm WTB rims in the rear triangles of all the fs bikes he tried.

A 25mm rim probably "works" with a few mm's of clearance but from my armchair engineering background there will potentially be too much squirm of that tire on a skinny rim -- especially on a full suspension bike you will want to push hard into corners.


----------



## ultraspontane (May 26, 2011)

Again with the super narrow tread relative to the casing. Why?


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

ultraspontane said:


> Again with the super narrow tread relative to the casing. Why?


Supposedly it was designed with "Adventure Biking" in mind. Example: Rocky Mountain Sherpa.


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

ultraspontane said:


> Again with the super narrow tread relative to the casing. Why?


because it was designed to fit in existing 29er frames which don't have 80mm between stays at the tread edge. The wider casing gives more float and is aft of the tread where there is usually more room.

check out the pics on this site... bunch of them have the proto RM Sherpa with 650B+ WTB tires Limberlost ? Lost in Idaho ? Idaho City to Smiley Creek Lodge

looks like they ride pretty nice!


----------



## ultraspontane (May 26, 2011)

senor_mikey said:


> because it was designed to fit in existing 29er frames which don't have 80mm between stays at the tread edge. The wider casing gives more float and is aft of the tread where there is usually more room.
> 
> check out the pics on this site... bunch of them have the proto RM Sherpa with 650B+ WTB tires Limberlost ? Lost in Idaho ? Idaho City to Smiley Creek Lodge
> 
> looks like they ride pretty nice!


So its basically a compromise based on the limited clearance of regular frames.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Yep. I think part of the perception problem for this tire is that it has been linked so closely with the RM Sherpa. People see it as part of a new platform, and have plus+ expectations of it. Based on the early reports on size and tread width, WTB really sees it as a tire for 29 inch bikes. I'm wondering if the Sherpa will end up being able to fit wider tires if it hits production. There are a handful of 29er tires with a greater tread width than this Trailblazer, at least on paper. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, so it'll be interesting to see what comes of it, and how many people find it a great option.

Edit: more real world information showed up in this thread after I posted:

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/29-tire-choices-900173-5.html


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

For those who have bought a Trailblazer how is the clearance for the frame and wheel setup you try..

I'm looking at a Niner Air9 and Derby rim.. inside rim width is 35mm
will report back when I get it together.. chain stay looks like its going to be a pretty tight fit




update:
no worky on an Air9
full chainstay contact to tire..


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

I'll be real interested in the fit. I was thinking of doing the same. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

About halfway down. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

I posted this in another thread, forgot to post it here. I got my Trailblazers last week. Mounted them up on a set of Derby 40mm rims. Mounted and aired up tubeless very easily with a floor pump. I measure them at 60mm thread width and 70mm casing width. That's right after mounting and at 30psi, but I expect they will grow a bit with use. They are a bit heavier than expected, mine came in at 933g and 948g. I mounted them in a Jones Ti Spaceframe, and they fit no problem. Couple of pictures below. I have not ridden them yet, so no feedback there. I just heard that the Vee Trax Fatty 27.5x3.25 will be released in the next week or two. Now I'm trying to decide if I should ride these or wait for the Trax Fatty, which should be wider.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

Hmmmm... I have a 29er XC bike (J9RDO) and a 29er commuter bike (on 35mm urban tires).

For the cost of a cheap AL wheelset (that I could build up myself) and some tires, I could have a winter XC & urban touring set up....

Very, very interesting :thumbsup:


----------



## Tincup69 (Sep 5, 2012)

Wonder if I could wedge these in my Fuel?


----------



## Futon River Crossing (Jan 28, 2007)

They certainly look huge! Go ride it!!  now


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

What I have come to discover, and I have yet to ride the Trailblazer any further than around the block, is that for my needs the ability to run 15psi all day with speed and comfort is key. And it is funny because the ability to do this has actually been available to me since Kris Holme came out with his 50mm wide unicycle rims.

How I found this out was my son, who lives in Oakland, asked me to help him locate a single speed to use as a commuter. He has been riding a fixed gear in the city for a number of years but he is apt to let a flat tire sit for a month before fixing it. Anyway he wants a higher volume tire and simple.

So off to CL I go with the option of three different markets here in the PNW. Not much going on at first but concurrently with a trip to the PDX a Redline Monocog showed up for $450. A bit steep but it was listed with a set of wheels consisting of Phil hubs and Kris Holme rims. Oh and a White Industries 2 sod freewheel. The tires are some Vee Rubber models that are sized 2.2.

Couldn't pass up the deal and even got some money off at time of sale. There is no use in sending that nice a wheel set to Oakland to get ripped off so I tossed them on to my Willits






. They fit well enough considering the fact that this bike started life in 1996 as a 26"er and was converted to 29" wheels in 2000.

I aired them up to 25psi and started to ride around on gravel and kept stopping and letting out air until I felt maxed out on both ends. Still ridable but becoming noticeably soft. Checked pressures and it was at 10psi in the front and 12psi in the rear. I reset at 15psi in the front and 17psi in the rear and that seems to be just about right.

The first thing I noticed was that they didn't spool up quite as fast as the set of Mavic Open Pros with Nanoraptors they replaced but it sure didn't take long for the gyro effect to take over and quite frankly I got the same experience I got in 99' when i first rode a Nanoraptor in comparison to a 26" wheel. Which coincidentally was another 15psi decrease in pressure as I rode 45 +/_psi in 26" for years and the Nanos were set at 30psi.

The second thing I noticed was pretty severe oversteer at low speeds. Not unlike my experience with 4" tires but not as pronounced. But after riding them now for a few days I have gotten used to it and it really isn't a bad thing, just different than I am used to.

The third thing I noticed was that the small bump compliance was really good. A very smooth ride over gravel, expansion joints, curbs and just about anything that I was willing to ride in sandals and no helmet cruising around the area. But at the same time it felt just as fast as my last setup while underway. Which is good enough for me anyway.

The fourth thing I noticed was at any speed over 5 mph the front end also acted differently with a tendency towards oversteer. But as an old motorcyclist I have been familiar with counter steering for years, and although I have used it some over the years on my mtb's it never felt consistently advantageous to do it as a matter of rote. I tried it and for this setup it works. and well, every time it seems. The front end lays over nicely with very neutral steering and good grip resulting in a fluid turn not unlike a motorcycle actually. YMMV of course.

No telling anyone here the advantages of wider rims but they certainly seem to be the key element in this whole fat/+ equation. The B+ tires coming out should help take this concept to the next level. By using different inner width rims you can get a setup that should fit most existing frames although the narrower you go the higher pressure you will need to run. But I still think that even with an i25 you could run 20. But I will find that out later and report back.

So I guess I should be kicking myself for not trying this earlier and spending my energy trying to get something made that already existed. But instead I am just going to enjoy riding my bike as always and will be looking forward to adventures at low pressures in the coming years.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)




----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Bigwheel said:


> And it is funny because the ability to do this has actually been available to me since Kris Holme came out with his 50mm wide unicycle rims.


Wait. Are you saying you just in the past couple of weeks figured out that wide rims allow you to run lower pressures?

Cool bike, btw.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

No of course not. This past week is the first opportunity I have had to personally try the concept because I didn't have the setup for it until then and that only happened by chance. Still waiting on my b+ setup to materialize so I can get with the niche big time. 

Still runs pretty good for an 18 yr. old.


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

Well I finally got the Trailblazer setup using Derby rims at 35mm inside width.
it wasn't even close shoving it into the Niner Air9 !!
the chain stays have full contact with the tire.. :???:
carcass is pretty big. I measured it out to 68mm wide. While that is only 3mm wider then a Schwalbe Rock Razor on the same rim the extra profile height gives quite a bit more volume..

As a side note, it fits in a 27.5 Pike.. maybe 3mm-4mm clearance to the center of the arch
I'm going to run it on the front of my 27.5 Solo for awhile



update:

I figured what the heck.......
I stuck a Derby rim setup with the Trailblazer in the back of my Santa Cruz SOLO
while it is a tight fit............ it works :skep:
absolutely no mud clearence, maybe 3mm space across the chain stay yoke.
But, around here. In the sand and hard pack--- this just might work
sweet :thumbsup: I'm goin' riding


----------



## fewg8 (Oct 25, 2013)

new one mounted on blunt 35 measures 2.5.... Meh


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

am i right in thinking the width is only one part of this equation? we're talking volume right? i mean, if its only 2.5, but it cant be squeezed into a niner (which generally have reasonable clearance) then its got to offer quite a lot of volume. and in all honesty its the volume that sthe important factor with 27.5+ (and indeed all + tyres) right? 

ive seen comparison pics of a reasonable quality that show that this tyre is pretty mahoosive...its *not* a fat bike tyre per se, but its big. that shoudl equate to lower pressure, on a decently wide rim, and bingo!...purpose fulfilled....no?


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

Rightamundo..
compliance is the word that best describes what intrigues me about this tire and the whole B+ concept
it's more like a small Fatbike tire then a large Trailbike tire
it went from fitting in my Solo and not rubbing after one ride..
to jamming solid at the center of the yoke the next day
I've posted an update and some pics on the B+ thread in the 27.5 forum
650B+ tires

most trailbike tires don't change diameter very much with different rim widths.
the carcass is not designed to stretch very much to prevent growth at speed. with this tire I don't know that will be true
the compliance of this carcass may make a difference in diameter with a change in rim width



dRjOn said:


> am i right in thinking the width is only one part of this equation? we're talking volume right? i mean, if its only 2.5, but it cant be squeezed into a niner (which generally have reasonable clearance) then its got to offer quite a lot of volume. and in all honesty its the volume that sthe important factor with 27.5+ (and indeed all + tyres) right?
> 
> ive seen comparison pics of a reasonable quality that show that this tyre is pretty mahoosive...its *not* a fat bike tyre per se, but its big. that shoudl equate to lower pressure, on a decently wide rim, and bingo!...purpose fulfilled....no?


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

dRjOn said:


> am i right in thinking the width is only one part of this equation? ... its the volume that's the important factor with 27.5+ (and indeed all + tyres) right?


...but why do you think width and volume are separate measures? The casing of the tire is basically a portion of a circle who's area, the "volume", is the square of the radius. There is only one factor in the equation.

Further, why is "volume" important? What does "volume" do? It's shorthand for "width * height" where both width and height are important. Volume seems important to "flotation" but flotation itself is a poorly applied term.

The air inside the tire, the "volume", is often miscredited as adding value through additional pneumatic effect. It does not since there is already so much air that the spring rate is constant. You actually want less air to gain a progressive rate. That's what the "Pro" in "Procore" refers to, "progressive" not "professional".

Width is of value as it applies to what contacts the ground. Height is of value to avoid pinch flats. Rim width is of value in how it supports the sidewalls. Rim width does not impact sidewall height or contact patch much but it does change volume. The values people associate with volume are largely untrue. Volume alone does nothing for you except perhaps in extremely soft surfaces (which these are not targeted).



dRjOn said:


> i've seen comparison pics of a reasonable quality that show that this tyre is pretty mahoosive...its *not* a fat bike tyre per se, but its big.


In this thread there are already three different measures of tire width:

bikeny: 70mm on Derby 
flyinmike: 68mm on Derby
fewg8: 2.5 (64mm) on Blunt35

We know that the b2b measure is 165mm so we can predict these values fairly closely at (165+30)/3 and (165+35)/3 or 65mm and 67mm. flyinmike's and fewg8's measures are reasonable while bikeny's is not.

The tread width is fairly narrow and the rim can't change that. The tread is what contacts the ground.

Yeah, it's a big conventional tire. So is the Goma 2.4. In fact, I don't think you could tell the difference between them visually side by side. The Goma will be 1-2mm narrower but 1-2mm taller on the same rim. A Trail King is the same as the Goma in that regard but has a narrower tread. All three tires are essentially the same size. Schwalbe, for example, rates tires as 2.35 that have b2b dimensions that vary from 145-155mm. That's a greater range than exists between the TK, TB, and Goma (160-165).

I think those here gearing up to try these tires should pick of one or two Goma 2.4's, or TK's or both, and try them back to back to be objective. You will find this tire not to be a new size at all, simply a new branding claiming to be something it is not.


----------



## fewg8 (Oct 25, 2013)

Measured this morning. Stretched to 2.6


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

Yeah , my ww 2.5 have settled in considerably too. Love wtb tcs rim and rubbers


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

@craigsj
yep, i think youve probably made your point by now. moving on...


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

take it to your own thread


craigsj said:


> ...but why do you think width and volume are separate measures? The casing of the tire is basically a portion of a circle who's area, the "volume", is the square of the radius. There is only one factor in the equation.
> 
> Further, why is "volume" important? What does "volume" do? It's shorthand for "width * height" where both width and height are important. Volume seems important to "flotation" but flotation itself is a poorly applied term.
> 
> ...


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> ...but why do you think width and volume are separate measures? The casing of the tire is basically a portion of a circle who's area, the "volume", is the square of the radius. There is only one factor in the equation.
> 
> Further, why is "volume" important? What does "volume" do? It's shorthand for "width * height" where both width and height are important. Volume seems important to "flotation" but flotation itself is a poorly applied term.
> 
> ...


We all know your opinion by now, not need for further lectures. I am interested why you say my 70mm measurement is not reasonable, yet you take my 165mm measurement as the absolute truth.

We have also seen that these tires can stretch quite a bit with age and use. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up at 72mm or so when all is said and done. OMG, that's more than 2.8"!!!


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

fewg8 said:


> Measured this morning. Stretched to 2.6


mine is now 69.5mm or about 2.7"


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

flyinmike said:


> take it to your own thread


This is a thread specifically for the Trailblazer, right? Is this thread reserved for only Trailblazer cheerleading?


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

bikeny said:


> We all know your opinion by now, not need for further lectures. I am interested why you say my 70mm measurement is not reasonable, yet you take my 165mm measurement as the absolute truth.


Because 70mm width on your rim would imply 175mm b2b and because others have reported narrower widths on rims smaller than 50mm including some in this thread. I don't take your 165mm measurement as the "absolute truth" :lol:, others have also reported 165mm and it is consistent with measurements reported on other sites. Until I can measure myself, 165mm is the most reliable dimension I've found and in another thread a poster verified it when I requested.



bikeny said:


> We have also seen that these tires can stretch quite a bit with age and use. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up at 72mm or so when all is said and done. OMG, that's more than 2.8"!!!


By "these tires" are you referring to the Trailblazer? If so, who has seen it through "age and use"?

Variation in tire stretch isn't great. For me, tires that stretch more have thinner casings and I wouldn't expect that from this tire or others I'd consider comparable. No doubt you will. Point is, all tires *can* stretch, it doesn't make the Trailblazer suddenly 2.8 while others of comparable size remain 2.4/2.5. Another one of your red herrings.

Other than bragging rights, what's important about this measurement anyway? The tire's tread width is still conventional and its internal casing height isn't much different either. Without a taller casing it will still be vulnerable to rim strikes at low pressures.

Why not pick up a 650B Goma to try out if you're interested in this size? What do they cost? $40 or so? One would think objectively that you'd care enough not to blindly assume the Trailblazer is the only option.


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

craigsj said:


> Because 70mm width on your rim would imply 175mm b2b and because others have reported narrower widths on rims smaller than 50mm including some in this thread. I don't take your 165mm measurement as the "absolute truth"
> .


The only other measurement on a wide rim ( the WTB Scraper) that I've seen was 71mm at the casing so that's two data points. Certainly not statistically enough but good added data. I suspect some of the variability is measurement variance using different calipers, most of which in a typical home shop environment are not verified against known standards.

Not sure what your problem is though, seems like you hate WTB or is it 650B you despise? Or just this tire?


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

senor_mikey said:


> Not sure what your problem is though, seems like you hate WTB or is it 650B you despise? Or just this tire?


I hate that this tire is advertised as a new size, that it makes claims that aren't true, and that it is labeled a 2.8 but is not larger than tires labeled 2.4. I don't hate the tire, WTB, or 650B generally speaking. I take interest for the same reasons others do but wish the tire's casing was truly wider. Others have expressed the same, it's not just me.

My particular interest is to retrofit my rear only. My frame doesn't gain width in the chainstay but the shorter height allows me to exchange the shock and increase my travel ~15mm. I can do this already with 650B and the Goma/Mountain King but I wanted larger. This tire brings nothing new to the table despite claiming to invent the concept. I expected better and others did as well.

There is a review blog that has published casing widths for the tire on 3 different rims. All of their measurements are consistent with 165mm b2b, that's why I believe the number...that and others here having measured it directly. I personally don't care about the casing width measurement since it doesn't tell me anything about what to expect from the tire beyond having clearance problems. I'm interested in b2b.


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

*craigsj* is just trying to diffuse the discussion about "plus" or "mid fat" tires once again.
This is the third thread he has trolled to promote the same conspiracy theory. 
That they are unnecessary :skep: 
That WTB has misrepresented the Trailblazer as something new 
He makes the same point, becomes argumentative to diffuse the discussion away from the direction it was in, and then finally starts calling others liars or fanboys when they don't follow him down the rabbit hole. In this case it appears he doesn't even have a Trailblazer tire as he is using others measurements to make his point. A point that has literally nothing to do with the discussion. A 29'er tire and a 29+ tire are designed for different applications. A 29'er tire and a B+ tire are designed for completely different applications. That is a pretty basic and obvious observation. He is not angry. He is just trolling..... again


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

craigsj what bike do you want to use this tire on


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

craigsj said:


> I hate that this tire is advertised as a new size, that it makes claims that aren't true, and that it is labeled a 2.8 but is not larger than tires labeled 2.4. I don't hate the tire, WTB, or 650B generally speaking. I take interest for the same reasons others do but wish the tire's casing was truly wider. Others have expressed the same, it's not just me.


tire size labeling is a joke, let's leave it at that

if anyone wants to see some complaining, dig up the fatbike thread regarding the original vee "snowshoe" tire labeled as 4.7" that's actually no bigger every other tire labeled 3.8"

I'm happy to sit and wait for the real world numbers before buying a set of B+ tires for the wheels that have been sitting around for a few months


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

27.5 Fox 34
WTB Trailblazer B+ at 40psi to account for tire growth
Derby 27.5 rim 35mm internal width

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

flyinmike said:


> This is the third thread he has trolled to promote the same conspiracy theory.
> That they are unnecessary :skip:


Have never said this, I've said the opposite.



flyinmike said:


> That WTB has misrepresented the Trailblazer as something new :roll eyes:


This has been my entire point from the start.



> In this case it appears he doesn't even have a Trailblazer tire as he is using others measurements to make his point.


I have made this clear and no one disputes the 165mm b2b measurement so what's the point? I will have a sample within a week so it's moot. No one here dares compare the Goma and Trailblazer directly. I will. I've had to buy some stuff for this and delivery takes time.



flyinmike said:


> A point that has literally nothing to do with the discussion.


The size of the tire is the entire point.



flyinmike said:


> A 29'er tire and a 29+ tire are designed for different applications. A 29'er tire and a B+ tire are designed for completely different applications. That is a pretty basic and obvious observation


I would enjoy seeing you prove that. It's not clear to me that either + format targets applications different from general trail riding. The idea is lower pressures through greater size which has been the evolution of trail riding for some time. The WTB tire isn't a + format tire though, it's the same as existing 650B 2.4 tires. It's just relabeled.



flyinmike said:


> craigsj what bike do you want to use this tire on


Don't want to use this tire on ANY bike  ... but I'd hoped to use it on mine.

My bike is a Tallboy LTc although I don't see how that matters to this thread. The TBLT uses a 200/50 shock which can be replaced with a 200/57, but tire clearance threatens at around 53mm. A 10mm reduction in wheel diameter would be plenty of additional clearance but 650B provides 19mm. I wanted some of that back in a larger tire but will not get it here.


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

craigsj said:


> The WTB tire isn't a + format tire though, it's the same as existing 650B 2.4 tires. It's just relabeled.


No it's not just a relabeled 2.4 650B tire. 
As I have said in a previous post. It's too big to fit in my Santa Cruz Solo. much too large in diameter.
I can't think of any 650B bike that it would fit in


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

craigsj said:


> Don't want to use this tire on ANY bike ... but I'd hoped to use it on mine..


Bingo !
take it to your own thread


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

flyinmike said:


> No it's not just a relabeled 2.4 650B tire.
> As I have said in a previous post. It's too big to fit in my Santa Cruz Solo. much too large in diameter.
> I can't think of any 650B bike that it would fit in


Can you not think of any 650B that a 650B Goma would fit in? Apparently you haven't measured that tire.


> Bingo !
> take it to your own thread


This is a thread for exactly what I'm talking about. It is not "your own" thread.


----------



## mxer (May 27, 2006)

I appreciate the input from the guys using these tires.I will wait and see what happens with the 3.2 vee tire.

craigsj you have made your point many times.Go buy the soma and go riding already!


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Hey CSJ, why don't you figure out what it is exactly that you want, get it drawn up, find a manufacturer and get some made? Don't forget to let us know how that turns out.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2014)

Bigwheel said:


> Hey CSJ, why don't you figure out what it is exactly that you want, get it drawn up, find a manufacturer and get some made? Don't forget to let us know how that turns out.


Sure, just like you did. Thanks for the contribution.


----------



## fewg8 (Oct 25, 2013)

I like this tire. Not going to use it right now because my BB is already low. I run a 3.0 knard with a 445 a-c chromoto fork. If I go back to front suspension I'll use it front and back. It's the max the rear triangle and front fork will take in my opinion.


----------



## flyinmike (Dec 17, 2005)

what kind of frame are you using?


fewg8 said:


> I like this tire. Not going to use it right now because my BB is already low. I run a 3.0 knard with a 445 a-c chromoto fork. If I go back to front suspension I'll use it front and back. It's the max the rear triangle and front fork will take in my opinion.


----------



## fewg8 (Oct 25, 2013)

My old workhorse, a 2009 rockhopper 29 with sliding dropouts


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Sure, just like you did. Thanks for the contribution.


No worries. BTW your diatribe is nothing compared to the flak I got back in 99' after I started posting here about 29"ers. Even got some votes for worst poster of the year.


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

bikeny said:


> ...I mounted them in a Jones Ti Spaceframe, and they fit no problem...


This has piqued my interest. Is this an older Merlin Jones or a newer Asian-made one? I ask because I have the former, but hear the latter may have better rear tire clearance.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

craigsj said:


> Have never said this, I've said the opposite.
> 
> This has been my entire point from the start.
> 
> ...


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Sure, just like you did. Thanks for the contribution.


Ummmm....


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2014)

*side by side with Goma 2.4*

As promised here are pictures of the WTB and the Goma 29" 2.4 side by side.

The Goma is mounted on a 39mm internal width rim.

The WTB is mounted on a 30mm internal width rim. My 29er test rim is not available in 650B.

Both tires are inflated to 45 psi and allowed to rest until their width is stable. Neither has been ridden.

To compare the measurements, you should add 3mm to the WTB to compensate for the difference in rim width.

So...the WTB is 2.5mm or so wider than the Goma. It is the exact same height as the Goma and appears smaller due to the Goma's massively larger tread. The WTB is 20g heavier (!!!) (920g vs. 900g) despite the Goma being a 29er. The rolling diameter measures 37mm different because the tires are the essentially the same size. The WTB is 165mm b2b, the Goma is 160mm. That explains the small difference in width.

I do not have Trail King pics yet because I'm letting the tire sit under pressure. The TK is also 160mm b2b but measures very slightly smaller than the Goma. It has a less imposing tread but is the same rolling height.

The pics are proof that the WTB Trailblazer is not a new size at all, it is the same as existing tires in both 29 and 650B sizes. My measurements show the tire on a Derby rim would be 67mm, not 70mm as bikeny claims. Furthermore, the tread width is 58mm as others have reported, not 60mm as bikeny claims. bikeny has integrity issues.

The 2.8 claim by WTB is a fraud, pure and simple. The tire measures out at 2.5 on conventional rims. Curiously, WTB has recently introduced a new tire, the Breakout, in 650B 2.5" size. It appears they deliberately mislabeled their 2.5 casing just as I said before. It's a 2.5 tire mounted on a clown-shoe'd rim, nothing more, and it has a tread pattern that seems more inspired by a Marathon than any trail tire. The Breakout, to me, seems much more desirable if only they offered it in a 2.5 Light and in 29er sizes as well.

The last pic I provided shows measurements from a bunch of current tires. The Knard is obviously a "+" tire while the WTB is not distinguished from the 2.4 tires at all.

So much for WTB's B+ being nearly a 29er in size. :lol: You guys fell for it...


----------



## burnedthetoast (Oct 30, 2009)

Craigsj's numbers for the Goma/Trailblazer and Guitar Ted's numbers don't match up. He put 'em on the same rim as each other (Blunt 35's), and came to a different conclusion.

I'm not going to argue about anything, I don't own anything 27.5 (yet, anyway) but I've been following the thread out of curiosity and didn't see his comparo posted yet.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Integrity issues, funny stuff! I guess I have to take pictures of my tires on my rims and post them, but you still won't believe me.

I still don't understand your problem. If you mount the Trailblazer on the rim it was designed for, it will measure over 2.8 inches. End of discussion! It was designed to be that size on purpose to fit in existing 29er frames.

So you're measuring the tires on completely different rims and then assuming you know what they will measure on bigger rims, very scientific!

Sounds to me like the Goma is mislabeled, it should be a 2.7!

And for Drevil: my Jones is an Asian made frame.


----------



## Radioinactive (Aug 2, 2011)

post those bad puppies bro, i love your wheelset


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

I really like WTB tires and now I'm thinking of trying the trailblazer's this winter. Thanks for all the data/images guys!


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2014)

burnedthetoast said:


> Craigsj's numbers for the Goma/Trailblazer and Guitar Ted's numbers don't match up.


It's true, they don't. Mine were taken after 3 days at 45 psi with no riding and were installed using a tube. My result is right where my estimate (b2b + inner rim) / 3 suggests it should be. Here's all my data:


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2014)

bikeny said:


> Integrity issues, funny stuff! I guess I have to take pictures of my tires on my rims and post them, but you still won't believe me.


I believe you post to win arguments, not to provide good information. I would not believe anything you post at this point and neither should anybody else.



bikeny said:


> I still don't understand your problem. If you mount the Trailblazer on the rim it was designed for, it will measure over 2.8 inches. End of discussion!


Not end of discussion! There is a standard that manufacturers informally accept for specifying tire sizes. It includes a standard rim width and pressure. Furthermore, how do you know what this tire was "designed for"? All you know is marketing.

Of course, fat manufacturers ignore this standard...and that's WTB's excuse. BHowell has posted the specifics of this standard on MTBR before, it's not worth my time to search for it.



bikeny said:


> It was designed to be that size on purpose to fit in existing 29er frames.


And this is where you display your ignorance. If the tire/rim combo were truly designed as retrofits to 29er frames they would have used a smaller rim and larger tire. I've said this many times and you ignore it. I've shown in pictures that WTB accomplished absolutely nothing they claim in this regard.

A wide rim does nothing for tire height, all it does is aggravate the width clearance issues. What this tire was "designed for" is to take an existing 2.5 casing size, relabel it as a 2.8, claim it as a new format, and sell it along with the newest fashion in rims. There was no "designed for" here at all. The tread appears to me to be a cosmetic joke..but that's just opinion.



bikeny said:


> So you're measuring the tires on completely different rims and then assuming you know what they will measure on bigger rims, very scientific!


It is because I passed high school geometry. I knew you'd say this, of course. The chart and graph I posted shows my estimates correspond to actual measurements very closely. I know EXACTLY how much 9mm of rim width will add to the precision I report. I'm an engineer, I do this for a living.



bikeny said:


> Sounds to me like the Goma is mislabeled, it should be a 2.7!


The Goma is properly labeled, but at least now you're accepting that the WTB tire isn't anything new. It's the same size as existing tires which was my point from the beginning. You've been duped and, as a fanboy, you cling to the idea that you're invested in something special. My prediction is that people will forget about this tire soon enough. WTB is trying to cash in early on the + market without actually developing a tire.

Nothing wrong with having enthusiasm for + formats, but save it for real + format products not frauds like this.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Good job CSJ, maybe you should go after Continental next.









And did you hear the one about the constipated engineer? He worked it out with a pencil.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Bigwheel said:


> View attachment 928601


looks like that tire that says 29 on the side is 27.5" in this picture, now I'm confused


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> I believe you post to win arguments, not to provide good information. I would not believe anything you post at this point and neither should anybody else.
> 
> Not end of discussion! There is a standard that manufacturers informally accept for specifying tire sizes. It includes a standard rim width and pressure. Furthermore, how do you know what this tire was "designed for"? All you know is marketing.
> 
> ...


Wow, you really have issues! Some of what you say makes sense, but most of it is just assumptions. You claim to know EXACTLY what WTB is up to, why they made this tire, why they are marketing it as they are, etc. All wild assumptions.

I post here to give people information and my experiences. I posted a while ago my actual measurements of actual tires on my actual rims. For some unknown reason you do not believe my width measurements. But you did believe my B2B measurement, weird. You are the only one here trying to win arguments. Funny that everyone here is arguing against you, not with you.

BTW, at what pressure are you actually measuring the tires? Must be pretty low to get those small numbers.

You claim to know EXACTLY how much 9mm of rim width will add to a tires width, but you don't, because it's just an approximation using a made up formula.

Why would I want a smaller rim and bigger tire? You, you might get a little more height out of it, but it would ride like poo. Just ask anyone who rides a Knard on a skinny rim.

I'm no WTB fanboy by the way. The Trailblazer is the first WTB tire I've bought in a long time. I do love their saddles though! Also, I have not ridden the tires, and plan to take them off and sell them. I really want something bigger.

I like how you throw out the fact that you are an Engineer. Is that supposed to make everyone believe you?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2014)

Bigwheel said:


> Good job CSJ, maybe you should go after Continental next.
> 
> View attachment 928601
> 
> ...


You have a significant perspective distortion problem with this image, almost as though you intended to do that. Furthermore, the tape on the end outside the image is not lined up on the tire properly. How do I know this? Because if it were, the inner diameter at the nipples would be 24.5" or 622mm which is clearly not possible. This kind of intentional deception and dishonesty is what has come to typify this thread and the people who defend the Trailblazer. You're embarrassing yourself.

I don't know what that tire is but its sidewall height is not much greater than the rim depth. My guess is that it's a Town Ride 47mm which Conti rates as a 28" tire. The "29 inch" sidewall designation is for rim size, just as WTB calls the TB a 27.5 when their marketing dept says it's "almost 29" even though it's 27.9".

Why don't you simply measure that tire, identify what it is, and post pictures of the measurements? Oh yeah, that would actually be helpful.

But whatever you do, Bigwheel, don't ever engage in objective debate.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

craigsj said:


> blah blah blah ... I'm embarrassing myself. ... Blah blah blah


ftfy


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2014)

bikeny said:


> You claim to know EXACTLY what WTB is up to, why they made this tire, why they are marketing it as they are, etc. All wild assumptions.


Just as yours are, except that mine are made from observing what they've actually done, not from what their marketing says.



bikeny said:


> For some unknown reason you do not believe my width measurements.


Not for some unknown reason, I've explained the exact reason and provided evidence.



bikeny said:


> But you did believe my B2B measurement, ...


Already addressed that, not at all weird. Turns out to be the right number as well, but I knew that before I received my tire.



bikeny said:


> BTW, at what pressure are you actually measuring the tires? Must be pretty low to get those small numbers.


Already posted that. If 45 psi is "pretty low" then you are right.



bikeny said:


> You claim to know EXACTLY how much 9mm of rim width will add to a tires width, but you don't, because it's just an approximation using a made up formula.


Again, wrong. I said "to the precision I report" which is not very high. The estimate is just for the incremental width as well, not the entire result (which is mostly measured). My estimates consistently get to within 5-10%. Estimating the contribution of 9mm or rim width to within 5% is a piece of cake. Maybe not for you, but for me it's not a challenge.



bikeny said:


> Why would I want a smaller rim and bigger tire? You, you might get a little more height out of it, but it would ride like poo. Just ask anyone who rides a Knard on a skinny rim.


Because a 40mm rim with a 175mm tire is still a very wide rim by current MTB standards. It would not be a skinny rim, not that you'd understand 



bikeny said:


> I'm no WTB fanboy by the way.


You're a Trailblazer fanboy, clearly. Next week...who knows. You're poorly informed, argue like you're on a team, and are willing to be dishonest to win. That's a fanboy by any definition. You only care about facts that support your position.



bikeny said:


> I like how you throw out the fact that you are an Engineer. Is that supposed to make everyone believe you?


I am an engineer as I have been challenged in that regard by another a*hole privately from this thread. It is not to "make" anyone believe me, the information I present does that.

I'm not here to convince the ignorant like you that have already spent their money, it's to warn others who may be interested that this tire is not what it claims to be. I feel liars deserve to fail and WTB is lying about this product.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2014)

Welnic said:


> ftfy


Another new low for the losers in this thread. Nothing more disgusting than garbage like this.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> You have a significant perspective distortion problem with this image, almost as though you intended to do that. Furthermore, the tape on the end outside the image is not lined up on the tire properly. How do I know this? Because if it were, the inner diameter at the nipples would be 24.5" or 622mm which is clearly not possible. This kind of intentional deception and dishonesty is what has come to typify this thread and the people who defend the Trailblazer. You're embarrassing yourself.
> 
> I don't know what that tire is but its sidewall height is not much greater than the rim depth. My guess is that it's a Town Ride 47mm which Conti rates as a 28" tire. The "29 inch" sidewall designation is for rim size, just as WTB calls the TB a 27.5 when their marketing dept says it's "almost 29" even though it's 27.9".
> 
> ...


AND he has no sense of humor!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Just as yours are, except that mine are made from observing what they've actually done, not from what their marketing says.
> 
> Not for some unknown reason, I've explained the exact reason and provided evidence.
> 
> ...


You did not say you measured them at 45psi. You said you let them sit for 3 days at 45psi. Not the same statement.

You just said getting to within 5%-10% is exact. I'm glad you're not an Engineer at my company!

You didn't say 40mm rim, you said 'smaller rim'. That could mean anything.

I am no Trailblazer fanboy as you now claim, I don't even plan on using them. I am not poorly informed, I am going by my actual measurements, and I have been completely honest.

Just answer this last question: How wide do you think the Trailblazer will be when mounted to a 45mm internal rim?


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

so the real question here is, who bought a set of trailblazers and doesn't want them?

PM me with a price


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

And thus craigsj has summoned all his engineering powers to save the world from inaccurate tire labels. Now we can go back to our normal lives. Nobody needs to know who this craigsj really is. All that matters is that he's out there…watching and waiting. And when a new tire comes out, he'll be there with his spreadsheet. Sleep well Metropolis.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Slow Danger said:


> ...And when a new tire comes out, he'll be there with his spreadsheet...


I prefer measured numbers to verbal opinions, so I'm happy to see his spreadsheet.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

craigsj said:


> But whatever you do, Bigwheel, don't ever engage in objective debate.


I don't do that on the internet. I just make light of people who do. And you eat the bait every time hook line and sinker. Thanks for playing!

Here is how I am rolling 15psi, which to me is what the whole + and fat scene is about, the ability to run low pressure.









Please note the lack of any measurements and the blacked out names to protect the innocent. But I measure more by smile than guile and this setup makes me happy. YMMV and I am sure will send you back to your charts, slide rule and calculator but you obviously don't have anything else to do so have at it!

Oh and did I mention that I am using tubes? Can't imagine doing all the tire swaps I have done in the past week using sealant.

I have to get back to figuring out why people think that running a fatter tire on the front and a skinny tire in the rear even works, cause it sure didn't for me. Self steering sucks. Can millions of off road motorcyclists be wrong running a narrower tire in the front? I think not, or at least I am finding out to think not by trial and error seat of the pants riding. Once again YMMV and no doubt will.


----------



## mxer (May 27, 2006)

craigsj you are an engineer.That is great.Not sure why you feel the need to call everyone losers.It shows your true colors.Pretty simple.Don't purchase and run the wtb!You should spend more time riding and less time typing and warning everyone about the mislabeled tire.Unreal!


----------



## mxer (May 27, 2006)

Now back on topic kind of.Any info on the availability of the vee 3.25?


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

bikeny said:


> You did not say you measured them at 45psi. You said you let them sit for 3 days at 45psi. Not the same statement.


OK, you are suggesting I let the air out of one of the tires before measurement and not the other. No, I did not do that. All tires are inflated to 45 psi prior to measurement. Good job being a pedant. The tire is the same size as others because it is, not because I resorted to trickery.



bikeny said:


> You just said getting to within 5%-10% is exact. I'm glad you're not an Engineer at my company!


And I'm glad I'm not dependent on your reading comprehension at mine. I said I knew exactly the difference within the tolerances I reported, not that the tolerances I reported I was equating to exact. You're a fool.



bikeny said:


> You didn't say 40mm rim, you said 'smaller rim'. That could mean anything.


I have previously endorsed a 175mm/40mm combination as a superior choice. Only an idiot with an agenda would assume I meant something like a 20mm rim. I could have also endorsed a 185mm/30mm combination but that would be like a Knard on a P35. Some may not prefer that if their goal is lower pressures plus it would not be new and "revolutionary" and sell their newest rim. It would better match the 29er replacement hype though.



bikeny said:


> I am no Trailblazer fanboy as you now claim, I don't even plan on using them. I am not poorly informed, I am going by my actual measurements, and I have been completely honest.


I'm happy to let your posting history speak for itself.



bikeny said:


> Just answer this last question: How wide do you think the Trailblazer will be when mounted to a 45mm internal rim?


My formula says 71mm, my measurement says 70mm. I consider those to be the same since other factors (other than b2b) affect the outcome at least that much.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

Bigwheel said:


> I have to get back to figuring out why people think that running a fatter tire on the front and a skinny tire in the rear even works, cause it sure didn't for me.


It makes no sense to me either but I don't see how it's on topic in this thread. Thanks, though, for admitting you are a troll.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

mxer said:


> craigsj you are an engineer.That is great.Not sure why you feel the need to call everyone losers.It shows your true colors.Pretty simple.Don't purchase and run the wtb!You should spend more time riding and less time typing and warning everyone about the mislabeled tire.Unreal!


This topic is in a fat bike forum and is specifically for the Trailblazer tire. If people wouldn't spend so much time trying to discredit me then I wouldn't have to type so much. Why are you typing instead of riding? Unreal!


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

Here is the Trail King 2.4. Not really anything different. Less imposing tread than the Goma, very slightly narrower.


----------



## mxer (May 27, 2006)

Velobike said:


> I prefer measured numbers to verbal opinions, so I'm happy to see his spreadsheet.


Measured numbers are nice for sure but I think it is his approach that sux!I don't see the need for the name calling during a debate.

I will stick with my fatty 26'ers for now.I am hoping that some of the other future 650 plus tires deliver more of what some of us are looking for.I personally would like to try the vee tire on the back of the fatty should it measure out better.

I look forward to some of the guys on here posting there findings when they get them.Even craigsj.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Subscribed.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> OK, you are suggesting I let the air out of one of the tires before measurement and not the other. No, I did not do that. All tires are inflated to 45 psi prior to measurement. Good job being a pedant. The tire is the same size as others because it is, not because I resorted to trickery.
> 
> And I'm glad I'm not dependent on your reading comprehension at mine. I said I knew exactly the difference within the tolerances I reported, not that the tolerances I reported I was equating to exact. You're a fool.
> 
> ...


You have serious reading comprehension issues. All I asked was what pressure you measured the tires at, all of the tires. You said you let them sit for 3 days at 45 Psi, which is fine, but most measure the width at actual riding pressure, apparantly you do not, which is why I asked.

So you have the Trailblazer on a 45mm internal rim and it measures 70mm? What rim are you using? Tubeless or with a tube?


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

mxer said:


> Measured numbers are nice for sure but I think it is his approach that sux!I don't see the need for the name calling during a debate.


There's been no debate here. I'm the only one backing up my claims.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2014)

bikeny said:


> You have serious reading comprehension issues. All I asked was what pressure you measured the tires at, all of the tires. You said you let them sit for 3 days at 45 Psi, which is fine, but most measure the width at actual riding pressure, apparantly you do not, which is why I asked.


Look who's talking.

I measure at high pressure because it's the protocol that manufacturers use (at least according to BHowell). Clearly that benefits "stretchy" tires and I don't see the WTB as being very stretchy. The Ikon and Ardent seem to benefit, perhaps the RaRa too.



bikeny said:


> So you have the Trailblazer on a 45mm internal rim and it measures 70mm? What rim are you using? Tubeless or with a tube?


I extrapolated the measurement that I have made to a 45mm rim, I did not buy a 45mm rim to satisfy your one question. I believe the Trailblazer will measure 70mm on a 45mm internal rim, I know my sample would.

The tube question I've answered already. I am using tubes for my measurements. All of these tires were measured new and unridden but were allowed at least a day at pressure before measuring.


----------



## mxer (May 27, 2006)

Who plans on getting the vee tire and any idea when?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Look who's talking.
> 
> I measure at high pressure because it's the protocol that manufacturers use (at least according to BHowell). Clearly that benefits "stretchy" tires and I don't see the WTB as being very stretchy. The Ikon and Ardent seem to benefit, perhaps the RaRa too.
> 
> ...


I just measured my tires again at 45 psi and then at 20 psi, about where I would expect to ride them. I got 71mm at 45psi and 69mm at 20psi. This is on Derby 35mm internal rims tubeless. I think your calculations may not be that accurate. And yes, I will post the pictures.

Why did you post 2 widths, a calculated and a measured, if you don't have that size rim to measure on? Where does the measured number come from?


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

i'm curious if all this pontificating is over 1mm??


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

bikeny said:


> I just measured my tires again at 45 psi and then at 20 psi, about where I would expect to ride them. I got 71mm at 45psi and 69mm at 20psi. This is on Derby 35mm internal rims tubeless. I think your calculations may not be that accurate. And yes, I will post the pictures.


First, what happened to your 70mm measurement? At what pressure was that and why? Second, if you've done the measurements why aren't the pics already posted, and third, the difference isn't nearly 2mm.



bikeny said:


> Why did you post 2 widths, a calculated and a measured, if you don't have that size rim to measure on? Where does the measured number come from?


I've explained that already, you're just looking for gotchas. This has long since degenerated into nothing more than you wanting SOME point that you can win.

The first dimension was purely estimated, the second was extrapolated from measurement. I posted both to show the similarity and to demonstrate the accuracy to be expected.

I would have bought a Dually to measure with if I could have and I looked for a 45mm internal to use but am not aware of where I could buy one. I settled for the P35.

It's funny how particular you are now with subtleties of measurement, bikeny. Why is that?


----------



## anvil_den (Nov 6, 2007)

nvphatty said:


> i'm curious if all this pontificating is over 1mm??


and I always wonder at the accuracy of calipers used and how often instruments are calibrated....


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

anvil_den said:


> and I always wonder at the accuracy of calipers used and how often instruments are calibrated....


That's a good question. My calipers are from work, and are calibrated every 6 months.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

bikeny said:


> That's a good question. My calipers are from work, and are calibrated every 6 months.


You guys do know that width varies around the same tire, right?

A 1mm difference or a bit more is not unusual, especially on high volume models.

I measure at 4 points and average.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

U


craigsj said:


> First, what happened to your 70mm measurement? At what pressure was that and why? Second, if you've done the measurements why aren't the pics already posted, and third, the difference isn't nearly 2mm.
> 
> I've explained that already, you're just looking for gotchas. This has long since degenerated into nothing more than you wanting SOME point that you can win.
> 
> ...


My 70mm measurement was at 40psi when the tires were pretty new. They have obviously stretched some in the last 2 weeks. I didn't post the pictures yet because I didn't feel like getting them off my phone last night. And yes, they do stretch that much.i would actually expect them to grow a bit more after being ridden as well.

Basically, I've decided to ignore your hostility and name calling, and focus on the facts. You do not know how big this tire will be on a bigger rim. Your formula is not very accurate, and different tires behave differently on wider rims. The use of tubes or tubeless also can effect the numbers. It's been shown that running tubeless can make tires a bit wider, and this tire is meant to be run tubeless.

Enjoy your Sunday, I'm going ridding now!


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

nvphatty said:


> i'm curious if all this pontificating is over 1mm??


Not at all. The point is that the tire is not a new format. I've shown that and it upsets people. For what reason you can decide.

To me, the tire size debate was over when the b2b measurement was 165mm. This whole rims and pressures nonsense is just a diversion. The casing size is not in dispute, it's 165mm and it's all you need to know.

Current 29er tires have casings up to 160mm. The classic plus sized tire is 185mm. This tire is 165mm, it is a normal trail tire plumped up by an unusually wide rim. I included the Nano in my table; it's a 60+mm wide tire on a wide enough rim. Every tire works that way.

Bikeny, on the other hand, does seem to be trying to complain about 1mm as though I've somehow tried to mislead. Not only is 1mm of no real consequence, the entire measurement itself is of little value. It's done because it's easy and it makes people feel good.

Here's an updated spreadsheet. I've added a tire and redone a measurement. I still want to remeasure the HD. I added a second, more accurate estimate method that penalizes the smaller tires a bit.

The first estimate is W = (b2b + rim) / 3 where rim is the internal width.

The second is W = rim / sqrt(1 - [cos(rim * Pi^2 / (4 * (b2b - 10))]^2)

The reason I subtract 10mm from b2b is to allow for the bead/rim overlap. It's not clear there's any value to the more complicated equation so that's why I use the first one in the forums.

As you can see, with the second estimate method the 1mm discrepency with measurement is gone.

I need a better means of measuring b2b. I think the best way is to clamp the tire to a surface, stretch the casing out flat, and mark the edges. I'm not doing that but I think I'll start. I believe my variation is coming from poor measurements of b2b.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

so much butthurt over a tire. Somebody needs to get laid or something. Sheesh.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

bikeny said:


> And yes, they do stretch that much.i would actually expect them to grow a bit more after being ridden as well.


Funny, mine haven't stretched significantly in over a week at high pressure. I've certainly expected you to claim your tires are different than mine...and now you have.



bikeny said:


> Basically, I've decided to ignore your hostility and name calling, and focus on the facts.


I don't ignore yours but I eagerly await your "facts".



bikeny said:


> You do not know how big this tire will be on a bigger rim. Your formula is not very accurate, and different tires behave differently on wider rims.


I do know know this, my "formula" is accurate, and I've demonstrated that it is through an abundance of measurements that I've already posted. If you believe otherwise, prove it through your "facts" that you focus on.



bikeny said:


> The use of tubes or tubeless also can effect the numbers. It's been shown that running tubeless can make tires a bit wider, and this tire is meant to be run tubeless.


All my measurements have been made on new tires at the same pressure, with the same stretching duration, the same rim and same tube with the exception of the Trailblazer because it is 650B. It's an even playing field and it's not rocket science. You only think so because you don't understand it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

shiggy said:


> You guys do know that width varies around the same tire, right?
> 
> A 1mm difference or a bit more is not unusual, especially on high volume models.
> 
> I measure at 4 points and average.


Agreed. That's why developing an estimate more accurate than 1-2mm is a fools errand. The best predictions and even measurements will still have uncertainty.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2014)

craigsj said:


> Not at all. The point is that the tire is not a new format. I've shown that and it upsets people. For what reason you can decide.


I'm a reasonable person, and my belief is most here are also........ that said yes i've been reading this enTIRE debate/discussion with an open mind(not that you can see very much) but all the same i will confess there's some interesting findings you've presented worthy of the stance taken and i can truly appreciate that about a person. bikeny has also taken it upon himself to be diligent about measurements with respect to this enTIRE deal and frankly find it worthy also. Is there any room for folks agreeing to disagree within it??


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

I think craigsj has done us a service by reminding us that the critical dimension to look at when you are looking to buy a tyre for volume is its bead to bead measurement.

With the trend towards larger volume tyres, marketing creep is bound to come in (ie some marketing creep decides to tell us lies based on using wider rims than normal for that tyre). 

I've put a 2.35" (60mm) tyre on a 80mm rim just to see how it looked. Marketing could call it a 3" tyre based on that rim, but reality is that it was just an overstretched 2.35" (60mm) tyre.

After all it is simple mathematics. The rim width is a chord on a circle, the bead to bead measurement gives the circumference of the circle above the intersection with the chord, and calculating a width from there is high school stuff. (NB the method used by craigsj is more sophisticated and allows an adjustment for the rim bead.)


----------



## ultraspontane (May 26, 2011)

:nono:As Velobike said, the measurement that counts is the bead to bead measurement. That determines the size of a tire. You can't argue with a bead to bead measurement.

I think manufacturers should start printing that on the sidewalls instead of whatever arbitrary size they pull out of their rear ends.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Velobike said:


> I think craigsj has done us a service by reminding us that the critical dimension to look at when you are looking to buy a tyre for volume is its bead to bead measurement.
> 
> With the trend towards larger volume tyres, marketing creep is bound to come in (ie some marketing creep decides to tell us lies based on using wider rims than normal for that tyre).
> 
> ...


I prefer to just mount a tire and measure with a standard repeatable method.
















IME different tires react differently because of casing construction, tread design, rubber thickness, and the rim it is mounted on, among other factors.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

shiggy said:


> I prefer to just mount a tire and measure with a standard repeatable method.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ahhh ah I see what you did there...

This thread needs to have a dial-gauge breakdown of it's own! So much information is asked to be applied that this is actually is dis-information. Was Schwalbe's ProCore system somehow factored into here??

Here's the working theme of it all though - some riders may have never considered a 29" wheel in a bike an option. 
Now with a B+ tire - some may. And that is enough to keep any wheels spinning in the right direction.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Haint said:


> ahhh ah I see what you did there...
> 
> This thread needs to have a dial-gauge breakdown of it's own! So much information is asked to be applied that this is actually is dis-information. Was Schwalbe's ProCore system somehow factored into here??
> 
> ...


What did I do?

27.5+/29+ are just marketing terms. There have been 2.7-3.0" tires available for years, in 24", 26" (506/559). It has just recently been possible to produce them in larger rim diameters. They are still just different width 26"/650B/700C tires, in addition to the long available ~20-65mm widths.
Plus we now have more options in rim widths.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

shiggy said:


> I prefer to just mount a tire and measure with a standard repeatable method...


That's fair enough, and I'll happily trust any measurement you quote. Your site is a great resource.

However the problem with newly announced tyres is that we (the general public) often have to buy them without ever having seen them on a rim.

A measurement that cannot be fudged (like bead to bead) is a useful guide even though I'd always prefer actually measuring the tyre on the rim.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Velobike said:


> That's fair enough, and I'll happily trust any measurement you quote. Your site is a great resource.
> 
> However the problem with newly announced tyres is that we (the general public) often have to buy them without ever having seen them on a rim.
> 
> A measurement that cannot be fudged (like bead to bead) is a useful guide even though I'd always prefer actually measuring the tyre on the rim.


I can fudge a bead to bead measurement, especially on tires with standard bead shapes, which can be irregular.
Of course, there is a b-b design spec, which would be useful. Measuring the actual tire is likely to produce a different dimension, which would start the "it is not actually a" complaints all over again.
My most repeatable method for getting the bead to bead distance is with a piece of paper, a strip about 5mm wide that has been folded over 2-3 times. Narrow enough to conform to the inside of the casing. Put in inside the tire. Mark the edges of the bead on the paper. Remove, flatten, and measure.

Of course this only reflects the tire volume, and tells you nothing about the tread width, and if the tire will fit in your bike. There still is no accepted industry standard method for measuring and labeling the section size of knobby tires (the WTB GMS casing/tread is used but not universally. Even ISO is not). Is it casing? Tread? What rim? Only the rim width is mentioned in the ISO specs and it changes with the nominal tire width.
And there is absolutely ZERO industry spec for how to determine nominal width, which is the size designation the market (not marketers) demands.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

shiggy said:


> What did I do?


The Carl Sagan type in this thread insists it is this 1mm found with a dial gauge at such and such specific triple blind control environment makes all the difference, even when compared to a different sized tire. 

I just like that way you view tires, that's all.

Add to this rational approach any rider weight/height, and then leg length and torso length which can all exclude from running any so-called optimal PSI on another optimal internal width rim. 
Someone my exact height and weight was surprised I ran 4PSI less in one tire than what was his setup just the other day. ...which is actually nothing more than a small part of the entire setup of a bike and nothing to base tire make/model or size.

With these tires specifically, it would appear having them slip into a normal 29" frame on 27.5"/650B wheels would lure riders who would have never considered a 29" bike before.

Especially a full rigid one.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Haint said:


> The Carl Sagan type in this thread insists it is this 1mm found with a dial gauge at such and such specific triple blind control environment makes all the difference, even when compared to a different sized tire.
> 
> I just like that way you view tires, that's all.
> 
> ...


Fair enough!
I am planning on riding B+ wheels/tires from time to time on my 29er. The new frame may even have room for 29x3.0ish.
Not likely to do it on the fat bike simply because of the expense of new wheels and I have other bikes.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

shiggy said:


> Fair enough!
> I am planning on riding B+ wheels/tires from time to time on my 29er. The new frame may even have room for 29x3.0ish.
> Not likely to do it on the fat bike simply because of the expense of new wheels and I have other bikes.


These will be my only wheels for a fresh Surly Karate Monkey OPS frame. Will change to them this week, and later build up a set of rims based on how they ride on some base model wheels.

If I hadn't seen these, I most likely would have a different bike all around instead of the KM.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Hey Altrapoontang, thanks for the neg rep. Would it be ok if I did what you suggested with the bait with hers instead of my own?









Seriously I have never seen the purpose of felching although I have suggested it to several people myself over the years at certain points of frustration.

Ride on boys. There obviously is nothing more that I can add to this conversation.


----------



## anvil_den (Nov 6, 2007)

Some days I really hate being a Gemini. The pedantic self is forever fighting against the inaccuracy of all my non calibrated instruments 
Oh yea 1mm means a lot when trying to deliver a sliver of light pushing the limits of what can be done to my bikes.. Once done, proper nomenclature is much more preferable in deciding which ride suits the day though.

in case anyone is interested.. "Wadever" is a 2.75" DW mated to 48mm rims @ ~70mm lug-lug and 67mm (@19psi) and 68mm (@30 psi) at widest side wall-wall on a frame with clearance rated at 2.5"


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

anvil_den said:


> in case anyone is interested.. "Wadever" is a 2.75" DW mated to 48mm rims @ ~70mm lug-lug and 67mm (@19psi) and 68mm (@30 psi) at widest side wall-wall on a frame with clearance rated at 2.5"
> 
> View attachment 929143


OMG! don't tell YKW... a 26" Dirt Wizard rated at 2.75" is really only 67mm casing width. I pity poor Surly. And they call it a "plus". The travesty!


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

A 27.5 DW would be pretty smooth. Hopefully, Surly will make that one day. I'm still waiting on the 29 inch version. Anvilden, I appreciate your clever post, but would 1mm on a tire be a deal breaker on your unmentioned frame?


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Also, can you tire guys tell me how Guitar Ted has come up with a bead-to-bead measurement that is much wider than the number being reported by the two posters here who can't agree on anything other than a 165mm b2b?

WTB Trailblazer 27.5 X 2.8" Tires: Exclusive B+ Review: Final Verdict


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Interesting to see the bigger B2B distance in the above link. I wonder how much of that difference is measuring accuracy and how much is tire to tire variation. I may have to take my tires off and measure them again more carefully, and measure both. Below are the pictures that craigsj so wants to see, even though he still won't believe me.

WTB Trailblazer 27.5x2.8 on Derby 35mm inside rim at 45psi:








WTB Trailblazer 27.5x2.8 on Derby 35mm inside rim at 20psi:








My final comments on this are as follows. A formula can get you a ballpark size for a certain tire on a certain rim, which is a good start. But it's always better to have an actual width measurement, especially when one is trying to fit the biggest size tire they can find into an existing frame. A couple of millimeters can be the difference between a given combination fitting or not fitting. That's all I'm trying to show here. Hopefully it will be useful to someone, as I think the 40mm external rim size is a good match to this tire size. I really don't give a crap about how WTB is marketing this tire or that it's only marginally bigger than a couple of other tires, or that the outside diameter is not as big as a wide 29er tire.

I'm just happy there are more and more size options popping up. I can't wait to get my hands on the Vee Trax Fatty 27.5x3.25!

Edit: Forgot to add that I measured the tires at number of places and saw less than 0.5mm variation, so pretty consistent.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

5mm? What is that like less than a 1/4" 

If a 1/4" matters, you need a new frame!

I also want to see this =>Vee Trax Fatty 27.5x3.25


----------



## trekninja (Oct 22, 2007)

whats that thing weigh?


----------



## PDKL45 (Jun 1, 2008)

Haint said:


> These will be my only wheels for a fresh Surly Karate Monkey OPS frame. Will change to them this week, and later build up a set of rims based on how they ride on some base model wheels.
> 
> If I hadn't seen these, I most likely would have a different bike all around instead of the KM.


I am thinking of going down the same road (after a tortuous route to get there) myself. I would love to see some pics when they're mounted to see how it looks.


----------



## anvil_den (Nov 6, 2007)

Slow Danger said:


> A 27.5 DW would be pretty smooth. Hopefully, Surly will make that one day. I'm still waiting on the 29 inch version. Anvilden, I appreciate your clever post, but would 1mm on a tire be a deal breaker on your unmentioned frame?


 "A couple of millimeters can be the difference between a given combination fitting or not fitting" as Bikeny said was what I am alluding to earlier.

But am no stickler on pinpoint accuracy from a lack of assess to any calibration instrument.

Rather than 1 mm of knob protrusion, I'm far more interested in how much bigger the actual air volume is. The entire exercise of mine is really to try and return to a state of bobbing amniotic bliss... not a "my bike is more unique than you bike" statement. I love fiddling with different settings on trails and testing things out.. that much of an unhealthy habit I will admit here.

So yes 1mm width matters only if it comes to whether things will fit.

BTW its an El Guapo "Plus" ...


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

anvil_den said:


> ...Rather than 1 mm of knob protrusion, I'm far more interested in how much bigger the actual air volume is....


I think that's the difference between fatbikers and ordinary mtbers. We chase volume, or as you say _a state of bobbing amniotic bliss_ 

And for volume even a few mm makes a big difference because volume is a function of the square of the cross section radius. All I ask of the knobs is that they go far enough round the tyre to grip when it's laid over, and I learned long ago that manufacturers stated inflated widths have big variations.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Thanks, your blog post helps me understand where you're coming from. Generally, IME, one mm only matters perhaps in wet weather riding or in non-rigid situations. Maybe one mm maters when you're pushing, say, 5mm of clearance already. Doesn't matter how unique a bike is where 1mm is concerned once the tire fits. After that, everything else about a tire matters.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

anvil_den said:


> I'm far more interested in how much bigger the actual air volume is. The entire exercise of mine is really to try and return to a state of bobbing amniotic bliss...


Air volume doesn't help with this and I wish people would stop saying it does. Air volume is greater than desired in all MTB wheels. If air volume were correct we would not suffer rim strikes.

What matters to your goal is the height of the casing, not the width. You need large b2b. A rim needs to be wide enough to support that b2b at desired pressure. Casing height determines when rim strikes occur.

Cushy tires are tall in every discipline, they are only wide when tall and wide are coupled (as in bicycles). Making a tire wider does not make it cushier.



velobike said:


> I think that's the difference between fatbikers and ordinary mtbers. We chase volume, or as you say a state of bobbing amniotic bliss


I'm not sure that's "the difference", but fatbikers use tires with *taller* casings, not just higher volume. "fatbikers" aren't the only ones with that interest either.

Fat bikes developed for riding in very different conditions than "ordinary mtbers", but when applied to "ordinary mtbing" its seems clear that the massively wide rim is not the best choice even though it "chases volume".

1mm matters to a particular poster when trying to save face. It doesn't matter in how a tire will perform though it does affect clearance as others have mentioned.


----------



## fewg8 (Oct 25, 2013)

Craigsj

When things start to calm, you still pick
Time for me to unsubscribe


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Air volume doesn't help with this and I wish people would stop saying it does. Air volume is greater than desired in all MTB wheels. If air volume were correct we would not suffer rim strikes.
> 
> What matters to your goal is the height of the casing, not the width. You need large b2b. A rim needs to be wide enough to support that b2b at desired pressure. Casing height determines when rim strikes occur.
> 
> ...


You've posted this enough now that everyone on MTBR knows how you feel. When people say 'increased tire volume', they mean a taller and wider tire, not the actual amount of air in the tire.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about 1mm difference. The only mention of that number was that a tire can vary in width by 1mm when measured in a couple of spots.

The difference between actual and craigsj's formula is much more. The Trailblazer on a 35mm internal rim measures 71mm. His simple formula says it should measure 66.7mm, and his more complicated one, well, it's just totally wrong. Looks to be some misplaced parentheses or something. But according to him, it comes out 1mm smaller. So that's about a 5mm difference in width. That's a lot when trying to fit wider tires into your frame.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

bikeny said:


> ...The Trailblazer on a 35mm internal rim measures 71mm. His simple formula says it should measure 66.7mm...


Just a thought. Even laid out a tyre is not flat, it naturally curves.

Thus a bead to bead measurement taken internally (ie taken against the internal surface) will differ from one that follows the exterior of the tyre. The latter would be longer and therefore would calculate out wider if a simple chord/circumference model was used.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

bikeny said:


> When people say 'increased tire volume', they mean a taller and wider tire, not the actual amount of air in the tire.


Really? Read it again, bikeny. "...how much bigger the actual air volume is..." is what was said. Apparently it can't be said enough.

You've made your point plenty of times, too, bikeny, yet it doesn't stop you from posting.



bikeny said:


> The difference between actual and craigsj's formula is much more.


Prove it.



bikeny said:


> The Trailblazer on a 35mm internal rim measures 71mm.


It does not. I've provided pictures of that exact configuration.



bikeny said:


> His simple formula says it should measure 66.7mm, and his more complicated one, well, it's just totally wrong.


Prove it. You don't even understand the math.



bikeny said:


> Looks to be some misplaced parentheses or something. But according to him, it comes out 1mm smaller. So that's about a 5mm difference in width. That's a lot when trying to fit wider tires into your frame.


Wow, that's some fancy math you've got there, bikeny. 1mm difference in a width estimate is about 5mm difference in width?

Quit while you're ahead.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Will you two get a fricking room?!


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

Velobike said:


> Just a thought. Even laid out a tyre is not flat, it naturally curves.
> 
> Thus a bead to bead measurement taken internally (ie taken against the internal surface) will differ from one that follows the exterior of the tyre. The latter would be longer and therefore would calculate out wider if a simple chord/circumference model was used.


Yes.

I redid my b2b measurements using a flat ruler and a clamp. I haven't posted the data yet but plan to in another forum. The numbers vary a little but not a great deal. b2b takes effort to measure precisely and other factors make it unimportant anyway. Slight variations in bead diameter, for example, would change the effective b2b by affecting how it sat in the rim.

If you can get within 2% on a 150mm tire, that's 3mm and results in about 1mm of width difference. I think you can do that. A new tire may vary from a stretched one as well. I measure the Trailblazer immediately after being mounted at pressure for a week. It measured 168mm rather than 165.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Really? Read it again, bikeny. "...how much bigger the actual air volume is..." is what was said. Apparently it can't be said enough.
> 
> You've made your point plenty of times, too, bikeny, yet it doesn't stop you from posting.
> 
> ...


Here we go with the reading comprehension again. Unless something has changed, you do not have your tires mounted on 35mm INTERNAL rims, I do. And those are the pictures I posted. How else do you want me to prove this to you???

That 1mm difference in width is the difference that your 2 formulas supposedly come up with, according to your post #108. The difference between what your 2 formulas calculate and my actual measurement is about 5mm. Got it?

And since I'm so bad at math, please go through the second formula and what it would calculate for a 35mm internal rim.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2014)

bikeny said:


> Here we go with the reading comprehension again. Unless something has changed, you do not have your tires mounted on 35mm INTERNAL rims, I do. And those are the pictures I posted. How else do you want me to prove this to you???


You cannot. I said long ago that you post with an agenda and I would not trust anything you posted from that point on. You are dishonest.

About that "reading comprehension" thing, tell me again how everyone on MTBR already understands that it's not about the air volume itself?



bikeny said:


> That 1mm difference in width is the difference that your 2 formulas supposedly come up with, according to your post #108. The difference between what your 2 formulas calculate and my actual measurement is about 5mm. Got it?


I don't care about your "actual measurement". It is at odds with every other measurement I've seen including my own and it disagrees with reasonable predictions of the dimension using formulas you don't understand. It is also exposed by your claim that the tread is 60mm wide even though it is clearly not. All of this has been covered already. You have "integrity issues".

I get it, though, 5mm is the extent of your exaggeration. I was willing to call it 3mm.



bikeny said:


> And since I'm so bad at math, please go through the second formula and what it would calculate for a 35mm internal rim.


Why do you think that changes anything? You claim that formula is completely wrong anyway yet you've failed to show what's wrong about it.

I've explained my equations. You are free to point out the weaknesses if you are able rather than just throw your temper tantrums and petty insults. It's a high school geometry problem. You remember HS geometry where science denial got you an F rather than attaboys and pats on the back that you get here?


----------



## JYB (Nov 12, 2011)

Can anyone share side by side dimension comparisons of the Trailblazer on a 35-40mm rim versus, say, a 3.8 Knard on a 26" rim that is 47-50mm wide? It seems to me that the B+ wheels and tires might be fun on single track set up in a fat frame that won't accomodate 29+.


----------



## Saddle Up (Jan 30, 2008)

1st world problems.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

JYB said:


> Can anyone share side by side dimension comparisons of the Trailblazer on a 35-40mm rim versus, say, a 3.8 Knard on a 26" rim that is 47-50mm wide? It seems to me that the B+ wheels and tires might be fun on single track set up in a fat frame that won't accomodate 29+.


I think that what you are looking for is going to work well with the 27.5" x 3.25" tires that are theoretically coming. The Trailblazer will definitely fit in the same frame that the Knard will, but the diameter will be enough lower than a 26" x 3.8" tire that I think the drop in BB height would be a problem.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

JYB said:


> Can anyone share side by side dimension comparisons of the Trailblazer on a 35-40mm rim versus, say, a 3.8 Knard on a 26" rim that is 47-50mm wide? It seems to me that the B+ wheels and tires might be fun on single track set up in a fat frame that won't accomodate 29+.


Not exactly that set up, but wtb on blunt and Nate on marge lite is ~ 725mm for the trailblazer & Nate 732-5mm depending on pressure...I have a Nate on a jones 50mm rim and am about to fit that combo to my jones. Will report back. I am not expecting dropping the rear cf the front by 5mm to be any issue, and I flipped my ebb in preparation gaining the -10 or so mm of bb height back.

I rode the jones with the 765mm Knard 29+ and a 29 rear and it handled beautifully. This is about the same or more front back differential.

In short, I'm expecting it to be a pretty sweet set up. I'm not going to post any more numbers In case the tyre diameter/ maths police spot this.... ;-)~


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> You cannot. I said long ago that you post with an agenda and I would not trust anything you posted from that point on. You are dishonest.
> 
> About that "reading comprehension" thing, tell me again how everyone on MTBR already understands that it's not about the air volume itself?
> 
> ...


I just don't get it. You keep asking everyone else to prove what they are saying, yet you provide no proof of anything you say, just your made up formulas and questionable measurements of tires on different rims.

And you don't trust anything I say because my conclusions are different than yours.

BTW, your second equation comes up with a tire width of 3599.3mm, seems a little big to me. You might want to check that you wrote it correctly. Nope, I don't remember much from my HS geometry, but I do remember my college Engineering classes.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> To me, the tire size debate was over when the b2b measurement was 165mm. This whole rims and pressures nonsense is just a diversion. The casing size is not in dispute, it's 165mm and it's all you need to know.





craigsj said:


> b2b takes effort to measure precisely and other factors make it unimportant anyway.


Enough said


----------



## JYB (Nov 12, 2011)

[/PHP]


dRjOn said:


> Not exactly that set up, but wtb on blunt and Nate on marge lite is ~ 725mm for the trailblazer & Nate 732-5mm depending on pressure...I have a Nate on a jones 50mm rim and am about to fit that combo to my jones. Will report back. I am not expecting dropping the rear cf the front by 5mm to be any issue, and I flipped my ebb in preparation gaining the -10 or so mm of bb height back.
> 
> I rode the jones with the 765mm Knard 29+ and a 29 rear and it handled beautifully. This is about the same or more front back differential.
> 
> In short, I'm expecting it to be a pretty sweet set up. I'm not going to post any more numbers In case the tyre diameter/ maths police spot this.... ;-)~


:thumbsup:


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Poor method. See my previous post about it.


craigsj said:


> I redid my b2b measurements using a flat ruler and a clamp. I haven't posted the data yet but plan to in another forum. The numbers vary a little but not a great deal. b2b takes effort to measure precisely and other factors make it unimportant anyway. Slight variations in bead diameter, for example, would change the effective b2b by affecting how it sat in the rim.
> 
> If you can get within 2% on a 150mm tire, that's 3mm and results in about 1mm of width difference. I think you can do that. A new tire may vary from a stretched one as well. I measure the Trailblazer immediately after being mounted at pressure for a week. It measured 168mm rather than 165.


----------



## anvil_den (Nov 6, 2007)

craigsj said:


> Air volume doesn't help with this and I wish people would stop saying it does. Air volume is greater than desired in all MTB wheels. If air volume were correct we would not suffer rim strikes.
> 
> What matters to your goal is the height of the casing, not the width. You need large b2b. A rim needs to be wide enough to support that b2b at desired pressure. Casing height determines when rim strikes occur.
> 
> Cushy tires are tall in every discipline, they are only wide when tall and wide are coupled (as in bicycles). Making a tire wider does not make it cushier.


I agree with the merits of taller casing which is often a point in my writings. Other than that I think you have gotten yourself pretty confused.

...getting acute caliper-phobia. Back to good ol' Buttbounce-O-Meter and rely on my highly evolved coccyx to crunch the cush-data...


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

"Making a tire wider does not make it cushier."

A 47mm tire mounted on an i50 622 rim at 15 psi recently performed way more cushily and without penalty of pinch flatting than it did mounted on an i23 rim inflated to at least 40psi in order to not pinch flat? Granted it only runs well that way in the front, but it runs that way.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

anvil_den said:


> ...getting acute caliper-phobia. Back to good ol' Buttbounce-O-Meter and rely on my highly evolved coccyx to crunch the cush-data...


Definitely the ultimate test. 

But this topic is of interest because most of us will be trying to squeeze these tyres into 29er frames that were not designed for them, so we really do need to know exact dimensions.

A bit like the early days when those plush 2.1" tyres came out and those of us with 2" frames found they wouldn't fit, and then had the repeat experience with 2.35" tyres in frames designed for 2.1" etc etc...

Most of us don't get the chance to trial fit tyres in our frames, so rather than buy blind we have an almost obsessive interest in these arcane dimensions. Nothing burns like the own goal of buying expensive tyres based on specs and finding that they don't fit in a frame not designed for them. Done that once too often. 

Edit: and now my _Buttbounce-O-Meter_ has experienced the improvement the extra volume of a set of 2.8" Dirt Wizards have made to my ancient 1x1, I'm pretty keen to try the same process on my Ti 29er race frame. As they say, once you go fat you can't go back...


----------



## anvil_den (Nov 6, 2007)

Velobike said:


> Definitely the ultimate test.
> 
> A bit like the early days when those plush 2.1" tyres came out and those of us with 2" frames found they wouldn't fit, and then had the repeat experience with 2.35" tyres in frames designed for 2.1" etc etc...


Twas there every step of the way... remembered all too well, more than what my kid did growing up


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2014)

anvil_den said:


> Other than that I think you have gotten yourself pretty confused.


In what way?



Bigwheel said:


> A 47mm tire mounted on an i50 622 rim at 15 psi recently performed way more cushily and without penalty of pinch flatting than it did mounted on an i23 rim inflated to at least 40psi in order to not pinch flat? Granted it only runs well that way in the front, but it runs that way.


Right, we can all run 47mm tires at 15psi, who needs + sized tires anyway?

What is the load you are putting on that tire and on what surfaces and what rim exactly? Must be significant to cause pinch flats at 40psi on a normal rim.

Any adult sized load on that size tire at 15psi, even on good roads, would be vulnerable to rim strikes and would have horrible rolling resistance so I seriously doubt your claim of "without penalty". If you think that Continental you posted at 15 psi represents a good setup then you haven't ridden one. The things people will say...


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Yeah, you are of course the expert on saying....









47 Conti Travelmaster on a 50mm Kris Holm 622 rim, in the wild.

I hope you appreciate it as it took me hours to make this in photo shop.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Bigwheel said:


> ...47 Conti Travelmaster on a 50mm Kris Holm 622 rim, in the wild.
> 
> I hope you appreciate it as it took me hours to make this in photo shop.


It's a very amateurish fake.

Everyone knows fatbikers are accompanied by naked nymphs cavorting in the woods, so where are they?

Edit: just spotted it's not real fat, just a 29er.

Sorry, that explains it. Fine effort.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Ok then, that begs the question of what is fat? Is it just so that you can have the biggest tires to compensate for having a small tool set?

I admit that I personally haven't had the best experience riding 4" tire bikes. Heavy, self steering and hard to handle in a headwind are not my cup of chai. But the one thing that attracts me to the genre is the ability to run a lower pressure than the 30psi or so that I have run in my (belch) 29" wheels since 1999.

At that time I was running 45psi in my 26" tires and only getting pinch flats once in awhile if I was careful and would even carry a pump with me to let some air out at the trailhead and put some back in for the ride home. In the Rockies, well there are rocks fixed and loose putting traction and reliability at a premium. Then along came the 29" wheel and the ability, via more volume, to run 30psi. Major revelation and hey, it even rolled well on the road at that pressure so I didn't have to air up after leaving the trail.

Then a buddy back in the 90's started riding these really wide rims and tires that I thought was really goofy but he had fun riding them around in the snow.






Set some kind of long standing record getting from point M to point N on the I trail with this very rim and tire in fact. But snow is for skiis so we all thought he was nuts.

Somewhere along the way Fat became a thing, like years later, and now it is just that a thing and to those that like it there is nothing else. It has become part of the bike culture and rightly so because it is a bike (except for those pesky ones with little motors and batteries that are invading the scene). I mean did you see the floor at Interbike? Loaded with Fat, Fat and more Fat.

But my attraction to the ability to run lower pressure was not enough to tip me personally over the bulbous edge. I did get a Pugsly in trade for an old POS WTB Trek and put some miles on it trying to get with the program but ran in to the above complaints and sold it. Then the Krampus came out and I thought that might work better and the word was pressures in the teens were no problem. Sign me up! Well maybe not because I would have to buy a whole new frame and fork to accommodate it and quite frankly my bike quiver is full.

On a chance encounter, getting a single speed for my son, I ran into a set of Kris Holm rims shod with some 2.2 Vee tires. Because the ss is going to Oakland I swapped the wheels with some swag ones to get stolen and put them on my Townie. Long story short, lower pressure. 15psi in fact netting yet another 15psi drop and the resulting gain in traction I was expecting but hey, they also roll well. Bonus!

Still was not liking the self steering of even the 2.2 so I thought what the hay and mounted my thinnest fat tire on, aired up to 25psi and rode around letting air out until it started to squirm and checked it at 10psi. Pumped in 5 more and rode it like that on actual trails even.








Ok then, here is what I was looking for. Low pressure, low rolling resistance, no self steering and in fact enhanced steering over my old 30 psi days. And all accomplished on equipment that is older than 8spd drivetrains.








So right now I am proclaiming the rights to the FatLite moniker and expect there will be a forum here soon dedicated to it full of righteous folk defending their right to calculate endlessly and bully their way in to the minds of others.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2014)

Bigwheel said:


> Then along came the 29" wheel and the ability, via more volume, to run 30psi.


How did you make this leap? That's absurd on many levels.

Perhaps the reason your experiences are out of the ordinary is that your understanding is so limited.



Bigwheel said:


> T...and expect there will be a forum here soon dedicated to it full of righteous folk defending their right to calculate endlessly and bully their way in to the minds of others.


Or bullsh*t their way into it.

No doubt 47mm smoothies at 15 psi on 50mm rims will the next MTB craze. :lol:

Which tire has more "volume", a 47mm tire on your 50mm rim or a 2.3, say 58mm, tire on a 25mm rim? Both 29ers. It's the 58mm tire by around 25%. How does that explain your pressure requirement being cut in half?

I'll pose another question since your MTB experience is so vast:

Let's say you are constantly bottoming out your suspension, front or rear doesn't matter. Would the solution to that problem be to increase the shock's air volume then cut the pressure in half? Don't you find that hysterical? That's the solution you keep advancing when it comes to tires.


----------



## JYB (Nov 12, 2011)

I like bikes and I like tires of all sizes!


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

I guess I am ok with not understanding what is happening and going with what works, for me. To that end I am running a 2.1 knobby on the front now with the same results but better cornering traction and sidehill grip.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

bikeny said:


> Nope, I don't remember much from my HS geometry, but I do remember my college Engineering classes.


Yeah, I'm absolutely going to defer to the guy posting images with properly used Mitutoyo calipers basically every time.

Looks like for my uses (RockyMountain 29er frame) that the 2.8 on wTB i25 rims (cheap enough for a second wheelset) should absolutely work, unless my LBS has some more stuff to try then I'll go with that.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Here is a good one.








Not likely to pinchflat because the whole tire is narrower than the rim, but the sidewalls are extremely vulnerable.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

I like big fat tires, they feel good. More cushion for the pushin', pumpin' and jumpin'. Keep your calipers away from my G-Damn private outdoor pleasures.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

shiggy said:


> Here is a good one.
> 
> Not likely to pinchflat because the whole tire is narrower than the rim, but the sidewalls are extremely vulnerable.


I think you may get into trouble from the NSFPCT* 

How well does that roll on the road? Good I assume.

*National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Tyres.


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

Less Arguing and more pics/information/bike set ups using these new tires! Pretty Please!


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

MMcG said:


> Less Arguing and more pics/information/bike set ups using these new tires! Pretty Please!



















I believe these to be the Vee tires?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Yup, that's the Vee Trax Fatty.



Bigwheel said:


> View attachment 930064
> 
> 
> View attachment 930065
> ...


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

That tread reminds me of a 29er Weirwolf type tread


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

Bigwheel said:


> I believe these to be the Vee tires?


tis a robust looking tire and perhaps lives up to its sizing.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

nvphatty said:


> tis a robust looking tire and perhaps lives up to its sizing.


Agreed but it will for sure not fit in many, if any, existing 29" frames although it should be fine as a fat bike retrofit and use with stock 29"er forks.

I personally would want to only run that as a rear tire so I will have to wait for the new rearend to be built for my FS with the 157 hub and new more generous clearances.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

Bigwheel said:


> Agreed but it will for sure not fit in many, if any, existing 29" frames although it should be fine as a fat bike retrofit and use with stock 29"er forks.


what of the 650b+ version and fitment to 650b bikes? perhaps only a few could accommodate them.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Slim to none I am afraid. Even the "proven anemic on the Internet" TrailBlazer. It has been tried in a 650b front shock and it didn't fit so not much chance of it fitting the rear. The whole idea behind the b+ design was so that it would fit existing 29"/Fatbike frames or at least as many as possible.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

well, first ride: P35 blunt thingy on the rear, made a bead shelf edge with gorilla tape and the set up tubeless was pretty easy. it seems to complement the nate on the front very well&#8230;

in terms of ride, the tyre punches above its weight: the conditions today were sloppy and slippery and i felt confident on this tyre. it rolled well and held an edge well. it didn't feel heavy. i was running 14psi in the trailblazer and with that big ol' knobbly up front i was sliding down some pretty steep sludgey shoots. put a big smile on my face.

bigwheel: thanks for helping this to happen!&#8230;.i'm sure i owe you a thanks for helping make the nano' happen too? ~

more once i've ridden it more, probably on my blog


----------



## funnyjr (Oct 31, 2009)

Looks great ^^ what frame is that ? 650 or 29er can I get a few shots of the rear triangle to see the clearance of the trailblazer tire? Thanks


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

It's a Merlin made jones. There is around 7-8mm on each side at the chain stays. I do have a pic, but it's not uploaded yet... I'd imagine the current jones frames are at least as good, clearance wise


----------



## Penetrator (May 20, 2012)

Where can I order wtb trailblazer 2.8?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Penetrator said:


> Where can I order wtb trailblazer 2.8?


I got mine direct from WTB.


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

bikeny said:


> I got mine direct from WTB.


Me too


----------



## willapajames (Dec 18, 2005)

I came here looking for info about the Trailblazer tire, and all I got was this pissing match. Get a life.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2014)

willapajames said:


> I came here looking for info about the Trailblazer tire, and all I got was this pissing match. Get a life.


are you saying you were unable to locate any worthy info?


----------



## palmermtb (Jan 2, 2004)

OK, so I've gotta try this 27+ setup. Since owning my Fatboy I've been a big fan of big fat rubber tires.
So I've built a new set of 27.5 wheels for my Tallboy LT. Front wheel is a Lefty hub that will be fitted to my SuperMax Lefty and the rear is an XT 142x12. Both wheels are built with Velocity P35 rims.

I'm looking for a set of Trailblazer tires but they seem to be sold out everywhere. Anyone here looking to sell their's? If so please send me a PM. Thanks


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I want to know this too! I have a Merlin Jones but want to know if a Trailblazer will fit. I 'think' so based on the measurements I have from the factory which show 70mm casing width, 60mm tread width 10mm below max diameter (so tread is 60mm wide at 354mm rad (727mm dia +/-2mm)


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

i'm hoping the stays on your diamond drj0n are the same as my spaceframe from the same vintage. my ruler says its ok...just need to try and actually get a tyre now...anyone any idea on availability...


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

the_pilot said:


> I want to know this too! I have a Merlin Jones but want to know if a Trailblazer will fit. I 'think' so based on the measurements I have from the factory which show 70mm casing width, 60mm tread width 10mm below max diameter (so tread is 60mm wide at 354mm rad (727mm dia +/-2mm)


I believe bikeny fit his in a Merlin Jones frame - can't recall what rims he used though - maybe just P35s?


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I think bikeny was an Asian frame. Not 100% tho. For the record I'm only interested in the clearance! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

I have the tires from his testing experiment btw...........just sayin...........


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Maybe trailblazers should be listed on Bloomberg! No estimated date on the website.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## palmermtb (Jan 2, 2004)

I spoke with WTB and they said the next shipment of Trailblazers is in March and that shipment is sold out as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

My frame is an Asian Ti Spaceframe, and the trailblazers fit with plenty of room when mounted on 40mm Derby rims. I posted plenty of pictures and measurements in a couple of other threads. I don't remember which threads, but just look up my posts and you will find them. And yes, MMcG has my tires now, hopefully he puts them to good use!

I am waiting for the upcoming Panaracer Fat B Nimble 27.5x3.0 tire. Latest I heard was February release.


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

bikeny said:


> My frame is an Asian Ti Spaceframe, and the trailblazers fit with plenty of room when mounted on 40mm Derby rims. I posted plenty of pictures and measurements in a couple of other threads. I don't remember which threads, but just look up my posts and you will find them. And yes, MMcG has my tires now, hopefully he puts them to good use!
> 
> I am waiting for the upcoming Panaracer Fat B Nimble 27.5x3.0 tire. Latest I heard was February release.


Already doing some fit testing - well A NonyMoose is doing the testing for right now since he's got way more bikes than I do. So far testing isn't going so great though. Many frames with Yoke Style chainstays are not ideal. the Primary reason is that the wheel is slightly smaller than a true 29er wheel so the widest part of the sidewall is too close to where the yoke rejoins the chainstays - creating a situation where there isn't ample much/stick/debris clearance.

Frames that are designed without these types of "yokes" for lack of a better term would be better suited to conversion. Just an FYI - testing isn't happening on any Fat Bike frames but mainly 29ers that A Nony has in his stable as well as a 27.5 Kona Explosif frame (the wheel and tire fit there too but not comfortably enough to be put into use).


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Perhaps they are sold out to distributors etc rather than to individual orders..seems a shame. 
MMcG I can't think the Fat B Nimble will fit in the back of a Spaceframe! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

the_pilot said:


> Perhaps they are sold out to distributors etc rather than to individual orders..seems a shame.
> MMcG I can't think the Fat B Nimble will fit in the back of a Spaceframe!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


bikeny thinks they will - are the Merlin ones drastically different from the one that he has? If not, I suspect you are good to go.

Me - I'm trying to figure out the right frame to pair up with the tires (probably new wheels) and a Marzocchi Micro Ti 29er fork.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

I think a full 3" would be a squeeze, the_pilot, but I reckon you'll be golden with the wtb. Fwiw, I'd have to measure, but I reckon a full 3" would go in a jones, I just think it would not afford enough clearance and would rub, but you never know! So much variation between manufacturers etc...


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

And I have MMcG's 2.8...



MMcG said:


> I have the tires from his testing experiment btw...........just sayin...........


Man, these things are hotter than $2 pistols!


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2015)

06HokieMTB said:


> And I have MMcG's 2.8...
> 
> Man, these things are hotter than $2 pistols!


yutes pass them around like ah 2 bit whoe.


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

nvphatty said:


> yutes pass them around like ah 2 bit whoe.


I'm hangin on to the ones I got from bikeny - they are currently being tested on numerous frames.

I'm still trying to figure out the ideal frame to use them with - tempted by the On-One Parkwood but not sure on clearance (but it may be fine on it because the Parkwood uses a different chainstay design than on some of the frames where test fitting has been less than ideal due to chainstay sidewall clearance woes)


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

MMcG said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the ideal frame to use them with - tempted by the On-One Parkwood but not sure on clearance (but it may be fine on it because the Parkwood uses a different chainstay design than on some of the frames where test fitting has been less than ideal due to chainstay sidewall clearance woes)


I, too, considered the On-One Parkwood... but read about clearance issues of anything larger than a 29x2.2... which really is a miss for that frame (or any slack, short CS, AM HT for that matter).

FWIW, my Mason clears a 2.8 on a Blunt 35 with room to spare. Complete Mason's are pretty cheap right now (if you can stomach bargain basement components).









Another frame I tried was a Kona Satori, which is not known for ample tire clearance. It had tighter clearance than the Mason, but still doable.









A 2012 Tallboy Al still has offered the best clearance of the 3 frames I've tried.

Too bad this frame is too small for me. A longer fork, a works components headset and an offset shock bushing (to lower the BB and further slacken the HTA)... this could be a really fun B+ bike!


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

I'm eyeballing a Mason frame............PM me with more thoughts on yours now that you've had it a while.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

drj0n yes pretty sure now the wtb would fit. Poss the Fat b nimble. The announced late last year Veerubber trax fatty in 2.8 flavour also looks like it could be a goer. 
If they work I'll stick with the Jones I reckon.
If not (maybe even anyways) I'm quite tempted by the idea of a custom fwd geometry Ti frame designed around up to 3" b + rear and a 4-4.7 fat front truss/loop bar for bike packing /adventuring. My Spaceframe is fat front/2.4 on wide rim rear and it's my favourite combo. Not so sold on 29+ and didn't like full fat for regular riding, too draggy/slow (for me) downhill and on hardpack:Fireroad/Tarmac. This b+ could be just right. I want to do more of the riding you do. The big front triangle would be ideal for a good sized framebag even with good stand over. The truss gives extra capacity tho so may not be needed...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

06HokieMTB said:


> A 2012 Tallboy Al still has offered the best clearance of the 3 frames I've tried.
> 
> Too bad this frame is too small for me. A longer fork, a works components headset and an offset shock bushing (to lower the BB and further slacken the HTA)... this could be a really fun B+ bike!


Can this tire even honestly be considered a B+?

Smaller wheel diameter and 2.5-2.6" realistic size on a bike which already has a low BB height. Be warned.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Tall boy doesn't have a low BB for 100mm bike! Same as my 160mm bike😊 
The casing of the wtb is 2.8/71mm on a 45mm width rim 60mm wide knob to knob. The height is within 10mm of a 29 ardent 2.4 on 35mm. The tread width is same as ardent on that rim but bigger casing. Definitely bigger than 650b 'normal' AM 2.35/2.4 or similar tyre in casing terms even in a 49mm Derby rim. Hence b+?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

the_pilot said:


> The height is within 10mm of a 29 ardent 2.4 on 35mm.


No it isn't. Not even close.



the_pilot said:


> Definitely bigger than 650b 'normal' AM 2.35/2.4 or similar tyre...


Not bigger than WTB's own Breakout 2.5 650b. Only 2-3% bigger than several 2.4 tires from WTB and others. Certainly not as "AM" worthy as those with its hybrid pavement tread.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

craigsj said:


> No it isn't. Not even close.
> 
> Not bigger than WTB's own Breakout 2.5 650b. Only 2-3% bigger than several 2.4 tires from WTB and others. Certainly not as "AM" worthy as those with its hybrid pavement tread.


Just curious, how are you defining "bigger"?

Tread width?
Casing width?
Casing height/sidewall height?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2015)

06HokieMTB said:


> Just curious, how are you defining "bigger"?


However the_pilot defines it I can defend it. I didn't choose the word.

The tread width of the TB is 60mm, not bigger than many AM tires.

The casing width of the TB is larger than most but only marginally larger than the largest AM tires.

The casing height is proportional to casing width except that it doesn't vary with rim width. Both are proportional to casing bead-to-bead which is only 5% greater than the largest AM tires.

Tread depth on AM tires is at least as great as the TB which doesn't have an especially deep tread.

The TB is not a "+" sized tire, it is a "+" marketed tire.

Below is a picture of the TB next to one of those "AM" tires. Does it look bigger? Within 10mm...har har.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

Pics of the Ardent 2.4 and TrailBlazer side by side. Ardent is 30mm larger in diameter. That means the TB is 4mm taller in height.

TB b2b is 165mm. Ardent is 155mm. The difference results in a casing width and height difference of 3-4mm, consistent with my height measurement.

Ardent is mounted on a Derby 35mm rim. TB is on a Nextie 40mm.

The Ardent is by no means a burly tire yet it's hard to tell the size difference visually.

There are AM tires larger than the Ardent.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

My ardent 2.4 29 tubeless on a 35mm gordo rim is within 10mm overall diameter (I don't care about b2b) compared to the quoted diameter of the TB. The tread on said ardent is 61mm wide knob to knob, casing similar. 
TB casing is wider.
I said bigger than 2.3-2.4 'normal' AM tyres on a similar rim not comparing it to 29s.
So I have some big AM tyres on my AM bike. A Rock Razer and Rock R2 on Derby's. The overall casing of the wtb is a bigger according to paper specs and measurements quoted. 
I'm not comparing it to a big 29 that's dumb. It's a big volume 650b. If the breakout was as big I could use that on a 45mm rim and get exactly the same size/float? Or another 650b tyre? So no point trying to hunt one down just use a standard 650b AM tyre they're the same size...no. Most of your post does suggest it is bigger, marginally or otherwise, casing only or whatever, than a typical 650b tyre...
I think I need to sign out here and ride my bike! Was just trying to help with what 'bigger' might be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

here we go again, craigsj....

for anyone else tryign to judge if it will fit and keen to know actual real world dimensions....Width on my 35mm Velocity rim (tubeless) Trailblazer is 68mm and the diameter is 726mm.

see my post about it from a while back on my blog, here.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

craigsj said:


> Pics of the Ardent 2.4 and TrailBlazer side by side. Ardent is 30mm larger in diameter. That means the TB is 4mm taller in height.
> 
> Ardent is mounted on a Derby 35mm rim. TB is on a Nextie 40mm.
> The Ardent is by no means a burly tire yet it's hard to tell the size difference visually.
> There are AM tires larger than the Ardent.


Ironically, this is what sold me on the 2.4 Ardent - put it on a nice wide rim, and for what few days we get lousy weather or have snow on the ground, it'll do 95% of what a 2.8TB would... and it has. Even my tubby self was able to maintain solid flotation over 4" of fresh powder. From there, the other 320 days of the year I can enjoy the 2.4" tire for being a great all-a-round-er. I really wanted to make my RM Instinct into a part-time RM Sherpa, but I was able to get most of the results I wanted just by binning the OEM tires and installing the better rolling Ardent.

This just has me wondering if beefy molded shoulders (attached to the outermost tread) could make the casing shape a little less round, and accommodate slightly wider tread without the center hitting fork arches/chainstay bridges.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

the_pilot said:


> My ardent 2.4 29 tubeless on a 35mm gordo rim is within 10mm overall diameter (I don't care about b2b) compared to the quoted diameter of the TB.


The difference is 30mm, your "quoted diameter" is wrong. People have been pushing wrong numbers for this tire from the beginning. I just posted a picture showing the difference.



the_pilot said:


> So I have some big AM tyres on my AM bike. A Rock Razer and Rock R2 on Derby's. The overall casing of the wtb is a bigger according to paper specs and measurements quoted.


Schwalbe's AM casings are not as big as their competition or even their XC casings at the same rated size. How much bigger?



the_pilot said:


> If the breakout was as big I could use that on a 45mm rim and get exactly the same size/float? Or another 650b tyre? So no point trying to hunt one down just use a standard 650b AM tyre they're the same size..no.


Now you are getting my point. You could, in fact, use the Breakout or a few other AM tires and get the same size. Exactly. I've shown that repeatedly with pictures. Why you believe otherwise because WTB wants you to I have no idea.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

tehllama said:


> Ironically, this is what sold me on the 2.4 Ardent - put it on a nice wide rim, and for what few days we get lousy weather or have snow on the ground, it'll do 95% of what a 2.8TB would... and it has.


Yes, thank you. If the TB is the tire for you then you have lots of choices, not just one. Plenty of tires will mount on wide rims and do what the TB does. An Ardent 2.4 is a nice one.

I'd really like to see Maxxis make an Ardent and Ikon in one size increment up from the current 2.35/2.4. That's the size and type of tire that people should really want. The current casing is 155mm, bump that up to 170-175, please Maxxis?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

ugh. please ignore. thought better of it.


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

this guy's hatred for this one tire and WTB is beyond me. It is somewhat comical to be honest.

Holy geez - it's like craigsj is some sort of tire size vigilante!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> I'd really like to see Maxxis make an Ardent and Ikon in one size increment up from the current 2.35/2.4. That's the size and type of tire that people should really want. The current casing is 155mm, bump that up to 170-175, please Maxxis?


Unfortunately, that wouldn't fit in most 29er frames, and if it did, would raise the BB height. Depending on the frame, it might or might not be a problem.

The 29x3.0 Trax Fatty to very close to what you're asking for, it's smaller than a true 3.0 tire.


----------



## cycloxer13 (Oct 27, 2014)

Has anyone fit one of these WTB's into a Specialized Camber or even a Stumpy?


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

cycloxer13 said:


> Has anyone fit one of these WTB's into a Specialized Camber or even a Stumpy?


A friend of a friend is testing my Trailblazers mounted to P35s on a Stumpy 29er - will report findings shortly.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

I, for one, like my WTB 2.8

That being said, I am eager to see more 650b 3.0" tires come out. Especially with some more aggressive treads (for front use).


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

MMcG said:


> A friend of a friend is testing my Trailblazers mounted to P35s on a Stumpy 29er - will report findings shortly.


I'll chime in here... anyone on the Front Range wanting to try a WTB 2.8/Blunt 35 combo on their frame is welcome to use my rear wheel for a test fit.

It's fit in the 3 frames I've tried (as posted above)


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

bikeny said:


> Unfortunately, that wouldn't fit in most 29er frames, and if it did, would raise the BB height. Depending on the frame, it might or might not be a problem.


"Most"? No different than any other bigger tire. 10-15mm of b2b would raise the BB 3-5mm which is better than dropping it 10-15mm like the TrailBlazer does. How many complain of BB height when going from a 2.1 to a 2.3 tire? Same thing.



bikeny said:


> The 29x3.0 Trax Fatty to very close to what you're asking for, it's smaller than a true 3.0 tire.


I guess in the same way the Knard is not a true 3.0 tire. I believe there's a size between 155mm and 185mm that we are missing. They would also be a better fit for forks.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

MMcG said:


> this guy's hatred for this one tire and WTB is beyond me. It is somewhat comical to be honest.
> 
> Holy geez - it's like craigsj is some sort of tire size vigilante!


I hate deliberate misinformation posted about this tire. That includes information provided by WTB, the news outlets that parrot their marketing BS, and people here who perpetuate it. I don't feel one way or another about the rubber itself.

Apparently you just missed another grossly incorrect post regarding a comparison between the TB and the Ardent. You may enjoy have the forums polluted with a barrage of BS but I don't.


----------



## cycloxer13 (Oct 27, 2014)

Can anyone confirm the actual circumference of the WTB 2.8? (ie, wrap a tape around the tire at inflation pressure and let me know what it reads).


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

cycloxer13 said:


> Can anyone confirm the actual circumference of the WTB 2.8? (ie, wrap a tape around the tire at inflation pressure and let me know what it reads).


It all depends on what rim it is mounted to so that's a tough one to have "one" measurement.


----------



## cycloxer13 (Oct 27, 2014)

Okay, how about a measured diameter on an actual rim?


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

cycloxer13 said:


> Okay, how about a measured diameter on an actual rim?


In the 27.5 forum, there is a thread called "650b+" tires. There are a number of nice pics and measurements there if I remember right.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

craigsj said:


> "Most"? No different than any other bigger tire. 10-15mm of b2b would raise the BB 3-5mm which is better than dropping it 10-15mm like the TrailBlazer does. How many complain of BB height when going from a 2.1 to a 2.3 tire? Same thing.
> 
> I guess in the same way the Knard is not a true 3.0 tire. I believe there's a size between 155mm and 185mm that we are missing. They would also be a better fit for forks.


Sorry, I'm not quite understanding. Yes, a slight increase in BB height would have less impact than a bigger drop in BB height. The problem is, most frames would not fit such a tire. You are lucky if you can fit a true 2.35-2.4 tire in most 29er frames, a 2.6-2.7 tire is not going to fit. That's all I'm saying.

Also curious why you say the Knard is not a true 3.0 tire? On my 50mm rims it measures over 3" wide, much wider than a Trax Fatty on the same rim.

What is the B2B on a Knard and Trax Fatty anyway? I'll bet the Trax Fatty is a bunch smaller.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2015)

cycloxer13 said:


> Can anyone confirm the actual circumference of the WTB 2.8? (ie, wrap a tape around the tire at inflation pressure and let me know what it reads).


2254mm



MMcG said:


> It all depends on what rim it is mounted to so that's a tough one to have "one" measurement.


No it doesn't.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2015)

bikeny said:


> Sorry, I'm not quite understanding. Yes, a slight increase in BB height would have less impact than a bigger drop in BB height. The problem is, most frames would not fit such a tire. You are lucky if you can fit a true 2.35-2.4 tire in most 29er frames, a 2.6-2.7 tire is not going to fit. That's all I'm saying.


I don't agree, but I suspect neither of us knows enough about "most" frames to make such a statement. All my 29er frames would take one and none of my frames would take a wider 650b tire than 29. I understand that with 29ers height matters too. I haven't checked at max suspension travel so I may be disappointed.



bikeny said:


> Also curious why you say the Knard is not a true 3.0 tire? On my 50mm rims it measures over 3" wide, much wider than a Trax Fatty on the same rim.
> 
> What is the B2B on a Knard and Trax Fatty anyway? I'll bet the Trax Fatty is a bunch smaller.


My Knard and Trax Fatty both measured 184mm bead to bead, so if one isn't a true 3.0 then neither is. The Knard has greater knob width and is perhaps slightly stretchier but the casing size is the same. I have no problem calling them 3" tires, I just don't see them as different sizes. They have different clearance issues.

The size I believe is interesting is around 170mm b2b, half way between an Ardent 2.4 and a Knard. It's not different than the TB at 165 but I'd label it a 2.6-2.7 (and of course, I'd want 29er and 650B). It would fit only some frames but would fit most, if not all, current forks. As I've said before, I believe a 40mm rim is a better choice for this than 50mm. I've built a 40mm Nextie 29er wheelset with an extra 650B rear so I play with these combinations if they show up. My personal feeling is that the Breakout 2.5 will suit my needs better than the TB should a rear 650B work well.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

MMcG said:


> this guy's hatred for this one tire and WTB is beyond me. It is somewhat comical to be honest.
> 
> Holy geez - it's like craigsj is some sort of tire size vigilante!


Heh...

If they could make a rampy version of the BeeLine in ~2.9 type sizing, then I'd be a lot more likely to sign up for leghumping in that regard; that would be a seriously baller tire.
The only thing working against that are rim sets like the Derby and Ibis 941 that with a 35mm diameter make the wider casing 2.4 tires feel as balloon-ey as these would on a cheap wheelset, except that the former would also function as my dry weather setup too.

Which for me means I'd be waiting on a cheap (heavy) scraper profile setup to specifically run a setup like this on my hardtail - which would be awesome provided it fits.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

lets face it, all this geo stuff is entirely subjective - how you like a bike to ride, your size, the size and geo of the bike originally and where you ride, if you do the front, or both or only the rear etc etc. you cant say the wtb trailblaser will affect bikes in a certain way without trying them. they are a wee bit less diameter, true, than a 29er. BUT if you run a small diameter 29er tyre and your bike is a certain way the influence will be MUCH more dictated by the squoosh and low pressure effect. i have run 29er maxxis DHF 2.5 (one of the bigger 29er tyres out there) at 16 or so psi and its great (and everythign back to original nanoraptors and mythos from irc). i run the trailblazer at 11-12 psi. its an entirely different beast. MUCH more akin to 29+ than normal 29er, yet in the middle - which is exactly what it is supposed to be! craigsj is incredibly negative about this tyre - almost fanatical. yes, there are some 650b tyres that are close in size, but from what i can make out from his posting, still less in terms of volume. this is the critical thing!, the volume (as bikeNY points out) is the maximum that will fit in the majortiy of 29er frames. more and it will obnly fit some. the jones fits the biggest 29er tyres (just!) on the rear on wide rims. i know, i have done so. the trailblaser could afford to grow by about 2-4 mm in total width and height but at such a pont it would be too close for comfort to the stays. in other words, less than ideal.

as a result, i cant work out why the hate so much, i think it is a very good thing - and that is coming from riding tyres of all shapes and sizes for years from picking up one of kirk p's earliest 650b's to an endomorph to havign a 29er roshambo just as 29ers started and having to make do with like 2 tyres to seeign the smorgasbord we have now. yes the differences are small, but small can be beautiful.

with an open mind and less attention to absolutes in terms of numbers, this thing rocks. it has opened a new chapter. enjoy!


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

craigsj said:


> My personal feeling is that the Breakout 2.5 will suit my needs better than the TB should a rear 650B work well.


Do we have real world numbers on the Breakout 2.5?

I've got a WTB Scraper i45 rim headed my way, but only have one WTB TB 2.8 (and no B+ 3.0" tires are available yet).

I'm contemplating buying a Vee Rubber Trail Taker 2.4 or WTB Vigilante and running it on the front with the WTB Scraper. The Trail Taker seems like it's tread design would actually benefit from a super wide rim.

As far as I know, the WTB Vigilante 2.3 is the largest (tallest) 650b tire made today... Thus the curiosity about a WTB Breakout.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

I have been messing around on the Jones with a Surly Nate front/WTB Trailblazer rear for a little while now. Having got hold of a third Maxxis Chronicle (non-TR falvour, thanks Sideways Cycles!), the time was ripe to see what the mix of 29+ front and 27.5+ rear has to offer.



To be fair, this was the first ride, so conclusions should not be drawn just yet. It felt good though. The weight loss was noticeable. The Paul wHub to old-school Uma snow 29er rim (50 ish mm wide) is far from light, but the 27tpi steel bead Nate/Uma combo weighs a staggering 3.25kg! The Chronicle weighs 1050g and the 29+ front wheel dropped 550g from the front. Riding, you can feel that easily, particularly as the Chronicle rolls well.

The handling was pretty good, though the conditions meant I could not truly try and bend the bike out of shape on any tricky terrain. With the smaller-than-29er rear wheel and bigger front, the angles relaxed a bit. Not bad, but again, noticeable.



Overall, the bike was nimble and playful, even in the slop and snow - with which the 3" tyres dealt admirably.

I have a hunch that 29+ front/27.5+ rear might be a pretty special set up. Lots of advantages and few disadvantages. Time will tell. For it to work at the very best it can, I believe a true 3"+ rear tyre is necessary - 75mm wide. The Trailblazer *is* superb, but it was clearly designed to fit into a 29er rear end - for my goals, I would be looking at 100 or so press fit BB shell, with a 150/157 rear.



Anyway, that is for the future. For now, I am going to try and keep my fingers away from 40-50mm carbon rims. Dropping more wheel weight (tubeless as well) would be ideal to really try this thing out. More miles and I will report back.


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Thanks drj0n. Useful. I'll try one out when they are available in March. I like my Nate but I have a Margelite, folding Kevlar Nate and tubeless so it's not stupid heavy. 
I might try a 29+ but I do love the fat front so it will have to be good. Downside is I'll have to build a wheel for it.
Strangely enough I penned a custom ti frame the other day after chatting to Brant at Pact. Long ETT (not quite forward geo but enough to cut the stem with a jones bar to 50-60mm rather than the 110mm I use with the 23" frame, slacker front, set up to use the truss fork and take a 650b+ up to 3.25 in the rear. I thought a min 157mm back end but hadn't given the bb much thought. I'd stay away from press fit though personally. So similar geo to my current Spaceframe really which I love but a touch slacker with more rear clearance and optimised for 650b+.
I love the Jones so I'll wait and see if I like the wtb or fat b nimble or Veerubber trax fatty 2.8 whichever I can get first, before making any decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

well, thats good. i built a new rear wheel - hookless 50mm external nextie rim and mounted up the trailblazer. at 30psi (i'll drop it to 10psi once the sealant has done its thing) the tyre is 73mm at the casing, 61.5mm at the tread. 

it certainly seems pretty ballooned on the 50mm rim. should be a smooth ride! nice!...


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

@dRj0n does it fit in the Jones on that rim..I've had one sat in a shopping cart for 2weeks! Along with a 50mm 29+ rim for the front...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

It does! Snug, but the clearance is reasonable all around, wouldn't want to ride in much clay. I'll take a pic later on...


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Btw: steel jones have a bit more clearance to the best of my knowledge... Maybe the newer ti ones do too...


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

I think a tad yes. Mine is early Spaceframe. A 2.4 Ardent in a 50mm rim goes in. Plenty of room with 2.4 on 35mm. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

clearance clarence....



















~


----------



## the_pilot (Jul 31, 2008)

Plenty there oddly it looks nearer to the seat tube than a 29 2.4 ardent in mine with the same tread width.. Wonder if there is a touch more room. Either way it's clearly a goer..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 2:01 (May 10, 2010)

Would be glad to take these off of those that aren't too enthusiastic about the tire.


----------



## digidelia (Oct 28, 2011)

finally back in stock on wtb.com. got a set coming tomorrow, can't wait to try these suckers out!


----------



## twowheelfunman (Aug 29, 2008)

I have a set of Trailblazer tires on the way and will get them on every 29er frame and fork that I can get them on. I have a lot of friends w/29ers


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

Prices are coming down. Just picked up a WTB 2.8 for $46 shipped


----------



## wjphillips (Oct 13, 2008)

Where?


----------



## rusheleven (Jan 19, 2012)

WTB Trail Blazer 27.5 x 2.8 Tires
Sunringle Inferno 27 Rims
Surly 1x1 Medium Teaberry

Tire measures at about 2.5 from farthest point to farthest point (casing edge to casing edge, not tread to tread)

I am loving these tires. Stepping up from the 2.4 Vee Fluid (measures 2.4) these are WAY more plush. Plus they roll alot faster too...

I'm running about 8-12 psi for trail useage and 20 for neighbor hood trail bombing.

1x1 FLICKR ALBUM


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

wjphillips said:


> Where?


Had Jenson price match @ $50.95 - 10% AJ cashback


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

06HokieMTB said:


> Had Jenson price match @ $50.95 - 10% AJ cashback


Anyone know if the trailblazer will fit in a 120mm 29er pike?


----------



## Deerhill (Dec 21, 2009)

Been riding a Trailblazer on my hardtail for a while now and just found this...wish I would've read this thread sooner!

BTW nice upgrades on the Guap there Den ; )


----------



## Hootbmx (Feb 20, 2012)

Shouldn't be any problem fitting in a 120mm PIKE. I have lots of clearance in my 140mm Pike running the trailblazer with scraper rim. Even the Fat B Nimble fits but not as much clearance on the sides.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

Back2MTB said:


> Anyone know if the trailblazer will fit in a 120mm 29er pike?


No problem, It's basically a 2.5-2.6" at best tire. I had them in my tallboy for a while (120mm Pike) and the bb was lowered by 3/4" which didn't work for me personally.


----------



## catau (Jun 28, 2015)

GSJ1973 said:


> No problem, It's basically a 2.5-2.6" at best tire. I had them in my tallboy for a while (120mm Pike) and the bb was lowered by 3/4" which didn't work for me personally.


I need some help guys...I have asked this question before...but no one seems to know allready.Does the vee trax fatty 27.5 x2.8 or 3 fit in a 29er rock shox silver air fork ? did anybody has any references or found ?What and where should i measure ?Thank you !


----------



## sml-2727 (Nov 16, 2013)

Well I just bought some scraper i45 rims and will be installing some trailblazers on them, im crossing my figures they will fit on my 2016 Stumpjumper 29er, if not I just wasted a bunch of money and will have a nice set of wheel and tires for sale. Will post pictures and more details once the wheels are built.


----------



## quelocotony (Dec 3, 2006)

Niner SIR Fatty. Running WTB Trailblazers on Roval Traverse Fatties.

Maiden ride tomorrow AM. Ride report to follow.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

WTB Trailblazer fits in my new 2016 650B frame and Pike fork! I'm running 35mm internal width rims (Nextie)

I think this tire makes a better "B" conversion than 29er conversion (if it fits in your 27.5 frame). Minimal BB raise.


----------



## PrisonCityStandout (Jul 12, 2009)

quelocotony said:


> Niner SIR Fatty. Running WTB Trailblazers on Roval Traverse Fatties.
> 
> Maiden ride tomorrow AM. Ride report to follow.
> 
> ...


I know I'm late.... But how was the SIR Fatty? I'm curious if the WTB would fit the Niner Carbon fork...


----------



## WonderBoy (Apr 18, 2004)

quelocotony said:


> Niner SIR Fatty. Running WTB Trailblazers on Roval Traverse Fatties.
> 
> Maiden ride tomorrow AM. Ride report to follow.
> 
> ...


Very curious to know how much clearence you have around the rear tyre. Any chance you could measure the clearence and maybe take a few pictures? Much appreciated!


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

How about upgrading a current Giant Trance 27.5 full suspension bike with WTB Breakout 2.5 front / Trailblazer 2.8 rear to gain some plus bike feel??(according to several statement's these tires seems to have same size except the Breakout having a more aggressive thread pattern?)

Hell after reading this thread I conclude that the WTB Trailblazer is a "mystery tire" itself which dimensions cannot be determined without reasonable doubt.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Here is my 2015 Ellsworth Absolute Truth 27.5 bike with WTB trail blazer up front and 2.4 Ardent out back on standard rims and a standard fox 27.5 fork. I think the WTB might even fit the back of the bike. I was having FS 27.5 plus lust but since the Ellsworth is less than 6 months old getting a new bike is not on the program. I like the 2.8 Trailblazer but they are lying about the width. Also I would think that a 29er converted to 27.5 rims would loose a lot of bottom bracket height. They raise the BB on the bike only about 5mm compared to the Ardent 2.4's.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2015)

richwolf said:


> I like the 2.8 Trailblazer but they are lying about the width. Also I would think that a 29er converted to 27.5 rims would loose a lot of bottom bracket height.


Not long ago a comment like that would get you beaten by anyone who posted here. The TrailBlazer was once the greatest, most fabulous "high volume" thing that ever graced the community, now it's just an over-hyped 2.5" Nano and no one cares. There are real B+ tires and the TB isn't one of them.


----------



## slowride454 (Jan 11, 2014)

craigsj said:


> Not long ago a comment like that would get you beaten by anyone who posted here. The TrailBlazer was once the greatest, most fabulous "high volume" thing that ever graced the community, now it's just an over-hyped 2.5" Nano and no one cares. There are real B+ tires and the TB isn't one of them.


that may be the case, but I for one still love mine. They fit my Yelli Screamy perfectly.


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

I love mine too, I think the TB strikes a good balance, seems to grip well and gets up to speed reasonably quickly too. There's nothing wrong with the Nano either.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

I think the Trailblazer is a great tire, it was the first plus tire out there although it's only 2.8 wide. People do mount it on narrow rims though and complain about the width


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Not long ago a comment like that would get you beaten by anyone who posted here. The TrailBlazer was once the greatest, most fabulous "high volume" thing that ever graced the community, now it's just an over-hyped 2.5" Nano and no one cares. There are real B+ tires and the TB isn't one of them.


Ha ha, isn't that the truth with just about anything! I was just looking for a bigger tire that would fit my existing set up and this fits the bill. But for the folks putting it on a 29er with a 27.5 rim they are going to lose quite a bit of bottom bracket height.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2015)

Steel Calf said:


> I think the Trailblazer is a great tire, it was the first plus tire out there although it's only 2.8 wide. People do mount it on narrow rims though and complain about the width


It isn't a plus tire, much less the first "plus" tire, and it isn't "2.8 wide". WTB admits such rating it a 67mm (2.6) tire with a 60mm tread on a wide rim. It's really just a 2.5" Nano. If you like it that's great, just don't call it what it isn't.









Note that both the "tire size designation" and GMS say 67mm, not 71mm which would be the case for a 2.8. Check out Schwalbe's 2.8 tires to see what a real 2.8+ tire would have as a rating.

WTB realized, when everyone else did, that there was a new market opportunity for B+ so they put some lipstick on an existing casing and claimed to have invented the format. 26+ and 29+ were already established so B+ was obvious.

Like the 29er Nano, the TB is the tire everyone used and talked up because it was the only tire on the market. Also iike the Nano, it will be largely forgotten now that there are other options.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2015)

Just J said:


> ...I think the TB strikes a good balance, seems to grip well and gets up to speed reasonably quickly too. There's nothing wrong with the Nano either.


Don't imply what isn't there. I compare the TB to the Nano because they are similar aside from their size. If what you always wanted was a 650B Nano but a lot more of it then the TB is your tire. If the TB is great, why doesn't WTB offer it in other formats? In more than one width?

The Nano has been around forever yet there aren't multiple threads in forums dedicated to talking about it. Why? Because other tire formats matured and riders moved on to more capable rubber.


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

I think somebody needs to step away from the keyboard...


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

craigsj said:


> It isn't a plus tire, much less the first "plus" tire, and it isn't "2.8 wide". It's really just a 2.5" Nano.


This is not about width but about taking sides. Even with its size in dispute I know that my feelings for that tire are real. The Trailblazer is a plus tire and whoever calls it a Nano is my enemy.


----------



## LinkyPinky87 (Aug 19, 2015)

its more on the plus side of things than it is on the "normal" side of things no like a 2.0/2.25 tyre??


Its a tyre thats wider than normal, but will still clear alot of 29er frames making it very versatile...... So i am lead to believe.


The sizing of tyres from my understanding were like car tyres, but without the profile in them, so from bead to bead it would be 2.8?


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Look how wide that tire is:







a whopping ~71mm!
Let's do the math: 2.8" x 2.54 = 71mm


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

LinkyPinky87 said:


> its more on the plus side of things than it is on the "normal" side of things no like a 2.0/2.25 tyre??


Sure, but so is a 2.4 and we don't call that "+". This tire has the same size casing as a Breakout 2.5 but WTB doesn't call that "+" either.



LinkyPinky87 said:


> Its a tyre thats wider than normal, but will still clear alot of 29er frames making it very versatile...... So i am lead to believe.


Yes, so you're led to believe. I don't know why you'd accept some random claim to be proof of "versatility" anyway.



LinkyPinky87 said:


> The sizing of tyres from my understanding were like car tyres, but without the profile in them, so from bead to bead it would be 2.8?


Bicycle tires are nothing like car tires.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

I can play that game, too. Here's the TB measuring at 2.53":







Here's a Trax Fatty 3 measured the same way at the same time:







Here's a TB being dwarfed by a 29er Goma 2.4, you know, the tire that's supposed to be a size "upgrade" to and comparable in diameter:














Here's the same thing with a Trail King 2.4. The Conti is clearly a larger tire:







Finally, here's one I pulled from a review blog (not even my work):







The bead-to-bead measurement is the only one that matters when discussing casing size. The TB is clearly undersized and no different than larger conventional MTB tires regardless of what caliper pic you've managed to produce. The TB is and always has been a fraud.



Steel Calf said:


> Look how wide that tire is:
> View attachment 1021673
> 
> a whopping ~71mm!
> Let's do the math: 2.8" x 2.54 = 71mm


P.S. Not related to + but related to the TB, here's a Renegade 2.3 mounted on an i45 rim. It looks similar when mounted, tolerates lower pressures than it otherwise would and has remarkable grip when doing so. It also rolls nice on hard surfaces like the TB. This is what the TB is, and oversized XC/touring tread mounted on a too-wide rim. It is nothing special at all.







You may also notice this pic disproves the nonsense about wide rims "squaring off" a tire. People will say and believe anything provided they don't have to think.


----------



## LinkyPinky87 (Aug 19, 2015)

someone needs to put the keyboard away


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

craigsj said:


> Here's the TB measuring at 2.53":
> View attachment 1021686
> 
> The TB is and always has been a fraud.


You probably got a defective tire or use too narrow rims to make it appear smaller. Get either wider rims or ask your dealer for a refund.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)




----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2015)

Steel Calf said:


> You probably got a defective tire or use too narrow rims to make it appear smaller. Get either wider rims or ask your dealer for a refund.


I would say the same to you, except saying such a thing is stupid. When the TB came out the accepted b2b measurement that everyone got was 165mm, same as mine. It's everyone else that's changed their story. These pics are over 6 months old, you're late to the game.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

craigsj said:


> Like the 29er Nano, the TB is the tire everyone used and talked up because it was the only tire on the market. Also iike the Nano, it will be largely forgotten now that there are other options.


I think there's some truth to this, except that like the Nano it'll be remember as the 'first adequate' tire that sets the trend. It still works brilliantly in 29er frames with some good rims, and choosing the Nano type tread pattern for an emerging standard that was likely to get dogged for rolling resistance was actually a savvy choice. Since dedicated 650+ bikes weren't already a thing, they chose to ensure they had a market for the tire (29ers that fit 2.4-2.5"x29" tires already), and it probed to be the push forward needed to make those truly usable.

Oh well - WTB made the first usable tire, and now everybody has figured out that taking a working XC tread and tire carcass and widening it to 2.8-3.0" with an extra line of tread blocks is a recipe for success, there's a whole class of tires that make 27+ hardtails amazing, and FS trail 29ers with tire clearance into grippy machines for intermediate riders. I want to see the TrailBossFatty and VigilanteFatty - a 2.9" Trail Boss/Vigilante pattern with mildly tall shoulder knobs - that would be a seriously cool set of tires. 
On the Vittoria side, a Saguago Gigante (since the actual cactus is _Carnegiea gigante_ ) as a tire offering, and a Goma or Mezcal compliment. The Bombolini is good, but a portly Saguaro would roll brilliantly and still handle superbly.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2015)

tehllama said:


> ...WTB made the first usable tire, and now everybody has figured out that taking a working XC tread and tire carcass and widening it to 2.8-3.0" with an extra line of tread blocks is a recipe for success...


Except that they didn't actually do this, what they did was put a Nano tread on an existing 2.5" casing. If they had used a larger casing they couldn't claim it would fit into existing 29er frames, so they didn't and then they lied about the tire being as large in diameter as the 29er it would replace. They made up a fictional tire that couldn't possibly exist and claimed they invented it.

I don't personally think the Nano tread pattern contributed to B+ success nor to 29er success. In the case of 29ers, it's my understanding that manufacturing limitations dictated what they could make. In the B+ case, it was a matter of rushing to market before everyone else. It may be true that internal WTB thinking drove both ideas and those ideas may have been valid, after all both B+ and 29 started with rigid and low speed riding. IMO the + format is uninteresting until FS designs mature and, then, we want tires other than Nanos.

The TB is what it is, the problem is the dishonesty that occurs around it by WTB, but the advertising people that support it, and the people who buy it and want to save face. People who are paying money for tires would like to be informed by correct, objective information and not be subject to continuous deception. The TB's place in history is as the worst "+" ever.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

craigsj said:


> ...they lied about the tire...
> ...They made up a fictional tire...
> ...claimed they invented it...
> ...the problem is the dishonesty that occurs around it by WTB...
> ...


You're some weird fellow with all that paranoid stuff you're pulling. Are you not worried that WTB, the dark evil tire empire, will finally catch you and squash you like a fly that bugged them all along?


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

Steel Calf said:


> You're some weird fellow with all that paranoid stuff you're pulling. Are you not worried that WTB, the dark evil tire empire, will finally catch you and squash you like a fly that bugged them all along?


Im sorry about what the bad men did to you Craig. I hope in time you'll get past it and be able to live a fulfilling and happy life. It's a tire. You cray cray.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

On a 45mm internal width, they're probably exactly there at sidewall widest point. It was still a brilliant choice because dedicated 27+ frames weren't a thing. As it happens, they make an i45 rim (Scraper), and that's what they market it with. It's not dishonest, just realize it was intended to be a complete package with those rims.

More relevant: Trail Boss 3.0 | WTB

It was necessary in order to develop the TrailBoss 3.0, which as it happens has gone live on the website since I posted last night. Looks like they took the same formula, and made an awesome tire out of it.

The Trailblazer is still a great bikepacking option for rigid/hardtail 29ers that wouldn't accommodate a wider tire; on more matured bikes where the suspension tune and chainstays/fork lowers are built around 3" wide tires, then the newer options (NobbyNic 3.0, TrailBoss 3.0, Bombolini 3.0, and the Maxxis Rekon+/Ikon+ pairing) are of course going to out-perform those as a mid-fat option. 
I don't see why it should be that upsetting that the usable contact patch of the first tire shoehorned into that isn't going to be much bigger than a 2.4x29" option - to be honest those tires you're comparing it against are pretty huge themselves, and weigh comparable amounts for the trouble. To be honest, without going at least 25mm internal width, I've had issues with rolling sidewalls on mere 2.35" 29er tires; until 40-50mm internal rims become truly common, it would have been dumb to make a true 2.8-3.0" tire, as that would have simply fit fewer frames and performed pretty badly too. If it is a 2.75" tire, which by all accounts that appears to be the central limit theorem target across all the user base, they still advertised it properly and honestly.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Victory!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> Look how wide that tire is:
> View attachment 1021673
> 
> a whopping ~71mm!
> Let's do the math: 2.8" x 2.54 = 71mm


Even those Harbor Freight calipers have a little button where it automatically changes the numbers from metric to standard. Pretty futuristic! FYI


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I did get the WTB BreakOut 2.5s on my Bronson last night on 25.5mm ID Enves and it clears the rear triangle. Side to side clearance is fine, forward clearance is pretty tight but shouldn't be an issue for my terrain.

The tire isn't broken in yet but a prelim measurement has it at 2.4 wide at the tread compared to 2.25 wide for the well worn Butcher that came off. Because of the shape of the outer knobbies I could have also gotten 2.5 wide on the BreakOut depending on what plane I measure on but I chose to take the narrowest measurement instead.

Visually, the tire looks huge. I am really hoping that this tire gives me some of the traction advantages that I feel on plus bikes. What the effect of the higher BB and other geometry changes will be, I just can't say. But I'd like to reduce pedal strikes personally and I don't feel the loss of carving would effect me at all as that's just not really our terrain.


----------



## trekninja (Oct 22, 2007)

that tire does look massive. is that bronson just a regular 27.5 bike?


----------



## trekninja (Oct 22, 2007)

holy fudge. 1100ish grams!?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

The Bronson is a regular 27.5" bike with a 142mm thru axle (non-boost).

I'd imagine about the largest you could fit on this bike safely would likely be the same tire, and maybe a 30mm ID rim and that's about it. There is a solid 4-5mm of room to grow on each side, but only maybe 3-4mm at the front of the tire.

It's a heavy tire, no doubt about it. But since I slash tires often, very often, and this tire gained it's weight primarily from a burlier casing, this is a good trade off for me.

I rode the bike around the neighborhood and on the Breakout 2.5s the bike definitely rolled better and smoother, definitely I could feel the weight of the tires (felt like a 29er really in acceleration) and what really shocked me is my previously sensitive brakes felt rather shoddy now. The brakes surprised me. I'll see how that works out on the trail and decide if that requires any further action on my part. The rear brake really could not lock up the tire on pavement for instance, that's a big difference from before.


----------



## TheirOnlyPortrait (Dec 30, 2014)

Hola!

I'm not sure about its measures... but I'm running WTB Trailblazers & WTB Scraper rims and I LOVE the combo so far!

In a few weeks I'll give them a 4000 miles (6000km) test along the Cordillera de los Andes (Ruta 40, Argentina) and I'll let you know my thoughts

Saludos,
Federico
Their Only Portrait


----------



## trekninja (Oct 22, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> The Bronson is a regular 27.5" bike with a 142mm thru axle (non-boost).
> 
> I'd imagine about the largest you could fit on this bike safely would likely be the same tire, and maybe a 30mm ID rim and that's about it. There is a solid 4-5mm of room to grow on each side, but only maybe 3-4mm at the front of the tire.
> 
> ...


what tires were you running before? i bet an extra pound on tires or even just larger diameter could def make the brakes feel weaker.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2015)

obs08 said:


> holy fudge. 1100ish grams!?


The upcoming Vittoria Morsa 2.5 in 650B form is 1300 grams.  It appears to be wire bead but still...

Like to see more tires in this size but not just for DH or 650B.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Those Breakout 2.5s are awesome tires. I felt the additional weight but the traction and calming of the trail chatter was just fantastic and it absolutely increased my speed both uphill and downhill. Noticeably.

The tires measure 2.45" wide and this leaves 6mm of clearance per side and a very tight 2mm at the front on my Gen 1 Bronson.

I'm thrilled. On my 25mm ID rims I feel like the tires are shaped ideally. I don't know why anyone would want a flattened tire. The Breakout is shaped like a perfect crescent moon shape with every knobby available while leaned over on my rims.

Ps. I've ran several tires and had removed Slaughter Butchers which I preferred over the others I tried previously. But other tires had minor differences like 5% (except for the unridable Bontragers) but the Breakouts are like 30% better. It's huge.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

I have had a bad case of tire lust hit me. I have purchased two Ardent 2.4's a Trailblazer 2.8, a Vittoria Geax Goma 2.4, a Breakout 2.5 and just ordered a 3.0 WTB Bridger! All for my standard 27.5 FS bike.
I think the Ardents might get sold or used as a back tire. I really like the WTB 2.8 although it really isn't a 2.8. The breakout has great traction and rolls very nice. Have not mounted the Gomex yet but I have a 26 inch version on our tandem and it has gobs of control and rolls well. I am hoping the Bridger 3.0 fits my fox 32 fork. With the other tires mounted I have lots of room so hopefully I can sneak it in there. 
I used to swear by the Ardents but now that I can get better control and cornering with other tires they may have to be sold.
Weight wise I think unless you are racing why would you want a tire that has gobs of control on the chunk yet give you a risk of sidewall tears and flats? Most people need to go on a belly diet before they start trimming weight off their tires. And to say a one pound heavier tire will affect your braking doesn't make sense to me. If the tire provides more grip before it skids then that seems more reasonable.


----------



## trekninja (Oct 22, 2007)

why doesnt it make sense? extra rotating mass is harder to stop, the science is pretty obvious there. i understand what you say that a better contact patch will grip and therefore brake better which is true. but think of it this way, brakes off a honda civic wont stop an f250 because its a heavier vehicle. so brakes that stopped lighter wheels will have a harder time stopping heavier wheels. adding a pound to an average wheelset is like increasing the wheelset weight by 20%. thats a big number


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

obs08 said:


> why doesnt it make sense? extra rotating mass is harder to stop, the science is pretty obvious there. i understand what you say that a better contact patch will grip and therefore brake better which is true. but think of it this way, brakes off a honda civic wont stop an f250 because its a heavier vehicle. so brakes that stopped lighter wheels will have a harder time stopping heavier wheels. adding a pound to an average wheelset is like increasing the wheelset weight by 20%. thats a big number


so a one pound plus 20 percent difference in tire weight will make a perceptible difference in braking performance? I don't buy that. considering that a rider of 170 pounds with a bike of 30 pounds and probably at least 10 pounds of gear is almost a factor of 200 times more than the added tire weight. 
comparing a 2500 pound car to a 5000 pound truck in your analysis of adding 1 pound to wheel weight on a bike??


----------



## trekninja (Oct 22, 2007)

richwolf said:


> so a one pound plus 20 percent difference in tire weight will make a perceptible difference in braking performance? I don't buy that. considering that a rider of 170 pounds with a bike of 30 pounds and probably at least 10 pounds of gear is almost a factor of 200 times more than the added tire weight.
> comparing a 2500 pound car to a 5000 pound truck in your analysis of adding 1 pound to wheel weight on a bike??


Lol alright, I'm not here for a pissing match man


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2015)

obs08 said:


> why doesnt it make sense? extra rotating mass is harder to stop, the science is pretty obvious there. i understand what you say that a better contact patch will grip and therefore brake better which is true. but think of it this way, brakes off a honda civic wont stop an f250 because its a heavier vehicle. so brakes that stopped lighter wheels will have a harder time stopping heavier wheels. adding a pound to an average wheelset is like increasing the wheelset weight by 20%. thats a big number


Brakes don't stop a wheel, they stop the entire bicycle, and tire weight differences may be significant when you only compare the wheel but they are trivial when it comes to what a brake has to do to stop a rider.

If the science is pretty obvious perhaps you should work out the math. Adding a pound may increase a wheel set by 20% (but what complete wheel set only weighs 5 pounds?) but it still only increases the load on the brakes by a fraction of 1%.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

The brakes are less effective due to the extra traction imo, but the extra tire weight absolutely has some effect.

Putting heavier wheels on a car for instance absolutely makes the brakes work less well.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

craigsj said:


> Brakes don't stop a wheel, they stop the entire bicycle, and tire weight differences may be significant when you only compare the wheel but they are trivial when it comes to what a brake has to do to stop a rider.
> 
> If the science is pretty obvious perhaps you should work out the math. Adding a pound may increase a wheel set by 20% (but what complete wheel set only weighs 5 pounds?) but it still only increases the load on the brakes by a fraction of 1%.


You are all Engineer my friend. Can't see the forest through the trees. I work with Engineers and it's a pattern I see daily and it cracks me up.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

We're getting sidetracked here boys and girls. WTB is the enemy


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2015)

Suns_PSD said:


> You are all Engineer my friend. Can't see the forest through the trees. I work with Engineers and it's a pattern I see daily and it cracks me up.


I know that's intended as an insult among the anti-intellectuals here at MTBR but understanding is a good thing. Please explain what forest I'm failing to see here.



Suns_PSD said:


> The brakes are less effective due to the extra traction imo, but the extra tire weight absolutely has some effect.


"In your opinion" brakes are less effective when a tire has extra traction. It must be great to NOT be an engineer.

Sure the extra tire weight "absolutely has some effect"...in an absolute sense, and since I'm an "engineer" I can tell you it's less than 1%, far less than the detrimental effect of all that extra traction. 



Suns_PSD said:


> Putting heavier wheels on a car for instance absolutely makes the brakes work less well.


Prove it. Refer to just one test that shows a heavier wheel set (with higher traction) that causes measurable degradation in braking performance. Not that cars and bicycles are remotely alike, but you're wrong here too.

The thing about engineers is that they're trained to recognize what's important and what's not, unlike ignorant posters in public forums.


----------



## trekninja (Oct 22, 2007)

craigsj said:


> I know that's intended as an insult among the anti-intellectuals here at MTBR but understanding is a good thing. Please explain what forest I'm failing to see here.
> 
> "In your opinion" brakes are less effective when a tire has extra traction. It must be great to NOT be an engineer.
> 
> ...


I know one thing for sure, you have no friends in real life cause you're an obnoxious sob who likes to name call. Idc why or how my brakes work as long as I got ponder it with riding buddies. You just ponder it alone. Try to be less of a douche


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I really was just busting Craig's balls in a friendly way. In fact I really appreciated Craig's spreadsheet showing b2b measurements as it led me down the path of buying these tires. 

The reality is that rotational weight has a tremendous effect. If you don't believe me just go slap some 22" wheels on your car. I've done exactly that and it felt like my car lost 50 horsepower and the brakes no longer worked worth a crap. All over a 30# weight gain total on a 4k# car. The effect is certainly less on a bicycle, just because the wheels are rotating at a much slower speed, but it is there.

Anyways, back on track, I rode the Breakouts again today, that's the best damn tire I've ever ridden by a mile. I cannot believe they're not way more popular.

I'd bet that the sweet spot for these plus size tires is going to end up eventually being a boost bike with 30 millimeter ID wheels and 2.5 or 2.6 tires. That is going to be a great spot to be for maximum speed and traction in loose rock.

I cleared sections I had never cleared today, and there were some rocky shoots that I was much faster through then I was just a couple of weeks ago.

As far as air pressure I'm running 20 and 24. I can probably drop it a bit more but I don't see the need.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

I have gleaned a lot more useful info from Craig vis a vis tires than anyone else here. I would rather trust those engineer "types" than someone who just shoots from the hip. 
I do think that larger than standard tires will become the norm for trail riding. 
I tried the fat bike thing and for most of my riding it was stupid. The plus sized bikes seem to make more sense to me


----------



## coacheye (Jan 26, 2011)

*Titus El Guapo 29er Gone 27.5 PLUS*

Here's a 29er Titus El Guapo 29er (Black) Geax Goma 2.4 (F) and Bontrager 2.3 (R) and a the same frame (Raw) with 27.5 Halo Vapours and WTB Trailblazers 2.8 tires. Completely different rides.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

Suns_PSD said:


> The reality is that rotational weight has a tremendous effect. If you don't believe me just go slap some 22" wheels on your car. I've done exactly that and it felt like my car lost 50 horsepower and the brakes no longer worked worth a crap. All over a 30# weight gain total on a 4k# car. The effect is certainly less on a bicycle, just because the wheels are rotating at a much slower speed, but it is there.


By changing the diameter of the wheel you are changing the leverage that both the engine and the brakes have yet you attribute the results solely to weight. Do you not see the problem there?

Unsprung weight matters though it is questionable on low speed vehicles as compared to 4000 pound cars and it certainly doesn't matter on an unsprung wheel. Car comparisons don't help.



Suns_PSD said:


> I'd bet that the sweet spot for these plus size tires is going to end up eventually being a boost bike with 30 millimeter ID wheels and 2.5 or 2.6 tires.


I believe this, too, but it's not where the industry is focusing for sales reasons. I think in the long run this should be the result.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

coacheye said:


> Here's a 29er Titus El Guapo 29er (Black) Geax Goma 2.4 (F) and Bontrager 2.3 (R) and a the same frame (Raw) with 27.5 Halo Vapours and WTB Trailblazers 2.8 tires. Completely different rides.


It's nice to see someone else provide a picture of the significant difference in these wheel sizes. Now go take a look again at Guitar Ted's picture .









Keep this in mind if you ever question whether Guitar Ted is anything other than a shill.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

craigsj said:


> Keep this in mind if you ever question whether Guitar Ted is anything other than a shill.


I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate above. What exactly is GT "shilling?"


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

Smithhammer said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate above. What exactly is GT "shilling?"


Is that a serious question? Do you know what a "shill" is?

In the article I linked to he was shilling for WTB, clearly. Generally speaking, GT presents puff pieces, often written largely by the manufacturers themselves, to collect ad revenue. GT makes money off of this and is given product for free. That's his game, integrity is not.

If you don't know how this works then don't comment. In another industry I was a forum admin and moderator where creating these "articles" was one of my jobs. I know exactly how it works.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

craigsj said:


> Is that a serious question? Do you know what a "shill" is?
> 
> In the article I linked to he was shilling for WTB, clearly. Generally speaking, GT presents puff pieces, often written largely by the manufacturers themselves, to collect ad revenue. GT makes money off of this and is given product for free. That's his game, integrity is not.
> 
> If you don't know how this works then don't comment. In another industry I was a forum admin and moderator where creating these "articles" was one of my jobs. I know exactly how it works.


Jeezus, dude. I was just asking you to clarify what you were asserting. No need for such a hyper-sensitive, condescending response.

Yes, I ****ing know what a "shill" is. And yes, after working in the magazine biz for many years, I'm thoroughly familiar with how the "thinly veiled promo blurb masquerading as a review" works.

Which gets back to the question - what exactly are you claiming that is he shilling? Just because he wrote a favorable review of a WTB tire? Seemed like a genuinely written piece to me, not just a barely rephrased manufacturer blurb, whether you happen to agree with it or not. And he was forthcoming at the bottom about how the tires were obtained. I still don't get what your comparison pics above are supposed to illustrate, nor how it supports your "shill" claim.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

Smithhammer said:


> Jeezus, dude. I was just asking you to clarify what you were asserting. No need for such a hyper-sensitive, condescending response.
> 
> Yes, I ****ing know what a "shill" is. And yes, after working in the magazine biz for many years, I'm thoroughly familiar with how the "thinly veiled promo blurb masquerading as a review" works.
> 
> Which gets back to the question - what exactly are you claiming that is he shilling? Just because he wrote a favorable review of a WTB tire? Seemed like a genuinely written piece to me, not just a barely rephrased manufacturer blurb, whether you happen to agree with it or not. And he was forthcoming at the bottom about how the tires were obtained. I still don't get what your comparison pics above are supposed to illustrate, nor how it supports your "shill" claim.


a shame craigsj speaks down to members here nearly every time a reply is given.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

I just read the review in dispute and liked it. If the Trailblazer is more of a 2.6 tire depending on rim width you're mounting it I'm OK with that. It will give people with 25mm rims the option to run a "mid plus tire" in their non boost bikes without clearance issues while the tire grows to "full plus" size on new boost bikes with >30mm rims. We're having a Marin Pine Mountain 2 on backorder which comes stock with these controversial tires. I'll report back my own assessment once it has been riden in the mud.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

Smithhammer said:


> Which gets back to the question - what exactly are you claiming that is he shilling? ... I still don't get what your comparison pics above are supposed to illustrate, nor how it supports your "shill" claim.


GT is a shill. He runs multiple websites with the same format and he participates in a collection of sites that leverage the same, small amount of content to generate ad revenue. It's not hard to observe this, so why don't you look into it for yourself rather than expect others to do it for you?

GT's site publishes "reviews" in 3 parts which is now commonplace. Read all the parts, and comments, and you will see that GT's comparison to the Goma was, in fact, a direct response to my comments and criticisms on that site and on this one. GT published the bogus comparison because I called him and WTB out for lying about the size of the tire. He concocted an image that suggested the wheels were nearly the same size and made that observation in his review. The diameter of the wheels are noticeably different and no one could possibly think otherwise when viewing them side by side.

Curiously, the actual size of the Trailblazer was not controversial here, it was measured and published by more than one member with good agreement. It was not until I criticized it and pointed out it was the same casing as the 2.5 Breakout that people changed their tune. From that point on I was greeted by a goon squad everywhere I posted on the tire.

Whether WTB participated directly I don't know, but I can say that I faced organized criticism everywhere, not just MTBR. On one site my posts were systematically deleted and I even had my addresses filtered so I couldn't see public conversations on the tire. Other threads were unaffected.

The suggestion that GT is a compensated spokesman for the industry isn't even a question, of course he is. I'm not saying he is or was paid directly by WTB, I wouldn't know. He gets free product and access to prerelease information plus content that it written by marketing departments that he can use in his "articles". He offers companies like WTB cheap publicity that they can count on as being positive. He delivered in this case, despite it being outright fraudulent. GT is the very definition of a shill, it's his explicit business plan.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

nvphatty said:


> a shame craigsj speaks down to members here nearly every time a reply is given.


Each and every time I post something on the TB I am challenged. It's not a "shame", nvphatty, it's just more of the same.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

craigsj said:


> Each and every time I post something on the TB I am challenged. It's not a "shame", nvphatty, it's just more of the same.


frankly it's not just the TB and that's my valid point. To be even clearer i don't recall ever challenging with respect to the TB. This is all terms / topics in general i refer to.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2016)

nvphatty said:


> frankly it's not just the TB and that's my valid point. To be even clearer i don't recall ever challenging with respect to the TB. This is all terms / topics in general i refer to.


As long as there's no clear definition of "speaks down to" or "nearly every time", claiming your point is valid is just posturing. There's no point other than to attack me personally. I'm used to it, this is a TB thread after all...

I don't know why you never challenging me on the TB makes anything clearer. Are you suggesting I am "talking down to you" now? You will find that if you are hostile toward me then I will be hostile back, the opposite is also true.

A problem with MTBR, and cycling generally, is that it's overly cliquish and tribal and that breeds intolerance for dissent. If there's anything that defines my comments it's dissent. I feel the real shame is people posting bad information, especially deliberately. The TB is a case of a large number of people posting intentionally bad information.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

craigsj said:


> The TB is a case of a large number of people posting intentionally bad information.


haha seriously? That almost sounds as if these trailblazer tires manipulate people once they have them on their bikes so they start lying and post deceiving information, like in some weird horror movie:

"...Since my friend put on this trailblazer tires his personality completely changed. I know they're not 2.8 wide but he insists they are. Before he was a relaxed dude but now he's wearing black clothing and torturing small animals while on the trail, sometimes he's just sitting around in the dark in front of his bike, starring at these tires scaring the hell out of me. I already thought of putting that all to an end by ripping the sidewalls of the tires apart with a knife but he threatened to kill me should I ever touch them"


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

WTB, the evil empire.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2016)

Steel Calf said:


> haha seriously? That almost sounds as if these trailblazer tires manipulate people once they have them on their bikes so they start lying and post deceiving information, like in some weird horror movie:


Yeah, sounds just like that. Couldn't be anything else.

If you want examples of pervasive dishonesty look no further than the TrailBlazer threads. There are plenty of examples of posters here making a simple measurement, posting it, then changing their result, editing their posts, and evolving their claims over time. Explain it however you want but it's simply tribalism run rampant. People in the Plus forum can't stand the thought of any "plus" tire receiving criticism. The ends justify the means.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

craigsj said:


> Yeah, sounds just like that. Couldn't be anything else.
> 
> If you want examples of pervasive dishonesty look no further than the TrailBlazer threads. There are plenty of examples of posters here making a simple measurement, posting it, then changing their result, editing their posts, and evolving their claims over time. Explain it however you want but it's simply tribalism run rampant. People in the Plus forum can't stand the thought of any "plus" tire receiving criticism. The ends justify the means.


I read this thread and the review you heavily criticised before and cannot share your assessment. However, I'll receive a bike with these tires soon enough and make my own judgement then (+ post some pictures and measurements)

You're obviously perceiving the outside world in a different way than many other people here do thus causing dissent and rising tensions. I don't know if you're just looking for attention or whatever your motivation is but if you truly believe in what you say and this place is full of dishonesty and evil why don't you leave?


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2016)

craigsj said:


> As long as there's no clear definition of "speaks down to" or "nearly every time", claiming your point is valid is just posturing. There's no point other than to attack me personally. I'm used to it, this is a TB thread after all...


oh but there is a clear definition of 'speaks down to' and you define it not just in this thread but several of various topics, hence my factual point, you have been consistently rude, condescending, obtuse, crass no matter the said topic...get it now?? no attack just very simply drawing your attention to your behavior on MTBR when interacting with the membership as a whole. So yet again it has squat to do with the TB(your default excuse)



> I don't know why you never challenging me on the TB makes anything clearer. Are you suggesting I am "talking down to you" now? You will find that if you are hostile toward me then I will be hostile back, the opposite is also true.


 see above reply and read twice for understanding purposes.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2016)

Steel Calf said:


> I read this thread and the review you heavily criticised before and cannot share your assessment.


"Cannot" share? Do you know the meaning of "cannot"?



Steel Calf said:


> You're obviously perceiving the outside world in a different way than many other people here do thus causing dissent and rising tensions.


Through no fault of my own.



Steel Calf said:


> ...if you truly believe in what you say and this place is full of dishonesty and evil why don't you leave?


"Evil", when did I ever say "evil"? "Full of"? Where do you get that? Nice straw man setup to tell me to leave, Steel Calf. Yes, I do perceive things differently...and you just demonstrated why.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2016)

nvphatty said:


> oh but there is a clear definition of 'speaks down to' and you define it not just in this thread but several of various topics, hence my factual point, you have been consistently rude, condescending, obtuse, crass no matter the said topic...get it now?? no attack just very simply drawing your attention to your behavior on MTBR when interacting with the membership as a whole. So yet again it has squat to do with the TB(your default excuse)


Yes, "no attack", I get it now.  Thanks for the clear definition along with the victory dance. Quite an argument.



nvphatty said:


> see above reply and read twice for understanding purposes.


Thanks again, for if anything defines me its reading comprehension. It's a good thing you offer "no attack", nvphatty.

Curious that you enter this thread only to criticize me personally but yet I am the one who is crass and rude. Look in the mirror.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

craigsj said:


> ...I'm not saying he is or was paid directly by WTB, I wouldn't know. He gets free product and access to prerelease information plus content that it written by marketing departments that he can use in his "articles".


Shocking. I've never heard of such a thing. You should really write an exposé on this industry.



craigsj said:


> Whether WTB participated directly I don't know, but I can say that I faced organized criticism everywhere, not just MTBR. On one site my posts were systematically deleted and I even had my addresses filtered so I couldn't see public conversations on the tire. Other threads were unaffected.


Yeah, I'm sure there was an "organized campaign" launched against you simply because of your criticism of a tire, and that it had nothing to do with your general tone and demeanor as we've seen on display here.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

I just don't get it craigsj. There are so many examples of your rude and condescending tone, it leaves little wonder why people go to great lengths to attack you. In almost every case, the attacks were started by you, not by the other poster. I was one of the first people to get the TB tires and post pictures and measurements. Of course, you accused me of lying and manipulating my pictures and measurements, which is a complete lie. I also never changed anything about my posts as you claim above. 'Organized criticizism' against you, interesting perspective.


----------



## Plush Forward (Feb 7, 2006)

Glad that it's not a real 2.8  Fits perfectly in the rear of the Carbine 29. Around 7mm clearance on both sides of the chainstays.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2016)

Plush Forward said:


> Glad that it's not a real 2.8  Fits perfectly in the rear of the Carbine 29. Around 7mm clearance on both sides of the chainstays.


looks sharp.


----------



## Mackerel_Fillet (May 1, 2016)

delete wrong thread!


----------



## Bikebarian (Jun 12, 2011)

I just found this thread. I had been looking for a suggestion for a slightly narrower tire than the trailblazer I just bought cause it's a bit too wide for the chainstays on my Gen 1 Yelli Screamy. But, I've moved beyond that now. I just have to say: well done. This thread has kept me amused for a solid hour.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

These are on deep discount ($26) at Competitive Cyclist


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

craigsj said:


> Except that they didn't actually do this, what they did was put a Nano tread on an existing 2.5" casing. If they had used a larger casing they couldn't claim it would fit into existing 29er frames, so they didn't and then they lied about the tire being as large in diameter as the 29er it would replace. They made up a fictional tire that couldn't possibly exist and claimed they invented it.
> 
> I don't personally think the Nano tread pattern contributed to B+ success nor to 29er success. In the case of 29ers, it's my understanding that manufacturing limitations dictated what they could make. In the B+ case, it was a matter of rushing to market before everyone else. It may be true that internal WTB thinking drove both ideas and those ideas may have been valid, after all both B+ and 29 started with rigid and low speed riding. IMO the + format is uninteresting until FS designs mature and, then, we want tires other than Nanos.


I missed this when it was first posted.

But it's not too late to nominate it for 'best tin foil hat post' of the decade.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

Dang, now I want my 15 min back and ALSO feel guilty for tearing off a scab


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Darth Lefty said:


> These are on deep discount ($26) at Competitive Cyclist


My bike came with these tires & one of the first things I am changing out the rears for Onza Canis 27.5x2.85, which are a shade under $30 at chain reaction. I did a mix terrain ride & these were slow on grass, I felt unstable going down the hill on a paved road & I don't like how it climbs. For the front, it seems fine, but for the rear, it's a nope from me. Also, it doesn't measure out to 2.8, which something to 2.8 I', told would work better for my frame & rim combo, the WTB Scrapers i40. The 2020 model comes with the WTB Rangers & i35 rims.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I don't know why it needed so many posts... it was obvious just looking at the tire before you mounted it that they (WTB) designed and molded it so that it had taller sidewalls and narrower tread so it would be more diameter than width of tire tread (for the claimed size) when mounted and inflated (and that the size claimed was based on casing width) on the specific rim application they launched the tire with (the 45mm internal width Scraper model). Its basically a 2.35 tread width and 2.8 casing width for that rim fit. Compared to a 27.5 x 2.8 from another brand (like the Scwalbe Nobby Nic for example) the trailblazer is a larger diameter but isn't as wide in the tread and given that that is usually the tightest spot on a frame or fork installation for tire clearance... this is how they also went and claimed you could convert almost any existing 29er to a B-plus bike using these tires and rims. You could... but ONLY with that tire.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I moved to a proper 27.5+ tire on the rear & the difference is noticeable. I can see why WTB stopped making this tire as it's not good. I wonder how the current WTB 27.5+ models compare.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

And because its been discontinued, if you happen to have a converted 29er and enjoy it that way, you better stock up on spares while they're available, because no other tire maker has offered a plus tire for conversions with a similar casing design.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

double post delete plz


----------

